Libertarian Founder John Hospers: My response to Wayne Root’s ‘Why the 9/11 Mosque Controversy Is NOT About Religious Freedom’

John Hospers: THE Book

JOHN HOSPERS: MY RESPONSE TO WAYNE ALLYN ROOT’S EDITORIAL: “NO MOSQUE AT 911 GROUND ZERO SITE”

A few days ago I read an editorial from Libertarian Vice Presidential nominee Wayne Allyn Root regarding his objection to the proposed building of a mosque near 911 Ground Zero. Root says such a building has nothing to do with ‘religious freedom’ or ‘property rights’ – but everything to do with America bowing to sworn enemies (something the current President seems to have a penchant for doing).

As one of the founders of the Libertarian Party and its first Presidential candidate, the party that stands for State’s Rights, Individual Freedom and a limited central government, I strongly agree with Root’s assessment of this issue when he says that this building is an affront to our culture and basic beliefs as a free people. I agree there is nothing political about this, that it is a matter of common sense. Root’s position is absolutely on target, and I’m sure Ayn Rand would also agree.

If this structure is allowed to overshadow the 911 site –it further weakens us as a nation worthy of respect from others. In fact, it could provide the nails in the coffin of America, because it will inspire further attacks. I assume that is what Root means as using our ‘Common Sense’.

I suggest to all who treasure their independence and dwindling freedoms as guaranteed by the Constitution, UNITE, circle the wagons so to speak and do it quickly because we are being attacked on very nearly every front, foreign and domestic. To stop the ravages of war and the spilling of free and innocent blood, we, as free people, must first take our country back from the treachery of a purposefully planned diabolical national debt and an increasingly power- mad dictatorship metastasizing from Washington like a political cancer.

A passage from the ‘Socialism and Liberty” chapter in my book ‘LIBERTARIANISM”:

“Productive men have always tried to advance man’s conquest of nature. And always, other men have tried to widen the scope of political power in order to seize for themselves the fruits of that conquest. Political power is the power of man over man—that is why we should minimize it and reduce it to nothing if possible; economic power is the power of man over nature.

“History is a race between the two kinds of power. The power of capitalism and the free market lies in an ever-increasing standard of living resulting from the conquest of nature. The re-ascendance of power over man, the political power, is what reduces us again to the level of savages.”

What I am saying is some among us believe we are guilty, that we should try to equalize incomes all over the world – that others are starving because we are too stingy. And if we act on that advice, that political belief, we will finally starve ourselves in a vain attempt to keep others from starving.

So, too, the building of a mosque at the attack site where thousands of our own perished in an act of war – must not be allowed.

Otherwise, we will stifle the very spirit of freedom and starve our own beliefs. That conclusion, in my opinion, is just common sense. JH.

171 thoughts on “Libertarian Founder John Hospers: My response to Wayne Root’s ‘Why the 9/11 Mosque Controversy Is NOT About Religious Freedom’

  1. John Jay Myers

    “not be allowed”… how do you intend to accomplish that John?

    These vague articles that only inspire hate are worthless to this party. Actually, worse than worthless, they harm the party.

    In particular, this line “So, too, the building of a mosque at the attack site where thousands of our own perished in an act of war – must not be allowed.”

    Now in one sentence he has pretty much pinned the tail on the wrongness of this whole issue.

    1. There was already a mosque in the same area. The idea behind this mosque was for the Muslim community to try and reach out to others to say “We are not all trying to kill you” (okay so I paraphrase.)

    2. He is insinuating that all Muslims are responsible for 9/11, and are out to kill us and that we are at war with them. Saying that all members of the religion together must suffer because of the acts of those enraged by our foreign policy. It’s this type of talk that is creating the worst in people in America, and most probably used to fuel the violence and hatred against us and our soldiers.

    Talk about not seeing the forest through the trees.

    3. Lastly, Wayne is right if he said that this is not about politics. It truly isn’t. It is about common sense, and commone sense is not apparently abundant in either of these two articles.

  2. Scott Lieberman

    “John Jay Myers // Aug 2, 2010 at 4:12 pm

    In particular, this line “So, too, the building of a mosque at the attack site where thousands of our own perished in an act of war – must not be allowed.”

    Now in one sentence he has pretty much pinned the tail on the wrongness of this whole issue.

    1. There was already a mosque in the same area. The idea behind this mosque was for the Muslim community to try and reach out to others to say “We are not all trying to kill you” (okay so I paraphrase.)”

    *******************************

    Mr. Myers:

    Reality Check.

    Go to Yahoo Local, and search for mosques near the World Trade Center. You will see that the nearest one is 1.5 miles from the WTC.

    Just to make sure that Yahoo doesn’t have a blanket policy of not listing most houses of worship, I checked for other religions:

    a. there are 5 churches within 0.25 miles of the WTC

    b. and there are 2 synagogues within 0.25 miles
    of the WTC

    I was at Ground Zero a few months ago, so I sort of know the area. Go to Google Maps – the southern facade of the proposed mosque is only 600 feet from the northern border of Ground Zero. So, it is not exactly across the street, but most people would consider that to be pretty darn close.

    Just to make sure no one misunderstands my intent for making this post, I don’t think the NYC government should try to stop the building of the mosque.

    Scott Lieberman

  3. Vaughn

    The whole Pearl Harbor comparison was brought up earlier which was an actual ‘act of war’…not a terrorist action. And there are plenty of Shinto shrines throughout Hawaii.

    I don’t believe the government should be in the business of stopping any religious structure from being built. I don’t understand how these so-called libertarians can say they are for property rights and religious freedom and then say that they are for the OPPOSITE of those freedoms.

    This all reeks of Islamophobia and I am sick of hearing these mental-pretzel-arguments.

  4. John Jay Myers

    An overflowing mosque 1.5 miles away… roughly the “same area” in Texas terms. I guess 1.5 miles is huge to New Yorkers, in Dallas not so much.

    I was told around 4 blocks.

    So that was the part of my comment that you want to debate?
    You win.

    There were 5 churches and 2 synagogues and a mosque is out of the question?

  5. Anti-Religion

    It’s time to recognize that religion, as such, endangers human liberty and is an insult to human dignity: ban all religious buildings and all forms of worship in the United States!

  6. Carolyn Marbry

    We have two separate issues here. One is whether one things it’s bad judgment or bad taste to build a mosque (which isn’t actually a mosque but is a muslim community center) two blocks away from and not in line of sight of the site of the WTC attack. Different people will have differing viewpoints on that. Certainly my own opinion is that these folks are opening themselves up to attacks from rabid mouthbreathing hatemongers by putting their community center there, but it’s their choice to make. More to the point, it’s their land. So it’s their business. Regardless, it’s not a legal issue because they’re not doing anything illegal with the land.

    The second issue is what Myers sort of pointed out as a fallacy: “[These people’s legal actions on their own land] must not be allowed.” Must not be allowed by whom, the mouthbreathing hatemongers I just mentioned? Vigilante crowds? Oh, surely not. So whom? Obviously the implication here and the actual stated “whom” in Root’s message were “the government.”

    Since when do Libertarians invoke the government to harass people out of acting legally on their own land, ESPECIALLY in pursuit of their first amendment freedom of religion?

    Some people will protest that the police and firemen and EMTs are “offended.” Gosh, I’m sorry, but nobody has a legal right to go through life without being offended, not even the heroes/survivors of the attack, especially not if their desire not to be offended involves invoking the government to stop someone else practicing his faith legally and on his own private land.

  7. Robert Capozzi

    Say CH is actually a Wahhabi brainwashing center, funded by Saudis bent on global domination. Odds are high the Feds will be surveilling the hell out of the place, sending in moles, etc.

    Root and now Hospers need to rethink this one. Maybe re-view THE MO– USE THAT ROARED.

  8. Mike Theodore

    I think supporters of this kind of speak will one day bring about the beginning of a “Libertarians for Palin” or “Newt” group. Seriously, there’s no difference between this kind of language and the language of the Republican party. I’ve debated enough on this issue and will say no more.

  9. George Phillies

    @3, @5

    Apparently the Yahoo mapping service does not give correct answers.

    The nearest Islamic center of worship is on Warren Street, 2 short blocks and 2 halves of a long block away from the Cordoba location. “Four blocks” between the two locations is a gross exaggeration. The distance is a couple of thousand feet, and that assumes you have to follow streets because there are no interesting short cuts.

    Of more interest, what is the distance between the proposed Cordoba House and its critics? About eight centuries, going backwards.

  10. George Phillies

    @5

    Overflowing? A competent web search will give photographs of a mass of worshippers praying outside, because there is no room inside.

    @10 One of them already gave us the Libertarians for Bush. Another gave us a joint appearance with Sarah Palin, at an event organized by the fellow who has been expelled from segments of the Tea Party movement for racism.

    Note also Hospers’ invocation of the racist states’ rights doctrine rejected by real libertarians, that it’s all right to take a way a woman’s right to choose, an African-American’s right to vote, or a child’s right to attend the same neighborhood school as her friends of a different color of skin, so long as it is being done by the state government. States have no rights, our party’s libertarian bigot faction to the contrary.

  11. guy fawkes

    chelene nightingales best friend Diane Serafin, stage a protest in temecula ca, to stop a mosque being built there. Radical Nightingale throws fits when she can’t get her way..but harrasses others who of any different ideal or religion. What a fake and a hypocrite!! Say no to this horrible woman.

  12. John Jay Myers

    @George:
    “Of more interest, what is the distance between the proposed Cordoba House and its critics? About eight centuries, going backwards.”
    (hilarious)

    You realize I am on your side on this right?
    It seems like you may be misunderstanding my number 5 comment.

  13. George Phillies

    @15

    I just said your distance number was right, or that the distance was *even smaller* than you thought, and that Lieberman’s number was way wrong.

  14. Jill Pyeatt

    This is still about property rights and religious freedom. Since those two principles are very important to me, I believe the property owners should be able to build their building as planned. Anything else is racism.

  15. Scott Lieberman

    “George Phillies // Aug 2, 2010 at 6:39 pm

    The nearest Islamic center of worship is on Warren Street, 2 short blocks and 2 halves of a long block away from the Cordoba location. “Four blocks” between the two locations is a gross exaggeration. The distance is a couple of thousand feet, and that assumes you have to follow streets because there are no interesting short cuts.”

    *******************************************

    I was wrong. Dr. Phillies is correct. There is indeed a mosque on Warren Street in Manhattan. Four blocks is NOT “ a gross exaggeration”. That is the exact distance between that mosque and the nearest point of Ground Zero.

    However – that mosque is not listed in Yahoo Local. I wonder why…

    I mean, they do have this disclaimer on their web site’s home page:

    “Masjid Manhattan and its members condemn any type of terrorist acts. In particular, the attacks of 9/11 where non-Muslims as well as Muslims lost their lives. Islam always invites for peace; therefore Islam is not responsible for the actions of some ill individuals who, independently from what Islam advocates, have hatred against humanity. As Muslims and as Americans, we will never forget the beloved ones who perished that terrible day of September 11, 2001.”

