Lee Wrights: Opposing war doesn’t make you a pacifist

Emailed to contact.ipr@gmail.com and posted at Liberty for All:

by R. Lee Wrights

“The only defensible war is a war of defense.” – C.K. Chesterton

One of the most misunderstood principles of libertarianism is the non-aggression principle. The belief that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being for any reason whatsoever; nor advocate the initiation of force, or delegate it to anyone else including government is the very essence of the non-aggression principle. The misconception starts when we use the phrase “initiation of force.” People tend to focus on the last word and ignore or forget the first.

Most libertarians are not pacifists so our adherence to the non-aggression principle doesn’t mean we won’t defend ourselves. On the contrary, the right to self-defense is inherent in the concept of self-ownership. It is absolutely necessary for every individual to be prepared always to defend him or herself. Your life is too precious to trust it to the hands of strangers.

There seems to be similar confusion with the understanding of the theme of this exploratory campaign – stop all war. That theme was chosen based on the feedback and comments I’ve been hearing from Libertarians across the nation for the past several years. They are asking why the Libertarian Party isn’t out front in the anti-war movement. The questioning was particularly strong and passionate from many of the young people who were delegates to the 2010 national convention in St. Louis.

Since 9/11, I’ve been asking that same question everywhere I have gone and to everyone I’ve met, including members of the Libertarian National Committee, rank-and-file members of the Libertarian Party and fellow patriots in the libertarian movement. It became clear to me that if the message to stop all war was going to become the message of the Libertarian Party as it should be, someone had to step up to make it happen.

That being said, let me be clear. I am not at war, but make no mistake – I am still a warrior. I am not a pacifist – but I don’t have to kill someone to prove it. I don’t oppose anyone using force to defend themselves, their homes, their property, or those they love. If you doubt me when I say that, just try breaking into my house. Self-defense is a part of life, and it’s sometimes necessary for people to defend themselves in order to survive.

But whatever force is used should be quick and precise and the amount of force used should be limited to stopping the attack. Once you have stopped the attack, self-defense does not give you the right to bludgeon the attacker further. Nor does self-defense give you the right to attack someone because you think they may attack you in the future, no matter how boisterous their threats.

Nations should conduct their wars by the same rules. If a nation is attacked, it has the right to defend itself using whatever force is necessary, and using all the power at its disposal to stop the attack quickly and decisively. It may be necessary–on occasion–to invade the aggressor nation. But once the aggressor has been defeated, the defending nation has no right to maintain an occupation force or engage in “nation building.” The cause of national defense does not give any nation the right to conduct a preemptive or preventive war, a policy Dwight Eisenhower called an invention of Adolf Hitler.

While most libertarians strongly support the non-aggression principle, we aren’t pacifists. While we defend the right of individuals, or nations, to use force in self-defense, we adamantly reject any justification for a nation to wage a war of aggression for any reason, under any circumstances. The call to stop all war is simply the logical and systematic application of the non-aggression principle to all areas of government activity. It is a call to stop any activity that involves the use of force not to defend rights, but to impose the State’s will on others.

All libertarians share this core value. All libertarians believe in the message of peace and non-aggression. That’s why I believe that the Libertarian Party must embrace the message and not be afraid to boldly, loudly and unequivocally proclaim now and in the 2012 presidential election – stop all war.

Call it pro-peace or anti-war, they both mean the same thing – stop all war. We have chosen to call for stopping war because that is what the members of the LP have been asking for. We remember how the George W. Bush crowd co-opted the pro-peace slogan to justify sending an invasion force into Iraq. The American people were told it was a war of peace. Of course, it was a lie.

As I said in late 2002 before we sent troops to Iraq, “It is blasphemy to kill innocent people and have innocent people do your killing for you, all the while proclaiming to the world you are doing it in the blessed name of Peace.” This is why Libertarians understand that we must call for stopping all war. Stop all war is a message that cannot be co-opted and used to justify sending more young people far from home to die.

The Libertarian Party isn’t the entire libertarian movement. It’s only the political arm of the movement. The Libertarian Party represents the larger libertarian movement in the political arena. Without us, Americans have no way of voting for liberty and freedom at the ballot box on Election Day. We in the movement who have made the decision to engage in electoral politics have chosen ballots over bullets in a peaceful attempt to bring about badly needed reform of a government that no longer serves the people but rather has fallen into the hands of tyrannical nannies who wage war on and enslave the very citizens they have sworn to serve.