    However, they also have this wonderful quote on their web site…

    http://www.masjidmanhattan.com/templateForArticles.aspx?article=Non_Muslim

    “Celebrating Non-Muslim Festivities

    Ibn Taymiyah quoted the evidence on celebrating the disbelievers’ festivities. The first evidence is that Allah (s.w.t.) forbade us to imitate the disbelievers or be their allies. The issue comes under loyalty, which is part of the faith itself. Believing and accepting their feasts would be confirming their faith. Rejecting it is required, as rejecting any other faith the infidels may adhere to, as Allah (s.w.t.) indicated: “O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians as allies”. [5: 51]. Attending their festivities implies being allies to them, and accepting the festivities as being Muslim festivities. In this way the festivities of Satan’s party and associates become festivities for Allah’s party and associates who contradicts the evidence, let alone the instinctive rejection of disagreement Allah built in everyone.”

    “Infidels”? “Satan’s party”? I wonder how that stuff wormed its way onto this otherwise “peaceful” mosque’s web site.

    If Dr Phillies, or anyone else, accuses me of being bigoted just because I am directly quoting from that mosque’s web site – that tells you everything you need to know about the accuser.

    Scott Lieberman

  16. Matt Cholko

    It is amazing to me that this is even an area of contention. Obviously, there is nothing legally or morally wrong with building a community center at this site. Even if it really was a Mosque there would be nothing wrong with it. On the flipside, it makes it easy to identify the bigots.

    If Wayne Root and John Hospers don’t like the community center or mosque or anything else, and they want to exert pressure on the group(s) responsible then there is nothing legally wrong with that either. One could argue that its morally wrong to do this, but I’m not gonna argue it right now. I will say that it makes me think much less of Wayne and Mr. Hospers. Their arguments are about as un-libertarian as you can get. They’re essentially saying “I don’t like you, so you can’t do that.”

    In defense of Wayne, I’ll note that he was careful to state that he was not speaking as a Libertarian when he wrote his article on the “Mosque.” Of course, we all know that simply saying he’s not speaking as a Libertarian doesn’t automatically convey to everyone who reads the article and knows of his LP affiliation that he’s not giving out the Libertarian line. But, what is Wayne to do? If he feels this way and he wants to say so, is that wrong?

    I just wish he would shut his mouth sometimes. If he wants to focus on economic issues that appeal to conservatives, then thats great. But taking the conservative position on social issues doesn’t serve to convert those conservatives to libertarianism. What’s worse, it may make some people think that Libertarians are just conservatives who like to lose.

  17. Thomas L. Knapp

    Dr. Hospers is best remembered for his long and distinguished career prior to the 21st century. He’s 92 years old and has clearly been in the grip of senile dementia and under the control of others for the better part of the last decade.

    Rehashing some facts:

    – Cordoba House is not a “mosque.”

    – It is not located at “Ground Zero.” It’s a two-block walk or a four-block drive (due to one-way streets) away.

    – Whoever’s writing in Hospers’s name refers to Cordoba House “overshadowing” Ground Zero. Cordoba House is planned to be 13 stories tall. Its site is separated from Ground Zero by a 15-story Post Office, a 21-story office building and three streets.

    That Root and whoever wrote this screed and falsely attributed it to Hospers want to separate “politics” from “common sense” explains a lot about their politics.

  18. Michael H. Wilson

    Scott not too many years ago some churches thought the same of Catholics and of course Catholics had similar thoughts about them.

    This is nothing new. I listened to a man tell me some months ago that the Pope was evil. I’ve had Jews insult me because I wasn’t Jewish. I’ve worked with Mormons who look down their noses at others. Lots of this type of stuff in the world.

    Religious bigotry is very common in the world. Just check out Northern Ireland.

  19. John Jay Myers

    @Matt:
    “What’s worse, it may make some people think that Libertarians are just conservatives who like to lose” – great line, and so true.

    Sometimes I wonder why Wayne does what he does. What is the point in just being “Ultra Republicans”?

    I will tell you one thing he knows… and this is the shame. He knows that the more outrageous his commentary the better chance he has of getting air time. Which is the saddest part about this.

    We need to understand that Wayne’s media appearances do not benefit the Libertarian Party, they actually have a negative effect.

    His appearances actually turn people off who would normally join our ranks and fight the good fight. When they hear Wayne… they just assume we are the hard core right wing side of the Republican Party…. like you are saying, if we are going to be asshole biggots, we may as well be Republicans, at least they have a better shot of winning.

    We can’t be a big tent for the Liberty movement because we keep putting neo-cons in charge.

    I feel bad because I endorsed him for at large, not that would have mattered 40% of the party loves him, he was going to win the seat regardless, I was optimistic that he may use his media skills to help others…. BACKFIRED.

    Hopefully after this latest embarrasing set of press releases his supporters may go to like 30%.

    All of that being said, to the point, Wayne actually did say that his thoughts on the subject are “The most Libertarian ideas on the subject”

    You need to check his facebook… I have a feeling this subject is why he is going back on MSNBC. That feeling makes me throw up a little in my mouth.

  20. Jill Pyeatt

    Why aren’t people talking about the obvious–isn’t it possible that Wayne is here to deliberately disrupt the party? It has been a possibility in my mind for a while.

  21. Mik Robertson

    I don’t doubt that Ayn Rand would have agreed with Hospers and Root, given her comments on similar issues. I do not find it a very compelling point of view, however.

    I don’t think it is any more convincing to claim that all Muslims are aligned with terrorists and seek to destroy all other civilizations than it is to claim all Christians are good and only want to save all other civilizations.

    Michael Wilson is correct that religious bigotry is very common, but that does not make it pretty.

  22. Mike Theodore

    “Hopefully after this latest embarrasing set of press releases his supporters may go to like 30%”

    Unfortunately I fear the opposite. I see the Tea Partiers on the fan page going hog wild that a politician is appealing to their most basic of bigot instincts. The more things he says like this give him more supporters, but not the kind of supporters anyone needs or wants.

    “isn’t it possible that Wayne is here to deliberately disrupt the party? It has been a possibility in my mind for a while.”

    I’ve been fearing this for the past year. But I ruled that out. I think he truly believes in the party, but he just has a narrow view of principles. He’s dedicated massive time and money to the party. But of course that money is only dedicated to promoting his name within it. I think this is the only place where an ego like Root can fight. A personality like his wouldn’t win a Republican nomination for the lowest of offices, unfortunately.

    “I don’t doubt that Ayn Rand would have agreed with Hospers and Root, given her comments on similar issues. I do not find it a very compelling point of view, however.”

    Agreed. I’ll say it now: I’ve never read one Ayn Rand book, essay, or quote. After one year in the party. Is it possible that our principles are not led by a pissed off Nixon supporter and are led by the principles of liberty? I’d hope so.

  23. Michael H. Wilson

    “Who is John Galt?…….” He was a Scotsman. Wrote a book titled “Annals of the Parish” in which the word utilitarian was first used. From that Jeremy Benthem and John S. Mills got the idea for the Utilitarian Society. How dat be?

  24. John Jay Myers

    @Mike, I have seen the frenzy on his facebook page, but most of his friends will never be Libertarians.

    No matter how hard he tries in the end, the people who agree with him are just Republicans.

    That’s it. He attracts them, but they are not going to join the party, and they are not going to vote for us.

    So he manages to drive away the liberty movement, the Angela Keatons the John Bush’s and many others… but attracts no one.

    They may listen to his Obama tyrades and gleefully clap like seals… but they will vote Republican.
    Because they want to get rid of Obama, and that is it. Wayne doesn’t preach the big picture, it’s not on his radar, he gets press for being “The giant douche from the Libertarian Party”, why would he stop, it gets his name out there?

    I picture a scenario when he has done enough damage to where we know longer carry any weight in the liberty movement, he will then switch to the Republicans, and then bad mouth us, putting the final nail in the coffin that he created.

  25. Michael H. Wilson

    Knapp @ 20 writes; “Whoever’s writing in Hospers’s name…”

    That is the first thing I thought.

  26. P

    What is sad about this conservative argument, is that Muslims were also killed on 9/11. Isn’t it a slap in the face to the families of those people to act as if they don’t deserve a place to mourn?

  27. Thomas M. Sipos

    Root is not a libertarian. Hospers is not a libertarian. Rand was never a libertarian (but she at least admitted it).

    I don’t care how many titles they accumulate, how many books they publish, or how many times they get on TV — Root and Hospers are not libertarian.

    Real libertarians support property rights and religious freedom. Libertarians judge individuals by the content of their character, and not by what tribal collective they belong to. And libertarians do not believe in collective guilt.

    Root and Hospers support collective guilt. (At least so long as they’re not the ones being blamed for someone else’s actions.)

    Yes, racists have a “libertarian” right to call for public pressure to dissuade someone from exercising their property rights or religious freedom. But that person would still be a racist.

    No wonder the LP does such a poor job of educating the public. It can’t even educate its own members.

    I’m glad LP vote totals are in the toilet. The LP doesn’t deserve to win elections.

  28. Starchild

    Let’s be clear that the variety of collectivist bigotry driving the opponents of the proposed Muslim community center in Manhattan is primarily nationalism, not racism.

    Calling someone racist still packs more of a political punch than calling someone nationalist, but it shouldn’t — nationalism is no less evil and harmful.

    National governments are the worst organizations in the world when it comes to abusing human rights and violating individual liberty. Nationalism underpins their power and sense of legitimacy.

    In reality, that is to say according to a libertarian understanding of individual rights to life, liberty, and property, the victims of the 9/11 attacks were the people killed at the World Trade Center, in the Pentagon, and aboard Flight 93, as well as those who suffered the emotional loss of loved ones and/or the loss of property or income.

    But from the nationalist perspective, the attacks were not against individuals, but against an abstract entity. They were seen in this light both by Al Qaeda — for whom the nationalist worldview provided a rationalization for murdering innocent people — and by most of the people living in that part of the earth’s surface known as the United States as well.

    As David Thelen wrote in “Rethinking History and the Nation-State: Mexico and the United States”, “Two centuries ago the modern practice of history began to focus history’s basic concern with change and continuity around narratives about the fate of nations, to try to persuade people to interpret their lives in nation-centered terms.”

    This widely held nationalist worldview allowed the U.S. government to use the attacks as an opportunity to enhance its own power at the expense of individual liberty.

    Because according to nationalism, if any of “us” are attacked, then the government that represents “us” is attacked, and if that government is attacked, then all of “us” are attacked, and “we” must defend “ourselves” against the enemies of “our” government.

    The frightening implications of this for libertarians or any other groups seen as being “anti-government” should be obvious.

    Meanwhile, just as the real 9/11 victims have been relegated to a minor role in the minds of those with a nationalist worldview as a subset of the larger abstract “victim” (the U.S. as a whole), so too the real attackers, a few Wahabi zealots, were relegated to a minor role as a subset of the larger abstract “enemy” — Islam as a whole.

    It is not inevitable that people look at the world this way. When Hurricane Katrina struck the Gulf Coast, it was generally seen as a disaster and a tragedy for the people living in that area who were directly affected by it — not for the United States as a whole.

    When we as human beings allow attacks on some individuals or property to be seen as attacks on larger entities — crimes against humanity, crimes against a nation, “hate crimes” against a particular ethnic group, etc. — it blows the real crime out of proportion. In the case of terrorism, it actually incentivizes attacks, because terrorists want their attacks to have a larger symbolism in order to terrorize larger numbers of people and advance their political goals. If terrorists thought their attacks would be seen as attacks only on the direct victims, they would be less likely to commit them, because they would get less political mileage out of it.

  29. Jim Davidson

    Starchild, agreed, racism isn’t the essential element. Bigotry, however, is. And religious bigotry plays a part as well as ethnic bigotry.

    I agree with Malcolm X, mostly to make lamestream libertarians feel ill at ease. Malcolm said, “”I am not a racist. I am against every form of racism and segregation, every form of discrimination. I believe in human beings, and that all human beings should be respected as such, regardless of their colour.”

    I also believe that all human beings should be respected regardless of their sexuality, gender preference, age, sex, national origin, religious preference, height or weight. But if you are into coercion or political oppression, I wouldn’t piss on you if you were on fire to save your life.

  30. Robert Capozzi

    sc: Let’s be clear that the variety of collectivist bigotry driving the opponents of the proposed Muslim community center in Manhattan is primarily nationalism…

    me: What triggers an otherwise reasonable person to draw paranoid conclusions? I’d say “fear.” This fear manifests in forms like bigotry and nationalism.

    I’m beside myself that so many right-leaning Ls are buying into the scare stories propogated and heavily inflated by neocons. I’m a bit less surprised by the self-righteous reactions of left-leaning Ls.

    I do wonder if the left-leaning Ls acknowledge that Wahhabism and AQN do intend to harm Americans and westerners? And, near as I can tell, they do occasionally act on their intentions.

    Dialing up the charges and counter-charges…does anyone really believe that that’s going to get the job done? Or does it satisfy the sanctimonious impulse only?

  31. Eric Dondero

    Wow! Just Wow! This is an absolutely devastating blow to Leftist Libertarians. Their whole Collectivist/Politically Correct philosophy masquerading as “Libertarianism” is now on the ropes. Even an icon like Hospers strongly disagrees with their views.

    This is a Great Day for Liberty my friends. A Great Day indeed.

  32. Mik Robertson

    @28 I think that is a very unfair assessment. Believe it or not, there are libertarians who associate with Democrats as well. That does not make them less libertarian.

    While I don’t agree with all of the positions held by Wayne Root, or really any other LP member for that matter, I agree that there should be room for a diversity of opinions in the LP. The overall goal is to maximize individual liberty and minimize the role of the state.

  33. Eric Dondero

    Thomas Knapp is right in one sense; Cordoba House is “not a Mosque.” I’ll give him that point. Rather, Cordoba House is a proposed Al Qaeda Terrorist Training Center. Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer and others on the anti-Islamo-Nazi Libertarian Right have the background.

    The Radical Muslims are attempting to use Cordoba House as a Trojan Horse to bring down NYC from the inside. The connections of the Cordoba House owners are well-known. Just two days ago, one of the owners was directly linked to Al Qaeda.

    Do your research. Don’t believe the Leftist America-hating garbage spewed by the Communists and even their allies in the Left Libertarian movement like Knapp and his America-hating followers.

    These Radical Muslims want to KILL US!! Wake up Libertarian America. Let’s fight these bastards and win!!!!

  34. Mik Robertson

    @38 Either you respect individuals as humans or you don’t. You do not have to respect the ideas, but if you “wouldn’t piss on” someone to save their life because of their ideas, you are no better than those who you disparage.

  35. Eric Dondero

    Let’s be clear about something; the correct LIBERTARIAN VIEW is to oppose this Mosque and to oppose all attempts at the imposition of Sharia Law on the United States of America.

    We will NOT BE DEFEATED BY A NAZI-BASED IDEOLOGY that wishes only to force our wives/girlfriends to wear burqas from head-to-toe, force us to kneel down to Allah 5 times a day, outlaw marijuana, booze and gambling, and stone “loose women” in our town squares.

    One of you Leftist Libertarian pukes, or should I say ASSHOLES, should explain to us how it is that Sharia Law is consistent with libertarianism?

    C’mon you fucks. Don’t be a bunch of fucking pussys. Explain to us how outlawing Marijuana, Booze, Gambling, Prostitution, ect… is consistent with Liberty?

  36. Eric Dondero

    Hey Fuckface Robertson, should we “respect” Muhammed Attah, who flew those planes into the Twin Towers, KILLING 3,000 OF YOUR FELLOW AMERICANS ON 9/11???

  37. Eric Dondero

    Hey Fuckface Robertson, should we “respect” Muhammed Attah, who flew those planes into the Twin Towers, KILLING 3,000 OF YOUR FELLOW AMERICANS ON 9/11???

    FUCK MUHAMMED ATTAH! He deserves nothing but our greatest disdain, and hatred.

  38. Eric Dondero

    There is NO SUCH THING AS A LIBERTARIAN DEMOCRAT. Any libertarian who aligns themselves with Democrats in any manner, shape or form, (with a very tiny % of exceptions like Rep. Walt Minnick in Idaho), is a traitor to the libertarian movement.

  39. Eric Dondero

    Hey Capozzi, THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH NEOCONNISM. NeoCons are a bunch of War Wimps. They don’t really oppose Islamo-Fascism. Hell, they agree with it for the most part. NeoCons are SOCIAL CONSERVATIVES!!! and quite prudish to boot.

    NeoCons have no problem with Sharia Law. They are just fine with Muslims wanting to outlaw marijuana, gay sex, prostitution, gambling, booze, ect… Hell, they’re aligned with Muslims on all this.

    BEING IN FAVOR OF THE WAR ON ISLAMO-FASCISM IS LIBERTARIAN NOT NEOCON.

    Geert Wilders, Pym Fortuyn, Theo van Gogh, Pamela Geller, Ayann Hirsi Ali, are all Libertarians in the Fight Against Islamo-Fascism. Fortuyn and van Gorh were killed by Islamo-Nazis for standing up for Free Speech and Civil Liberties. (Even Reason Editor Nick Gillispie gets this.)

    And when van Gogh and Fortuyn were brutally murdered on the streets of Amsterdam, all you Left Libertarian fucks did was hem and haw.

  40. Eric Dondero

    THOMAS SIPOS IS NOT A LIBERTARIAN. He is a Leftist Communist asshole, who hasn’t done jackshit for the Libertarian Movement.

    Folks, disregard these Communist/Fascist dick suckers like Sipos who have infiltrated our Libertarian movement. They are here to do nothing less than destroy Libertarianism. And they will have to kill me first to do it. I will defend the Libertarian Movement from Nazi fucks like Sipos til my dying breath.

    Eric Dondero, 25-Year Libertarian Party member
    Fmr. Libertarian National Committee
    America’s #1 Libertarian Party Petitioner

  41. Thomas M. Sipos

    Dondero: “This is an absolutely devastating blow to Leftist Libertarians. …. Even an icon like Hospers strongly disagrees with their views.”

    You talk as if Hospers’s remarks are a sudden turn of events, unexpected and out of the blue.

    The truth is, Hospers has long been openly pro-war and pro-Bush. His latest statement changes nothing. It’s not a blow for or against anything, because he’s already taken that stand years ago.

    Hospers’s views are old news despite any repackaging and regifting.

    Dondero: “Cordoba House is a proposed Al Qaeda Terrorist Training Center.”

    That makes no sense to anyone who’s both honest and intelligent. Why would any terrorist or criminal group train in the media spotlight?

    Dondero: “NeoCons are SOCIAL CONSERVATIVES!!! and quite prudish to boot.”

    One of Dondero’s favorite lies. I’ve called him on it repeatedly, but he keeps lying.

    Neocons are not social conservatives. That’s why we have two different terms.

    In the neocon City Journal, James Kirchick writes of neocons: “None of these people held traditionally ‘movement conservative’ views on economics or social issues—far from it;

    See: http://www.city-journal.org/html/eon2007-11-06jk.html

  42. JT

    Scott @ 18: ““Infidels”? “Satan’s party”? I wonder how that stuff wormed its way onto this otherwise “peaceful” mosque’s web site.”

    I find this language odious as well. I think it’s worth noting, however, that it’s no worse than what hundreds of fundamentalist Christians constantly preach from the church pulpit or on religious radio. Yet few Americans, I suspect, would accuse them of advocating violence just because they use such offensive terminology, because they advocate Biblical laws, and because a handful have murdered U.S. abortion doctors in the past.

    John Jay @ 28: “[Root] attracts them, but they are not going to join the party, and they are not going to vote for us.’

    I think this is an important point. Wayne can crow all he wants about his media appearances and positive responses, but his strategy of convincing most conservatives to vote Libertarian just won’t work.

    Most people on the Right, the Left, or the Middle may say they agree with a large portion of what we believe, but when it comes to actually voting…”weeellllll, I’d like to, but I can’t this time. Maybe next time?” Libertarian candidates CAN’T win state or federal offices by appealing only to one side.

    Libertarian candidates CAN, however, take a large percentage of voters on the Right, Left, AND Middle if they espouse ideas that appeal to each segment, are credible and articulate, and have enough resources (depending on the office they’re seeking) to stay in the public eye throughout their campaigns. Those votes will add up to a sum greater than votes from just one segment.

    Jim @ 38″ “I also believe that all human beings should be respected regardless of their sexuality, gender preference, age, sex, national origin, religious preference, height or weight.”

    I don’t. Some people deserve to be respected because of the character they’ve cultivated, the beliefs they espouse, and/or the goals they’ve achieved, and some don’t deserve to be. But this isn’t an issue of respect. It’s an issue of the proper role of government, and the state has no role at all in freedom of religious expression (or any kind of expression using one’s own property), no matter how offensive.

  43. Eric Dondero

    Sipos, the way this article is presented is what’s shocking. Yes, Hospers has been a Pro-Defense Libertarian since he first ran for President in 1972. (Which btw, destroys the Left-Libertarian myth that Pro-Defense Libertarians are a relatively new phenomenon – the Libertarian Defense Caucus has been around since 1974!)

    Rather, when you first read this piece by Hospers, you’re expecting him to come out for the Mosque. And that WHAMMO!! hits ya like a ton of bricks. He hammers the Left-Libertarian America-hating stance.

    I luuuuuv it. Way to go Hospers. He may be 84, but the guy still has spunk.

  44. Eric Dondero

    Yeah, Capozzi, I am crazy – Crazy for Liberty. I will defend the Honor of the Libertarian Movement, and my United States of Ameica til my dying breath.

    I’m on the front lines, fighting Leftist Fucks every single day. What are you doing for the cause of liberty, rather than sitting behind your computer, eating your day-old chocolate cake, and banging on a keyboard?

  45. Melty

    Why would a terrorist group try to set up shop in the most conspicuous spot imaginable even after attracting everybody’s attention?