So I echo the words of my brother Thomas Hill. The message of this campaign is a message all libertarians can and should embrace – stop all war. This is the cause the Libertarian Party must champion in 2012. If we don’t, nobody else will. To spread that message across the country, we’ll need the help of anyone who desires to be free and who opposes tyranny in any form.

-30-

R. Lee Wrights, is a libertarian writer, activist and lifetime member of the Libertarian Party who lives in Texas. He is considering seeking the presidential nomination because he believes the Libertarian message in 2012 should be a loud, clear and unequivocal call to stop all war. Wrights has pledged that 10 percent of all donations to his campaign will be spent for ballot access so that the stop all war message can be heard in all 50 states. He is the co-founder and editor of the free speech online magazine Liberty for All.

http://www.wrights2012.com

102 thoughts on “Lee Wrights: Opposing war doesn’t make you a pacifist

  1. paulie Post author

    Thanks to Lee Wrights for another excellent article.

    I agree that the cause of peace should be a greater emphasis for the Libertarian Party.

    I hope that in his next article, or as soon as possible, Mr. Wrights will call for war crimes trials for US and other war criminals. I believe that right now, with long standing dictatorships falling like dominoes in the Arab world, is a great time to issue such a call.

  2. paulie Post author

    In addition to casting off foreign invasions and occupations, I believe a decent libertarian case can be made for wars of secession/independence, such as the American revolution, and wars to cast off domestic dictators, such as by the people against Kadaffi in Libya.

    In such cases, I believe great effort should be made to achieve those same ends without resorting to war whenever possible, because of the high costs of war in terms of lives, liberty and property, even when they are fought successfully and for righteous goals. Mr. Wrights did a good job of pointing this out in his last article and discussion thereof at

    https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2011/02/lee-wrights-war-is-not-the-answer/

    And, I believe that when foreigners wish to intervene in such conflicts, they so do as individuals and voluntary associations of individuals, not as governments.

  3. paulie Post author

    Call it pro-peace or anti-war, they both mean the same thing ? stop all war. We have chosen to call for stopping war because that is what the members of the LP have been asking for. We remember how the George W. Bush crowd co-opted the pro-peace slogan to justify sending an invasion force into Iraq. The American people were told it was a war of peace. Of course, it was a lie.

    As I said in late 2002 before we sent troops to Iraq, ?It is blasphemy to kill innocent people and have innocent people do your killing for you, all the while proclaiming to the world you are doing it in the blessed name of Peace.? This is why Libertarians understand that we must call for stopping all war. Stop all war is a message that cannot be co-opted and used to justify sending more young people far from home to die.

    I responded to this point on the discussion of Thomas Hill’s article at

    https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2011/02/thomas-hill-the-libertarian-message-is-peace-be-it-and-live-it/

    WW1 was billed as the ?war to end all wars.? A preference for stating what you are for, rather than what you are against, or vice versa, does not solve that particular problem.

    Expanding: The same type of propaganda which was employed by the Bush Gang to say that the invasion and occupation of Iraq is a war for Peace was also used by the warmongers of a previous era to claim that their war was a war to end (I.E. stop) all wars. Thus, stating your opposition to wars as opposed to stating the same thing in different terms (support for peace) does not necessarily keep your message from being co-opted and turned on its head by warmongers, imperialists, and imperialist warmongers.

    However, my own inclination is to believe that a general preference for supporting things does more to increase the peace than a general preference for opposing things, as far as mental attitude goes. That does not mean I have by any means rid myself of the habit of stating my opposition to things which I oppose, but I am trying to work on stating things in positive terms more often when I have the choice.

    Mr. Wrights is entirely correct when he says that Call it pro-peace or anti-war, they both mean the same thing. The choice of looking at it one way or the other is just a matter of aesthetic preference.

  4. paulie Post author

    My apologies for the filibuster 🙂

    I’ve been hanging around mentally ill people on this internet forum too much…now I’m going to talk to myself:

    I agree that the cause of peace should be a greater emphasis for the Libertarian Party.