  46. Robert Capozzi

    ed: I am crazy – Crazy for Liberty.

    me: Most sincerely, Eric, I trust that will work out for you. Recognition is the first step in recovery.

    ed: What are you doing for the cause of liberty, rather than sitting behind your computer, eating your day-old chocolate cake, and banging on a keyboard?

    me: We’re all doing what we can, including me. I cannot remember the last time I had cake, much less chocolate cake, much less day-old cake, chocolate or not. A quirky point…perhaps you can explain to us what you’re getting at….

  47. Thomas M. Sipos

    Dondero: “Rather, when you first read this piece by Hospers, you’re expecting him to come out for the Mosque.”

    Really? Did you expect Hospers to support the Muslim cultural center?

    I see the name Hospers, or Root, or Dondero, and I expect a xenophobic rant.

  48. Eric Dondero

    Melty, simple: Cause Islamo-Fascists fight tough. Look at what they did two weeks ago. They blew up those bars and restaurants in Uganda right on World Cup day. They are bold. They go right for the jugular. They don’t fuck around. Look at their flying jets into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and aiming for Congress. Who in a million years would think anybody would attempt such a feat?

    And now they are building a Terrorist Training Camp right smack dab in the middle of southern Manhattan before our very eyes.

  49. Eric Dondero

    Sipos, I saw this piece on IPR, and the way it was presented, and knowing the left-leanings of the editors of this website, I fully expected the worst.

    And then BOOM!!

    It’s like Hospers suckered punched the world. The crafty old guy pulled you in, and then turned your around, and pointed you in an entirely other direction.

  50. JT

    Geez, could we stop seriously engaging Dondero? At least Milnes is fun to jokingly tweak with his delusions and self-importance.

  51. Ted Brown

    I am sorry to see that John Hospers is hostile to the property rights of the Cordoba House group in New York. I read Hospers’ book, “Libertarianism,” when I was 18 and a new LP member (in 1978) and thought it was an excellent introduction, along with Murray Rothbard’s, “For a New Liberty.”

    As for those who worry about this Muslim center in the heart of New York: would you rather they have a secret cell somewhere? This is a cultural center open to the public. They have the right to build it wherever they want, and a Libertarian should recognize this. After all, we also oppose zoning laws. And what about the xenophobes who are protesting a mosque in Temecula, CA? Are Muslims not to be allowed freedom to worship in this country? I sure hope the First Amendment is still in effect. The other parts of the Bill of Rights sure don’t seem to be.

  52. Mike Theodore

    Mike’s first rule to debate: Keep your cool.

    If one continuously loses his cool during debate, arguing a point to him should be nearly impossible.

  53. Robert Capozzi

    tb, excellent points. The anti-Corboda Ls don’t seem interested in justifying their position, and instead wave their hands about the “Islamo-fascist threat” and what not. I’m feeling kind of embarrassed for them, actually.

    If Cordoba House is a clear and present danger, make the case in a court of law. If somehow any Muslim institution “too close” to the WTC site, tell us where to draw the line and why. Or, tell us the religion should be banned in the US as an inherent threat.

    If the anti-Cordoba forces want to trample property rights and 1A rights as an exception or just because, lay it out for us to assess. I can only conclude they won’t do that — they won’t be specific — because their emotionally based position is weak. If it weren’t, they’d make the case!

  54. Carolyn Marbry

    Scott@18, while I would not call you bigoted, I’m surprised that you find this worthy to be posted. My parents’ church gives them a list of churches OF THE SAME AFFILIATION that they are allowed to “have fellowship with” when they travel. They are not allowed to attend church at other churches even of the same name if those churches are not on the list because of tiny doctrinal differences.

    So while I understand where you’re coming from, that this group is not promoting inclusiveness and extra-community outreach, it’s disingenuous to raise an eyebrow at them when there are Christian and Jewish groups that are far more exclusive, even regarding other Christians and Jews.

  55. Bruce Cohen Post author

    First of all, it’s a bald-faced lie to say John “Hospers was a leading organizer of the “Libertarians for Bush””.

    Mister Hospers made an observation that it might have more pro-Liberty results to vote against the anti-Freedom Democrat in close races.

    Mister Hospers himself voted Libertarian.

    Secondly, Mister Hospers is neither in anyone’s ‘control’, nor does he need a ghost writer or editor.

    His mind is sharp as a tack, though he has become physically frail.

    Bless John Hospers and may his insight grace our discussions for many years to come!

  56. Bruce Cohen Post author

    It would be incorrect to call Jewish groups ‘exclusive’ in their faith, attendance and observance.

    In point of fact, while there are great discussions, debates and disagreements within Judaism about many things, one thing we do believe is that there are many paths leading to the same destination.

    Unlike most other Religions, Judaism actually prohibits discrimination in general against converts or gentiles. This goes legally and religiously.

    I have never been unwelcome at any service or facility with Jewish affilliation, despite any differences in belief or observation.

    In fact, I have almost never been even asked what denomination or belief I hold when attending services at all kinds of synagogues.

  57. Carolyn Marbry

    Dondero @ all over the place: I’m not clear on the logical leap from “using their legally acquired land for legal purposes including practicing their faith” (which should be subject to Libertarian protection) to “Al Qaeda terrorist training center.”

    Is there some magical reason why building that community center in that spot allows it to be an AQ terrorist training center while building it elsewhere in the city or even the state does not? And if you answer correctly that, no, there is nothing magical about that site that enables it to be a terrorist training center, then you find yourself arguing for disallowing ANY muslim community centers from being built anywhere because you believe they’re ALL terrorist training centers.

    And that way lies madness.

    Point blank: Would you support invoking the government to stop these people from using their legally acquired land for a legal and constitutionally protected purpose?

  58. Bruce Cohen Post author

    Comment about Rockwells “warmonger” labeling of people:

    A difference of opinion regarding community approval/desires, a discussion of policy, regarding a controversial business (religion) in a controversial place (at/near Ground Zero 9/11)
    does not a ‘warmonger’ make.

    Like it or not, there is an approval process for starting a business, a public place, doing construction, environmental impacts of certain activities, traffic and infrastructure impact…

    To suggest in modern societies that people with interest are automatically ‘racist’ or ‘warmongers’ or ‘statist’ or whatever Lou and Company want to call people who disagree on something or another , only when they disagree with Mister Rockwell, shows he’s playing the
    Libertarian equivalent of the ‘Race Card’.

    That’s some of his favorite poo to throw at you if he’s in a state of official dissaproval on your opinion.

  59. JT

    Bruce: “Mister Hospers himself voted Libertarian.”

    I don’t think this is true. I seem to remember him specifically advocating that Libertarians vote for Bush in 2004. Did he tell you that he really voted for Badnarik? I don’t think he did.

  60. ' No ---- but it does send a message ', [Lake]

    that Bruce Cohen is a shadowy 21 st Century Israel First American Zionist.

    He wants the rest of us to forget the slaughter of American sailors on the non combatant USS Liberty (what irony for W. A. R. and Brian Holtz and other Super Zionistic Libs)!

    Year after year, $3B of tax payer monies to the killers of virtually unarmed USA citizens!

    We have met the enemy and he is us! —- Walt Kelly, ‘Pogo’ 1963

  61. Robert Capozzi

    jjm: There is no such thing as Anti-cordoba L’s.

    me: Hmm, if so, we’d be excluding a VERY large percentage of the population from the “privilege” of calling oneself a L.

    And I’m sure there are Ls who believe that there is a plumbline from which no L can deviate. Of course, who sets the plumbline gets rather dicey.

    If a case can be made the CH is part of a criminal enterprise, I might be anti-Cordoba, too. Until then, I presume them innocent.

  62. Bruce Cohen Post author

    Mike, what is your point? There are all kinds of things I personally might disagree with as far as ‘Official’ Jewish or Israeli Policy.

    But there is no real legal, cultural or religious discrimination going on within Judaism or Israel.

    I personally think this group of Rabbis are incorrect in their approach to Conversion.

    I know many Orthdox Rabbis that feel if you want to convert through THEM, you need to do it their way. But if you want to become Jewish, or married, or whatever, you can do it how you want, with who you want.

    But keep grasping at straws, like the Lakatarian Donny boy.

    Discussion, argument, disagreement, yes.
    Discrimination, no.

  63. JT

    Bruce, I notice you conveniently ignored my post @ 72. In the meantime, I found this online: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1255362/posts

    So much for it being “a bald-faced lie to say John “Hospers was a leading organizer of the “Libertarians for Bush”” or “Mister Hospers himself voted Libertarian.”

    Do you usually just state your assumptions as facts, or do you actually check them first? If you’re a man, you’d apologize on this one.

  64. ' No ---- but it does send a message ', [Lake]

    Thank You Michael H. Wilson // Aug 3, 2010:
    “Bruce @ 69 you may want to check out this article.”

    Oh plz Bruce, on the Planet Zion, you have your own reality, baked daily by the sun of LibThot and JewThink. You are always right —– even when you are wrong.

    You are the Space Cadet Captain Coty Banks Quirk of the West Coast Libs. Come out of the comfortable shadow land. Be bold, be creative, be loud, like Crazy Doctor Gruntman.

    See what little good will, reputation, and influence you currently, post Long Beach, have evaporate even further.

    You are snarlie, snarkie and sneakie ——- but not invisible.

    Israel for the Israeli ——— America for the Americans!

  65. ' No ---- but it does send a message ', [Lake]

    JT // Aug 3, 2010 at 4:47 pm

    Bruce, I notice you conveniently ignored my post @ 72. In the meantime, I found this online: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1255362/posts

    So much for it being “a bald-faced lie to say John “Hospers was a leading organizer of the “Libertarians for Bush”” or “Mister Hospers himself voted Libertarian.”

    “………. Do [Israel First American Zionist Bruce Cohen] you usually just state your assumptions as facts, or do you actually check them first? ”

    Lake: That’s the LPCa I know and barely tolerate!

    If you’re a man, you’d apologize on this one.

    Lake: he is not, and that is typical of the average West Coast / South West Lib activist [Tesslier, Rider, Holtz, W. A. R. ] I know and barely tolerate!

    And JT, if you ever catch DonLake@ymail.com acting like these agents provocateur, smack me down, jump up and down, scream and yell. Please!

    And Robert Capozzi, would you not agree that because the &@%#$% Democans and the $&@#&$ Republicrats are sooooooo evil, that the Loyal Opposition have to be better than, more accountable, more honest, more ethical than the Establishment Duopoly?

  66. JT

    Lake quoting me: “………. Do [Israel First American Zionist Bruce Cohen] you usually just state your assumptions as facts, or do you actually check them first? ”

    Lake, I’d appreciate you not quoting me with words inserted into it, even if it’s bracketed, lest anyone miss my earlier post and mistakenly think I said it. I also don’t want to be associated with anyone who uses the term “JewThink.” I wanted a response from Bruce to post 77.

  67. Thomas L. Knapp

    “we’d be excluding a VERY large percentage of the population from the ‘privilege’ of calling oneself a L.”

    It’s not a matter of privilege, it’s a matter of definition.

    Words mean things and always will mean things, your obsessive angst over that fact notwithstanding.

    Yes, we’re going to argue over what words mean — but even you usually don’t go so far over the cliff edge of insanity as to suggest that that they must never mean anything (you usually confine yourself to desperate calls for “re-languaging” the “contra-indicated”).

    Some people are libertarians. Some people aren’t. Calling a non-libertarian a libertarian isn’t a “privilege,” it’s a lie.

  68. John Jay Myers

    Thank you Thomas. I had hoped someone would call me out on my statement. I would direct them to your article “yes this is a litmus test”.

    At some point we have to say enough is enough.

    If one more person starts talking about purity tests, I may lose it.

    This isn’t a purity test, it’s a sanity test, it’s an anti neo-conservative test, it’s a “don’t be a douche” test, it’s a “Are you sure you are not a Repubican Test”.

    Yes… we stand for something, among those somethings are freedom of religion and property rights.

    Maybe a large group of people believe that this community center is a bad thing, well it’s because not enough people have shown them the error of their ways.

    We are the party of principle, and at every turn when we have the opportunity to make a stand on the right side of an issue…. We turn and run.

    Why would you join a party which is just like the Republicans, but doesn’t get elected? You have to believe in the message of freedom.

    Our government is destroying this country, not just Obama, not just the Democrats, the whole kit and kaboodle (no idea if that is how you spell kit and kaboodle).

    Do you want to win them over…. start with that message. People get that message.

  69. Doug Craig

    My thoughts from facebook

    In the Libertarian world we have a had a big uproar over the building of a mosque or social center near or own the grounds of 9-11. So I thought I would chime in on this.
    If we use force to stop the building we have have lost and they (who… ever they are) would win. My goal as a libertarian is not to fight evil with evil but to fight evil with freedom. The moment I use force to prevent someone from using their private property (to me it has nothing to do with religion) I have no longer lived up to the standards that I have long preached and lived by. I then become a pack animal like many other that claim to live by a higher standard. I will not be that person.
    I say build that mosque not because I want it or like but because I don’t want to change who I am and I do not want to become like them
    The only way to win is to use freedom to fight your battle not by answering evil with evil

  70. Michael H. Wilson

    Bruce @ 69 you wrote; “Unlike most other Religions, Judaism actually prohibits discrimination in general against converts or gentiles. This goes legally and religiously.”

    This may not be so if the law passes. That’s the point. Discrimination will be legal in Israel.

  71. Robert Capozzi

    jjm and tk, well, alrighty then. Words have precise, unmalleable, unalterable meaning. Being an L means one cannot oppose CH. Root and Hospers do. Root and Hospers still call themselves L. Therefore, Root and Hospers are liars. Do I have your opinions summarized fairly?

    (Can we stipulate that everyone is a liar?)

    So the next question becomes what to do about these liars? Revoke their memberships? Tar and feather them? Write angry screeds condemning them to Hell for their misrepresenting themselves as Ls?

    While we’re at it, I’d be curious which ring of Hell TK would assign Plant and Page for this epistemological abomination:

    “‘Cause you know sometimes words have two meanings.”
    -Stairway to Heaven

    😉

  72. Robert Milnes

    I’ve already proposed quite a while back what should be done. A resolution or bylaw or SOMETHING to the effect that only a genuine libertarian may be an LP party official or candidate. “Genuine libertarian” to be determined by a peer review board who upon meeting declare unanymously that everyone presently on the board is found to be a genuine libertarian.

  73. Robert Capozzi

    rm, how is the board FIRST established? Who sets the rules for getting on the board? What if someone passes with 100%, even takes the “correct” position, but then — on reflection — changes his or her mind?

    My feedback: Unworkable, IMO, and kinda creepy, actually.

  74. Eric Dondero

    Milnes is right; only genuine Libertarians ought to be able to call themselves “Libertarians.” All these Newbie Leftists from Movon.org, ACORN, Daily Kos and other Far Left groups who have infiltrated our Libertarian movement and are masquerading as Libertarians, ought to kindly get the flying fuck out of MY LIBERTARIAN MOVEMENT!!!!

  75. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob,

    You write:

    “jjm and tk, well, alrighty then. Words have precise, unmalleable, unalterable meaning.”

    Make shit up about what other people said much?

    Words have meanings — and those meanings are going to be open to dispute.

    On this particular issue, some are asserting that invoking the force of government to prevent the construction of a cultural center on private property with private money is the, or a, “libertarian position.”

    On this same issue, others are asserting that invoking the force of government to to prevent the construction of a cultural center on private property with private money is not the, or a, “libertarian position.”

    At a certain point of escalation, persons from both aforementioned groups may similarly claim that the person who takes position X is not only taking the/a “libertarian position,” but is not a “libertarian.”

    There’s nothing wrong or unhealthy about that debate.

    What’s unhealthy is asserting that “libertarian” must be accepted by all as meaning whatever the yahoo of the moment asserts that it means.

    “Do I have your opinions summarized fairly?”

    Of course you don’t — and you know damn well you don’t. There’s a liar here, but it isn’t Hospers or Root. They’re wrong (actually, Hospers is more likely de facto a prisoner with words being put in his mouth), but I have no reason to believe they’re being intentionally dishonest.

    “So the next question becomes what to do about these [persons advocating a non-libertarian position and advertising it as libertarian]?”

    Obviously, the best thing to do is to get the real libertarian position out there and make sure people know which is the genuine article and which isn’t.

    “While we’re at it, I’d be curious which ring of Hell TK would assign Plant and Page”

    Plant and Page are smart guys. They know that words have meanings. You would do well to learn from them.

  76. Giuseppe Paleologo

    I am someone with instinctive classical liberal tendencies (I tend to enjoy a lot of “Reason” magazine, of Cato’s pieces, and yes, I can read and understand a paper by Gary Becker). I am not sure my type is common, or whether I qualify as a libertarian. However, after reading this piece and W.A.Roots, it has become clear to me that I *don’t want* to define myself as a libertarian. The libertarian party, and some of the most visible libertarian politicians, are simply cultural, political and probably economic conservatives in disguise. I don’t want to be associated with them. Sure, there are many intellectual libertarians like Balko or Wilkinson, who differ greatly from the party line. But they won’t make a difference.

    I always thought that “libertarian” was an ugly word and a poor substitute for “classical liberal” or “european liberal” or even “anarcho-capitalist” (pretty ugly, but self-explanatory). Now I know is the badge carried by Palinesque intolerant idiots.

    Soldier on, Libertarian Party.

  77. Robert Capozzi

    tk: Words have meanings — and those meanings are going to be open to dispute.

    me: If it’s a dispute, you win! Recall I’m a Taoist, Tomaso. I flow with the current, conserving my energy to allow it flow to its highest and best use.

    tk: On this particular issue, some are asserting that invoking the force of government to prevent the construction of a cultural center on private property with private money is the, or a, “libertarian position.”

    me: Yes…’tis a pity. I don’t agree with them. I’ve not seen that they are representing it as either the or a L position, aside from Dondero, who seems to be especially off his meds recently.

    tk: There’s nothing wrong or unhealthy about that debate.

    me: Yes! Nothing is wrong. Debate away if so moved!

    tk: What’s unhealthy is asserting that “libertarian” must be accepted by all as meaning whatever the yahoo of the moment asserts that it means.

    me: Hmm, have I said THAT? I have no recollection of making a statement anything like that. But, if you’re implying that Hospers is “the yahoo of the moment,” that doesn’t ring true for me. I’m no fan of Hospers, finding him WAY to Randian and working on forgiving him for the looney sounding “cult of the omnipotent state” language that, if memory serves, yer a BIG fan of. Still, the man is an early pioneer. Give him his propers, why don’t cha?

    tk: Of course you don’t — and you know damn well you don’t.

    me: Actually, that WAS my best shot at fairly summarizing your and JJM’s view.

    tk: Plant and Page are smart guys. They know that words have meanings. You would do well to learn from them.

    me: I’m a fan of Plant and Page, but I have no particular opinion of how “smart” they are. Of course, “smart” ain’t all it’s cracked up to be. Lots of “smart” people do and say some REALLY dysfunctional things. Wisdom, OTOH, is the bomb. I guess maybe it means “sometimes all of our thoughts are misgiven. ” 😉

    Makes me wonder, too!

    (I especially like the modified absolutism of “sometimes all.” Could be read a few different ways!)

  78. Robert Milnes

    .R.C., Peer Review Board. Don’t like to see what goes into making the sausage, huh? Well somebody has to do it; this is a MAJOR PROBLEM. Ron Paul is NOT a libertarian. Barr/Root-not libertarians. ETC. There are several types/schools of thought. Libertarian conservative is not one of them. Dixiecrat conservative is not one of them. etc. So, definitions needed. Examples. Litmus tests etc. helpful. Offhand I’d suggest the PRB be voluntary. So if a bylaw is passed, a call for volunteers. A resume. An application. An interview. Say the board consists of 7 + alternates(like alternate jurors). when the 7 first meet first on the agenda, are they agreed everyone is a libertarian must be unanimous. Procedures for non-unanimous situation.
    It is largely subjective. But so is jury duty & voting etc.

  79. Robert Milnes

    Perhaps 2/3 vote required. If a person is a genuine libertarian, as presented-interview-2/3 no problem. It will be pretty clear. Most should get 100%.
    & 2/3 of the deck would be pretty hard to stack.

  80. JT

    Who ensures that all the peer review board members are really libertarians, Milnes? Another peer review board? Give me a break.

  81. Mik Robertson

    I’m thinking of starting a collection to send Eric Dondero to charm school. Then even if he cannot understand humanity or make a good argument, at lest he can be civil.

    It is fine to dislike Muslims, just as it is fine to dislike Americans. If you act to violate the rights of others, then action against you is warranted.

  82. 'Shame on Minnesot - ah' [Lake]

    JT // Aug 3, 2010 at 5:18 pm

    Lake quoting me: “………. Do [Israel First American Zionist Bruce Cohen] you usually just state your assumptions as facts, or do you actually check them first? ”

    Lake, I’d appreciate you not quoting me with words inserted into it, even if it’s bracketed,

    (fairly standard procedure to my knowledge …… but apparently your code name in this area is ‘Emily Post’ ……..)

    lest anyone miss my earlier post and mistakenly think I said …….. (so you are responsible for the stupidity of others ——- No! Ignorance maybe; stupidity no!)

    I also don’t want to be associated with anyone who uses the term “JewThink.” I wanted a response from Bruce to post 77.

    [a] may I suggest that you quit posting at INDEPENDENT Political Report!?

    [b] Watch out for Bruce Cohen! If you find your self shaking his hand —— count your phalanges (fingers and thumbs) after wards.

    [c] You also object to LibThot? You do not seem to have any problems with ‘Silent Sams’ on the USS Liberty ‘event’.

    [d] You have any problems with 21st Century Isreal First American Zionists?

    [e] You dispute that the various governments of Judea have squander a world full of global good will since 1946 / often with in an ongoing under ground philosophy?

  83. Andy

    “So, too, the building of a mosque at the attack site where thousands of our own perished in an act of war – must not be allowed.”

    It should be no suprise that the delusional John Hospers agrees with Wayne Root.

    I saw Hospers debate Gary Nolan over the War in Iraq at the Libertarian Party of California’s State Convention in 2005. Old man Hospers sounded like a fool. Sad but true.

  84. Bryan

    Would someone please tell me why “we” /”the government” should tell a property owner or renter, what they can or cannot do with their property?

    Should a gun show be outlawed, just because it is within a mile of columbine?

    Should an Atheist center be banned, because it is abutting the billy graham library?

    I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it.

    Islam is a religion…all religions have “wackos”…just take a look at the guy that killed Tiller. The guy who bombed the abortion clinic…

    Don’t judge a person or religion (or lack of one) without knowing what they really stand for.

  85. Dan Wiener

    Tom, twice now you’ve suggested that John Hospers might not be competent or responsible for his words. In your @20 commented you stated “He’s 92 years old and has clearly been in the grip of senile dementia and under the control of others for the better part of the last decade.” In your @89 comment you say “actually, Hospers is more likely de facto a prisoner with words being put in his mouth”.

    Assuming that you are not merely engaging in ad hominem attacks on Dr. Hospers, do you have any evidence to substantiate these rather serious charges? Even though it’s been several years now since I last saw Dr. Hospers, his comments here seem entirely consistent with his past statements (especially his repeated concern with the threat from radical Islamists). Nor do I see any identifiable difference in his writing style or language.

    Tom, I thought better of you than to toss around defamatory opinions like that. If you have proof to justify your comments, I and others would like to know what it is.

  86. '....... on Billy Graham Avenue' [Lake]

    Bryan // Aug 3, 2010 :
    “Should an Atheist center be banned, because it is abutting the billy graham library?”

    Lake: more weirdness of religion, as a son of North Carolina ‘Billy Fans’ I have noticed that Reverend Graham FINALLY got around to acknowledging his anti Jewish feelings.

    He finally apologized for his thought crime of considering the Judeans as Christ Killers.

    Let’s see, 500 years of Roman domination and may be 2M executions on the cross. 5000 years of Hebrew civilization and not one crucifixion!

    Yep, them Jews were #&@&%#$ Jesus Killers —- not! Yep, you can have a Doctor of Divinity and not be a genius!

  87. Andy

    “I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it”

    Now THIS is the libertarian stance which Root and Hospers don’t comprehend.

  88. Robert Milnes

    JT, no, you give me a break. I clearly said it could be self validating. 7 people(e.g.), volunteers to do an important difficult job, sit down & the first thing they do is verify unanimously that all present are in their opinion some form or variant or school of genuine libertarian thought. Could you imagine 6 minarchists, anarcho-capitalists & agorists & anarchists & geolibertarians & in walks Root? Bring on the non-unanimous procedure!

  89. Thomas L. Knapp

    Dan,

    You write:

    “Tom, twice now you’ve suggested that John Hospers might not be competent or responsible for his words.”

    … and then go on to suggest that this opinion is “defamatory.”

    On the contrary. If he’s not senile or otherwise diminished in mental capacity, then he’s consciously chosen to side with unthinkable evil.

    Far from “defaming” him, I’m giving him the benefit of doubt.

    The evidence, limited as it is, supports the more benign conclusion.

    The John Hospers of old was a logical/rhetorical Stepping Razor.

    The “John Hospers” writings of of 2004-2010 were composed by someone who obviously wouldn’t recognize reason if it whacked him across the ass with a bass fiddle.

    If Hospers had gone over to the dark side, there’s no reason to believe that he’d have abandoned his argumentative abilities in the transition. QED, he’s either writing from a drastically diminished mental capacity himself, or else an idiot is penning laughably irrational crap and putting it out under his name.

  90. Robert Milnes

    Tom, re Dan Weiner @99, I must say Dan has a point. We have speculation about Hospers & little verification. If he is Hospers just older then it would look to me like he ALWAYS was a pre-Root Root. THAT seems far more likely than the other possibliities you’ve generously put forth.
    Hospers in senility.
    Hospers in captivity.
    I must say the idea that he is being held captive or just having words published in his name-using his computer? is much more in like with a Root>government agent/dupe scenario.
    But that is really incredible-even for me -to believe.
    Face it, Tom, Hospers was Root 40 years ago.
    & can we try to get more facts here about Hospers?
    Is he dead? Alive & home & ok? Alive & in some form of captivity? Senile? Being used/duped? A government agent/plant/sleeper?
    Let’s have some investigative reporting!
    We at IPR would like to know!

  91. Robert Milnes

    We need someone to visit him & physically see him.
    Maybe he is drugged or medicated. That would be another generous explanation.
    I think he always was on the dark side so to speak. A conservative of some type masquerading as a libertarian. e.g. Ron Paul.& Barr/Root. Dime a dozen actually.

  92. Robert Capozzi

    tk 104, interesting. I know a former Crane machine operative who has gone “native” and seems to buy into the neocon/crusader line. He left the LM maybe in the late 80s for corporate work, but was still L back then.

    Based on our lengthy email correspondence, my impression is that he’s just as sharp as ever. Yet he buys the geopolitical theories that drove Compound W. He no longer IDs with L or the LP.

    I did my best to understand his change of POV. I didn’t see evidence of Dondero-like derangement, nor early onset Alzheimers. While his views didn’t add up for me, diminished capacity didn’t seem to be the explanation.

    Perhaps there isn’t one. Could be a form of low-grade paranoia. Could be that I and my fellow dovish Ls are missing the forest for the trees regarding the threat that Jihadists pose to life as we know it. Dunno.

    If you’ve achieved a clarity and certainty about who is L and who not, what the proper definition of L is and what not, all’s I can say is: good for you!

    We mere mortals trudge onward, toward the Knappster light. Please be patient with us. 😉

  93. Eric Dondero

    From today’s Daily Caller website (Tucker Carlson’s site – fmr. MSNBC reporter Carlson is a Ron Paul supporter and self-described “libertarian”):

    The deeper one looks, the more this appears to be a “Trojan Mosque”…and Rauf and Kahn the soft side of a larger objective to plant mosques throughout the United States, and use them as “settlements.” The kind of settlements for which Muslims will justify terrorist acts when built by Jews in Israel. Seem far-fetched? Just do a little reading on the history of the proposed Ground Zero Mosque’s name sake….Cordoba, or the al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, or really, any one of thousands of others around the world.

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/08/03/a-trojan-mosque-and-the-pursuit-of-a-muslim-settlement-at-ground-zero/#ixzz0vdr2luGs

  94. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob (Milnes),

    You write:

    “Face it, Tom, Hospers was Root 40 years ago.”

    40 years ago, Hospers was chairman of the Department of Philosophy at the University of Southern California, not a failed boiler-room scamdicapper.

    40 years ago, Hospers’s two most recent books were not Millionaire Republican and The Concupiscence of a “Libertarian”: How the LP can Become the Next Lyndon LaRouche Movement By Putting a Paper Bag Full of Pseudo-Populist Troglodyte Dogshit on America’s Doorstep, Setting it on Fire, Ringing the Doorbell and Running Away. They were Meaning and Truth in the Arts and Introductory Readings in Aesthetics.

  95. Robert Capozzi

    ed, not written by Tucker Carlson, I’d note. Instead, the authors are Scott Wheeler, a former investigative journalist and Director of the National Republican Trust PAC, and Buckley Carlson, a Washington-based political strategist.

    It appears that Buckley is Tucker’s brother.

    A “trojan horse” can carry a military force that can defeat an enemy, last I checked. A mouse that roared is more like it, at worst. Afraid of mice?

  96. Eric Dondero

    Capozzi, where you make your mistake is that you identify Pro-Defense Libertarianism with “NeoConnism.” Dude, we Pro-Defense Libertarian fucking hate the NeoCons. They’re a bunch of War Wimps. They’re Big Government types who luv Welfare. They’re Social Conservative prudes who don’t want Marijuana Legalized, are not friendly to Gays, are stridently Pro-Life, are ambivelant on Prohibition of Alcohol and Sin Taxes, and Smoking Bans, could care less about repealing Seat Belt laws, and don’t appreciate at all the Sexiness of American Women.

    We Pro-Defense Libertarians have very little if anything in common with them. So, please, at least do us the courtesy of getting your labels correct. You may disagree with us, but I am asking you kindly to not slander us with that awful label of “NeoCon.”

  97. Robert Capozzi

    ed, I consider myself a pro-defense L. I get your jones against the neocon label (sorta). I just don’t know a better shorthand. Crusaders? Blood-thirsty paranoids? Apocalypse now-ists?

    Any other suggestions that communicate well?

  98. Eric Dondero

    Capozzi, let me ask you a very serious question. Please follow me, and give me the courtesy of an answer.

    Would you classify Geert Wilders, Pym Fortuyn, Theo van Gogh, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali as “NeoCons”?

    Follow me here…

    Of course, you are aware that Pym Fortuyn was the Dutch MP, and 2003 Presidential candidate who was murdered in the streets of Amsterdam by a Muslim extremist two weeks before the election. Fortuyn was vehemently anti-Muslim immigration because Muslims in the Netherlands were harrassing and beating up Gays and Lesbians, and were pushing for laws to outlaw homosexuality. Fortuyn was a flamboyent homosexual.

    You are most likely also aware that Theo van Gogh, great-nephew of Van Gogh, was killed with a knife to his heart by a Muslim extremist on the streets of Amsterdam, for producing a film criticizing Islam for its treatment of women. His co-producer was Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

    And as you are also most likely aware Ali, now a bestselling author and critic of Islam’s treatment of women, lives under constant death threats. Ali, a former Muslim, opposes Islam for its horrific treatment of women; female circumcision, stoning, ect…

    And you are also most likely aware that the champion today of Fortuyn, van Gogh, and Ali in the Dutch Parliament is Geert Wilders, who is also under constant death threats for his criticisms of Islam, and the production of the film “Fitna.”

    Knowing that these four individuals are stridently culturally libertarian (Gay Rights, Pro-Marijuana, Pro-Women’s Rights, ect…), and oppose Islamism due to their support of civil liberties, would you classify them as “NeoCons”?

    Bare in mind, NeoCons are stridently socially conservative, and quite prudish to boot. They agree with the Dutch libertarians on virtually nothing on social matters, and in fact, agree more with the Islamists on issues like abortion, homosexuality, marijuana, alcohol prohibition, ect…

    The question stands:

    Would you call Pym Fortuyn, Geert Wilders, Theo van Gogh, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and the Dutch Party for Freedom “NeoCons”?

  99. Robert Capozzi

    jjm: We are the party of principle, and at every turn when we have the opportunity to make a stand on the right side of an issue…. We turn and run.

    me: Who’s turning and running? You don’t appear to be. I’m not. Even Root and Hospers are not. They are expressing their take, which I think is wrong-minded, as apparently do you.

    What I think you’re getting at is party discipline. Under what circumstances does the party use sanctions to distance itself from an especially off-the-reservation public pronouncement, one that threatens to seriously damage the brand.

    Good question. Milnes’s answer doesn’t cut it for me. Perhaps you have a better one.

    Think it through, though. Consider other circumstances, like Ls who have in the past cozied up to NAMBLA. Ls that advocate the right to private nukes. etc. etc.

  100. Eric Dondero

    We like to call ourselves “Pro-Defense Libertarians.” This is the label coined by the Libertarian Defense Caucus in 1974, when the LDC was founded as a counter-force to the Rothbardian/Raimondo types who had infiltrated the Libertarian Party from the Radical Left.

    Now, I’m just fine with Anti-Islamo-Fascist Libertarians, or National Security Libertarians, or Pro-War Libertarians, or Reagan Libertarians. But Pro-Defense Libertarian seems to be the most accurate, and most easily pronounced of the labels.

  101. Eric Dondero

    We Pro-Defense Libertarians are like our Euro-Libertarian cousins, in every regard. We are the European Libertarian representatives here in the United States. (And align with Australia Libertarians, and especially UK Libertarians like the UK Independence Party of Nigel Farage.)

    Our numbers are not nearly as large here in the United States. But in Europe, a Libertarian essentially means, Anti-Islamo-Fascist, Pro-Civil Liberties, and Pro-Free Markets.

  102. JT

    Lake @ 96 to me: “[a] may I suggest that you quit posting at INDEPENDENT Political Report!?”

    Yes, you may suggest it. I don’t know what the implication is about the word INDEPENDENT though. And like my suggestion that you start writing in a clear, coherent way, I don’t think it’s gonna happen. But you can suggest anything you’d like.

    Milnes: ” I clearly said it could be self validating. 7 people(e.g.), volunteers to do an important difficult job, sit down & the first thing they do is verify unanimously that all present are in their opinion some form or variant or school of genuine libertarian thought.”

    Your argument is fatally flawed because the LP membership that would have to choose the people to serve on such a board is the same LP membership that already nominates candidates and elects officeholders. I know logic isn’t your strong suit, though. Or are the board members just supposed to anoint themselves to make decisions everyone in the party must abide by?

    Dondero: “We Pro-Defense Libertarians have very little if anything in common with them.”

    “We Pro-Offense Libertarians who support attacking countries that haven’t attacked America have very little if anything in common with them.” There, fixed that for ya.

  103. Robert Capozzi

    ed: Knowing that these four individuals are stridently culturally libertarian (Gay Rights, Pro-Marijuana, Pro-Women’s Rights, ect…), and oppose Islamism due to their support of civil liberties, would you classify them as “NeoCons”?

    me: Always happy to extend a courtesy. Aside from your mention of these folks, I have no real opinion of them. When I say neocon, I generally refer foreign policy matters, people who believe that the jihad that some small number of Muslims actively support must be stopped pre-emptively and without (much or any) concern for collateral damage. What I’d call neocons directed the US policy toward the Iraq War, which I believe was a colossal mistake on every level I can think of. Neocons want to project US military and intelligence power mostly in the ME, but also in wide swaths of Asia, near as I can tell. The best thing I can say about their ideas is that they are counterproductive, again on just about every level I can think of.

    I’m happy to use a more accurate, communicative term if you can supply one. Until then, I’ll stick with neocon, even though you seem to have a unique definition of the term.

  104. Eric Dondero

    Capozzi, where you at? Cat got your tongue???

    Again, the question stands:

    Do you consider Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Geert Wilders, and the deceased Pym Fortuyn, and Theo van Gogh to be “NeoCons”?

  105. Eric Dondero

    Bwahahahahahahahahahahah!!!!!

    You have “no real opinion” of these folks??????

    Why am I not surprised! I’ve just lost any and all respect I had for you. What a fucking pussy you are. You can’t even answer the question.

    Of course you wusses out. You can’t answer it. Cause you know once you do, your whole fucking neatly placed ideological world will fall apart.

    Left Libertarian Fucks like you, absolutely refuse to acknowledge that Pro-Defense Libertarians exist; that we oppose Islamo-Fascism PRECISELY BECA– USE OF OUR STRIDENT LIBERTARIANISM.

    What a fucking asshole you are. What a true fucking asshole in the supreme.

    Capozzi, you suck. You really fucking suck.

  106. Eric Dondero

    No Capozzie, IT’S NOT NEOCONS WHO WANT TO SPREAD LIBERTY WORLDWIDE IT’S US LIBERTARIANS.

    NeoCons are opposed to our Pro-Liberty agenda. I’ve already told you that a million-fucking times. But you apparently don’t want to listen.

    Again, for the millionth fucking time:

    NEOCONS ARE SOCIAL CONSERVATIVE PRUDES WHO AGREE WITH ISLAMISTS ON SOCIAL ISSUES, AND ARE NOT PRO-CIVIL LIBERTIES.

  107. Eric Dondero

    I have a “unique” way of looking at this ‘eh?

    Well, Wayne Root agrees with me, John Hospers agrees with my way of looking at this, so does Dr. Clifford F. Thies a former National Treasurer for the Libertarian Party, ditto Ryan Christiano and the Libertarian Defense Caucus, Libertarian Party of Washington activist Kevin Bjornson, Roger Stone, Kristin Davis, and even the Libertarian Party candidate for US Senate in Alaska Fred Haawe.

    There are more Pro-Defense Libertarians out there than you may think, or in reality, wish to acknowledge.

    BTW, my explicitly Pro-Defense Libertarian website LibertarianRepublican.net gets approx. 750 to 800 unique visitors a day – about the same as IPR. If I had such “unique” and isolated views, why do you think so many people would be visiting my site daily?

  108. Thomas M. Sipos

    I keep posting evidence that Neocons are not Social Conservatives.

    Dondero never responds to my evidence, because he can’t. Instead, he ignores my evidence and repeats his lies.

    As I posted @ 52:

    In the neocon City Journal, James Kirchick writes of neocons: “None of these people held traditionally ‘movement conservative’ views on economics or social issues—far from it;

    See: http://www.city-journal.org/html/eon2007-11-06jk.html

    But even worse than his lying…

    Dondero hates America. It must be so, because Dondero advocates a bloated empire that will bankrupt the U.S.

    Dondero hates freedom. It must be so, because Dondero opposes property rights, and First Amendment religious freedom.

    Dondero hates the troops. It must be so, because Dondero wants to use American troops as canon fodder in foreign wars.

    It’s sad that such a freedom-hating, America-hating, troop-hating person as Dondero goes around lying about being a libertarian.

  109. Robert Capozzi

    ed, researching your emblems is not indicated at this time for me.

    I don’t cede the term “pro-defense” to your hawkish colleagues.

    Your apparent inability to engage in cordial discourse ends this thread. Good luck.

  110. Dan Wiener

    Thomas Knapp @ 104 on John Hospers: “If he’s not senile or otherwise diminished in mental capacity, then he’s consciously chosen to side with unthinkable evil.
    Far from “defaming” him, I’m giving him the benefit of doubt.”

    Tom, there’s an enormous amount of name-calling and personal attacks in the IPR comments. Hyperbolic charges that other people are idiots, morons, insane, etc., etc. tells me more about the commenter than the target, and I otherwise try to ignore such incivility which substitutes so poorly for rational argument.

    But in your case, when you profoundly disagree with someone and accuse them of dementia, you’re being serious about that condition and you mean it in a good way! You’re actually doing them a favor, since the alternative is so much worse. And best of all, you don’t have to provide any actual evidence of dementia, just the fact that the person has (in your view) changed so much from the one you used to admire.

    Tom, your ability to simultaneously launch an ad hominem attack while rationalizing it as being mercifully sympathetic is taking it to a whole new level. I bow to the master.

  111. Robert Capozzi

    dw, yes, while I often disagree with the Knappster, his ability to misdirect while not appearing to misdirect is legendary. The man has mad skills! It’s called “reframing the issue,” and all effective pols know how to do it. We could all learn a thing or two from the (Disowned, or perhaps Distanced) Father of the Boston Tea Party.

    Still, Hospers is getting on in years, and dementia (or a generalized dimunition in brain function) is a rather common state for someone of his age.

    OTOH, Hospers has been hawkish for as long as I can remember, going back to his 40s and 50s, when in all likelihood he was at the top of game, brain function-wise.

    Porting fear of the Red Menace to the Jihad Menace is not all that difficult. Paranoia is said to, in effect, burn “grooves” in the mind.

  112. Eric Dondero

    Hey Sipos, who is the Number One NeoCon in the country?

    William J. Bennett

    He is Pro-Life, Pro-War on Drugs, Pro-Censorship of Pornography, Pro-Abstinence, ect…

    I call that Social Conservative.

    He’s joined by other NeoCons like Pat Robertson, Fred Barnes, Charles Krauthammer, Bill Kristol, Ed Meese, Gary Bauer et.al. All Social Conservatives.

  113. Eric Dondero

    Capozzi, “researching your emblems…”

    Geert Wilders is all over the news. You can miss news on him, even if you tried. His Party just came in 3rd place in Dutch Elections and is now part of the Governing Coalition.

    Hirsi Alli is currently on the NY Times Bestsellers List.

    There’s no research required.

    Or is it, that you’re too yellow-bellied to answer the question?

  114. Robert Capozzi

    ed, what part of “Your apparent inability to engage in cordial discourse ends this thread. Good luck.” do you not understand?

  115. Robert Capozzi

    on reflection, ED does have a point. If we view Bennett as the emblem for neocon-ism, there’s some excess baggage there that in some ways unfairly tars our hawkish brethren. Historically, I’m not so sure Bennett is the best choice (perhaps Irving Kristol’d be more apropos, who I don’t recall being esp. social connish), but he could be a top 10er, despite his gambling addiction.

    Having an actual conversation with ED is next to impossible, but maybe I should refrain from “neocon” and prefer “hawkish” to describe Ls (or at least call themselves L) who, for ex., supported the Iraq War.

    Thoughtful, non-hysterical, feedback most welcome.

  116. Michael H. Wilson

    Thomas Friedman of the New York Times has an editorial piece on the mosque in today’s edition. It is well worth reading and says much about a lot of things. The same idea can be applied to much of what Libertarians talk and write about from free markets to civil liberties. I’ll let the brilliant minds here find their way to his piece.;)

  117. JS

    I just happened upon this and just want to say that it seems like all of you are missing the point on the mosque issue. It isn’t really about the mosque, or it’s location so much as about the people who are funding and promoting it and who/what they have ties to. Do your research and you might find some disturbing information.

  118. Robert Capozzi

    mhw, thanks. Friedman calls it a “mosque and Islamic center.” Personally, I have zero problem if it’s ONLY a mosque, not a Islamic YMCA. I seem to recall Raimondo and Knapp INSISTING it was NOT a mosque. Do I misremember?

    Anyone know what the truth is on this technical point?

    I recall that I was cautioning Ls to not fly off the handle on this matter, and the dangers of trying to be news-cycle players without having the bandwidth to stay on top of the cycle. If my concerns are correct, we may have some mud on our collective faces.

    Teachable moment?

  119. Robert Milnes

    Dan Wiener @125, yes, Tom is good, isn’t he? I call him The Spin Maestro.
    We still have Hospers the Root of the 70’s except with a better scholarly resume, & few answers.

  120. Robert Capozzi

    js: Do your research and you might find some disturbing information.

    me: I’d say one could find “disturbing” information about just about anyone or anything. T. Jefferson, brilliant thinker, slaveowner. American Revolution, blow for liberty, entrenched slavery.

    Seems like just about everything in life involves taking some “bad” with the “good.” In the US, we’re supposed to have tolerance for things we don’t personally approve of so long as the rights of others aren’t trampled.

    Looks like the rule of law is winning out in the case of CH. That it’s even an issue is — to me — the “disturbing” thing.

  121. AroundtheblockAFT

    Not that it changes things, but does this Islamic center/whatever actually “loom” over the WTC site? From my trips to NYC, I can recall being within two blocks of lots of places and not even knowing they were there. I’d like to hear from those with intimate knowledge of the geography around Ground Zero. What will be the normal traffic pattern for those visiting Ground Zero? Do they actually have to walk by the
    center on their way from the subway or will 99% of them zip by in a cab on another street or ride a subway to a station right at Ground Zero? Will the center be in sight of anyone standing on any of the four corners of Ground Zero?

  122. Thomas L. Knapp

    —–
    Not that it changes things, but does this Islamic center/whatever actually “loom” over the WTC site?
    —–

    No. It is two blocks from the WTC site, and will be 13 stories when completed. Directly between it and the WTC site are the 21-story “100 Church” office building and the 15-story Post Office.

    “Do they actually have to walk by the
    center on their way from the subway”

    No. There’s a subway stop at the corner of the WTC site (two blocks from Cordoba House), and another two blocks from the WTC site and and down Park Place from Cordoba House (possibly within sight, but not necessary to walk past).

    By car, Cordoba House is actually FOUR blocks from the WTC site, not two — the use of one-way streets requires you to go three blocks and then circle a block to get from A to B.

  123. Robert Milnes

    Tom, Hospers failed your litmus test along with Root. Why do you deliniate his mental state and/or his captivity/identity theft as of @2004? Just admit the LP & the libertariam movement is abundant in “libertarian conservatives” & counterrevolutionaries & move on.

  124. Robert Milnes

    OK, just read Friedman’s article in NYT. It is his usual mush.
    I do not think it matters whether it is an Islamic community center with attached mosque or a mosque with an attached community center or just a mosque or just a community center.
    Also it doesn’t matter whether it is funded by people/groups with anti-US associations. It will be surveilled either way. The FBI will be on it.. That is the American system.

  125. Thomas M. Sipos

    Dondero: “who is the Number One NeoCon in the country? … William J. Bennett”

    The Neocons held an election?

    Irving Kristol is generally regarded as “the godfather of neoconservatism”: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_Kristol

    He died in 2009. I don’t see how the title devolved to Bennett.

    Regarding Pat Robertson, it’s possible for someone to hold both neocon and social con views, but those views are separate. I’d call Robertson a social con on domestic issues, a neocon on foreign policy.

    From Wiki’s “neoconservative” page: Compared to other U.S. conservatives, neoconservatives take a more idealist stance on foreign policy; adhere less to social conservatism;

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

    You’re a neocon, Dondero.

  126. Michael H. Wilson

    Try this one on for size.

    “The name Cordoba House, though, is particularly fitting — an evocation of the rich interactions of Christians, Muslims and Jews in Medieval Spain. Medieval Spain was not often a paradise of tolerance and peace. But where peoples lived together, the understanding spawned by that coexistence gave the lie to the notion that Muslims, Jews and Christians must by nature be opposed, and created a more cohesive, fecund, peaceful and plural society.”

    http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/08/04/dodds.mosques.new.york/index.html?hpt=T2

  127. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Tom, Hospers failed your litmus test along with Root. Why do you deliniate his mental state and/or his captivity/identity theft as of @2004?”

    Because that’s when addled, barmy, irrational anti-libertarian nonsense started coming out with his name on it.

  128. Robert Capozzi

    wiki via tk: ….neoconservatives take a more idealist stance on foreign policy…

    me: Ouch. “Idealist”? I guess that’s sorta true, but it seems not very descriptive. Pacificism is idealist. Communism could be viewed as idealist. I’d think words like “pre-emptive,” “aggressive” and “meddlesome,” would capture the essence of neocon-ism.

    Neocons seems more about grand geopolitical strategy. I’m not sure that hawkish Ls are necessarily that way. They might have been more about an offensive form of defense regarding communism and now jihadism. W’s second inaugural, and the desire to “export” liberty, seems to be an intention quite a bit MORE aggressive than even our hawkish L colleagues.

    I’m still leaning to the “hawkish” description. Seems a bit more accurate.

  129. George Phillies

    There are already islamic prayer services — the core of being a mosque – inside the Pentagon.

    http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/36903_The_Sinister_Pentagon_Mosque_Conspiracy

    The conservative south ends of north bound horses who are raising this issue are a great embarrassment and rejected by all libertarians.

    Having said this, I am amused to report that the LNC was contacted by a reporter who wanted to do a story on possible interactions between the Libertarian Party and Malcolm X, the question being ” Has Malcolm X inspired your
    Libertarian activism?” . It was observed by one LNC member that there was a PA local candidate who was a member of the Nation of Islam. It was noted that another LNC member had made a study of Malcolm X and his beliefs. Another LNC member claimed there is no one like that in our party.

    Mr. Root gave the LNC “I am the de facto face
    and voice of the LP.” and opined that he should get the interview. Another LNC member answered Wayne “You have indeed gotten a lot of media. However, as I pointed out in an earlier e-mail with graph attached, this has not translated into new members for the LP. We have fewer new members each month. Whatever you are doing is not growing the LP. ” Glaringly obvious reasons for this failure were then listed.

    If you are wondering why our national party is in its current shape, you should recognize that this was most of the LNCs activity fora number of days.

    I have not yet learned if the reporter got an interview with anyone.

  130. Thomas M. Sipos

    George: Mr. Root gave the LNC “I am the de facto face and voice of the LP.” and opined that he should get the interview.”

    Seems Root is not satisfied with being a voice of the LP. He wants to be the only voice of the LP, with dissenting views silenced.

    Yet Root’s supporters are always accusing Root’s opponents of being “purists” who want to “purge” dissenting views.

    George, thanks for keeping us informed of Root’s behavior on the LNC. Please keep it up.

  131. Robert Capozzi

    gp, yes, if that’s representative of the LNC’s activities, I’d agree that sounds dysfunctional.

    Were I to choose an LP spokesperson to answer that question, Root would not be my intuitive pick. He’s been quite prone to making sloppy, inaccurate, and insensitive statements in matters that touch race and religion, wandering thoughtlessly onto third rails. Size of government and economics, Root is useful to our efforts, on balance.

    Rothbard was a big Malcolm X fan as I recall, I suspect when Malcolm was in his firebrand, “by any means necessary” phase. Being an advocate for peace in all things — ways and means, I’d have a different take from “Mr. L.”

    Now, I seem to recall that X went to Mecca late in life and came back a far more loving, forgiving, accepting person — far more chill. THAT X was inspirational, IMO. He’s not especially remembered for that phase of his life, and with his assassination, we’ll never know if X could have completed his journey from anger to love and peace.

    Unfortunately, X’s is probably best known as a violent revolutionary. Poor positioning for the party of liberty and peace to be associated with, IMO.

    The reporter’s question is a setup, a trap. Care is indicated.

  132. Robert Capozzi

    gp: “I am the de facto face and voice of the LP.”

    me: Is this a direct quote or a parody?

  133. Michael H. Wilson

    Somewhere I have a comment from Malcom X talking about the need to educate the people before change can be made.

  134. paulie

    750 to 800 unique visitors a day – about the same as IPR.

    IPR gets over 1k.

    If I had such “unique” and isolated views, why do you think so many people would be visiting my site daily?

    I visit all sorts of sites I don’t agree with.

  135. JT

    Paulie: “IPR gets over 1k [unique visitors each day].”

    Doubtful, as I said before. I don’t see how you can state that as a fact. I speculate that the vast majority of IPR readers are extremely interested independent and alternative party politics, probably visiting this site 4-8X/day more than half an hour apart to check out what’s new.

    Wouldn’t be surprised if it’s a few hundred uniques per day. But the vast majority of them also probably repeat their viewing pattern every day, comprising a large percentage of total monthly views.

  136. JT

    Oh I see, Paulie. I didn’t see Dondero’s post from two days ago (and I usually skip what he says anyway). I didn’t know that he’s using the same measuring tool; he didn’t make it clear where he’s getting those numbers from. But apparently you do know.

  137. George Phillies

    Furthermore, Root is currently raising money for a U.S. Senate candidate.

    A Republican candidate. By emailing the RootForAmerica list, I am advised.

    Since Root is Chair the the Libertarian National Congressional Committee, this seems to be a remarkable level of conflict of interest.

  138. Robert Capozzi

    gp, yes, most inappropriate, if true. Is there an L in the race?

    Can such conflicts be investigated by the FEC?

  139. paulie

    If it’s for Sharron Angle (R against Reid in Nevada), the LP declined to endorse a candidate. I understand one or more Ls may be running write-in, and NOTA is actually an official choice on the ballot.

    I think I would vote NOTA if I participated in that election

  140. paulie

    left-leanings of the editors of this website

    This was posted by Bruce Cohen. There’s no editorial approval of which stories may be posted, although on rare occasions stories have been pulled afterwards for being off topic for IPR, untrue, overly opinionated on the part of an IPR writer, etc.

    Also, many of us post opinion pieces by alt party/independent opinion leaders which we disagree with. For example, I posted opinions by Root and Davis on this topic.

  141. paulie

    And now they are building a Terrorist Training Camp right smack dab in the middle of southern Manhattan before our very eyes

    LOL, that would make the US intelligence job quite easy if so. Wonder if the great minds in charge of national security would still manage to screw it up? Or…how many homeland security personnel does it take to screw up a lightbulb?

  142. George Phillies

    @161 It’s Connecticut. However, fund raising for someone who is totally off the wall like Angle would also not be positive image building for our party, nor anything else.

  143. George Phillies

    A fast pass through the current platform finds a series of points where Republican — I read his WND editorial in favor of Bush as a leader of the Libertarians for Bush — Hospers advocates contrary to the bylaws:

    3.5 We condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant.

    1.1 We favor the freedom to engage in or abstain from any religious activities that do not violate the rights of others. We oppose government actions which either aid or attack any religion.

    2.1 Where property, including land, has been taken from its rightful owners by the government or private action in violation of individual rights, we favor restitution to the rightful owners.

  144. Carol Moore

    George Phillies // Aug 2, 2010 at 4:11 pm wrote: “Readers may or may not be aware that Hospers was a leading organizer of the “Libertarians for Bush”.”

    Just in case anyone missed that at the beginning.

  145. Mike Rael

    While it’s true enough that the Imam involved has the right to build a mosque on his own property, don’t other folks have the right to demonstrate against it, so long as they do so around that property and not trespassing on it in any ways?

  146. "Homeland Security" is neither

    Of course.

    However, having the right and being right are two different things.

  147. George Phillies

    @169

    Yes, the local American Nazis and Republican Authoritarians do each have a right to peaceable assemble and a right to petition — but so do the civilized people of New York.

Leave a Reply

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