    That is really the key point here, and I do very much agree with it. It’s unfortunate that it takes a lot less words to say that than it does to explain my disagreement with a relatively minor point or two. Clearly, I still have a lot of work to do in turning my mind more towards the positive than the negative. I agree with Mr. Wrights’ essay far more than I disagree, although one could be forgiven for thinking otherwise by reading my first few comments.

    I hope that in his next article, or as soon as possible, Mr. Wrights will call for war crimes trials for US and other war criminals. I believe that right now, with long standing dictatorships falling like dominoes in the Arab world, is a great time to issue such a call.

    I really can’t emphasize that enough. Recently, Darryl Perry made this point at https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2011/02/darryl-perry-you-cant-spell-hosni-mubarak-without-u-s-a/
    And right now a resolution to this effect is being considered by the BTP.

    I hope similar calls will be issued not only by Mr. Wrights, but by other possible candidates for the nomination and by Libertarian Parties at various levels. I don’t really expect such an article from Mr. Root, although he has surprised me before, so who knows? I would hope to see one from Mr. Duensing and Mr. Burns, in addition to Mr. Wrights.

    State and local LPs can justifiably have something to say about this, because Americans from their local areas are dying in the wars perpetuated by these war criminals, being ordered to commit war crimes, and because other Americans in theirs states, counties, etc., are being coerced into paying through it with taxes.

    Generally, I do agree that state and local LPs should focus more on concerns closer to home. I would make this the exception rather than the rule, because I think the reality of US war crimes is a massive one that has to be swept out from under the rug. Much more on this in the comments at

    https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2011/01/lee-wrights-the-state-of-the-union-is-still-a-state-of-war/

  5. Robert Capozzi

    lw: Nations should conduct their wars by the same rules. If a nation is attacked, it has the right to defend itself using whatever force is necessary, and using all the power at its disposal to stop the attack quickly and decisively. It may be necessary–on occasion–to invade the aggressor nation. But once the aggressor has been defeated, the defending nation has no right to maintain an occupation force or engage in “nation building.”

    me: I agree with much of the thrust of this essay, but there are two important aspects of the analysis that leave more questions than answers.

    1) NOIF may well be a wonderful notion in the abstract, but I can’t tell if Wrights is providing much of a roadmap for the here and now. Some Ls believe that NOIF means we should advocate an end to the State, and anyone who doesn’t is not really a L. I don’t advocate the end of the State, since I am not convinced that no State would lead to a more peaceful state of affairs. Nor do I think that doing so is possible in the foreseeable future, so it’s not obvious that the “political arm” should be advocating something that I, at least, believe is not attainable. Why do that? I happen to believe that minimizing coercion is doable and helpful; indeed, I’d say it’s imperative.

    2) The US is involved in at least 2 wars that are IMO clearly not in the US’s defense. I don’t support those wars; I’d like to see them ended, and ended quickly. Stating my personal intention, though, seems insufficient. Exiting them can be done a number of ways, and I’d like to see them ended with as little damage done as possible.

    Similarly, ending a US military presence across the globe also seems like a wise decision. Again, HOW that is done is as important as stating an INTENTION to get it done.

    Finally, in a world where there are technologies available to aggressor nations (and the US) in which war can be waged with the push of a button changes the calculus. My default position is to not support “pre-emptive” war, but I can imagine that a pre-emptive war could be considered “defensive.”

  6. Bryan

    Paulie @5… My apologies for the filibuster

    I’ve been hanging around mentally ill people on this internet forum too much…now I’m going to talk to myself

    Don’t worry about it, unless you grow a really strange beard, try to get the CP and the CPUSA into a strange alliance, and move into a trailer under a freeway. 😉

  7. Jill Pyeatt

    paulie @ 5: “I’ve been hanging around mentally ill people on this internet forum too much…now I’m going to talk to myself.”

    –you say it as if it’s a bad thing —

  8. Deep Thoughts From Jack Handy

    @10 When do you cross the line from making fun of the mentally ill and play-acting mentally ill, and actually being mentally ill yourself? And have you already crossed the line?

    Similarly: Is there a fool-proof way to distinguish between pre-emptive defense and initiation of force? If someone’s fist looks like it is about to hit you and you hit them first, couldn’t they say they were really going to stop just short of your nose and you’re actually the aggressor in this case?

    More deep thoughts from Jack Handy coming up…

  9. paulie Post author

    RC 6 Similarly, ending a US military presence across the globe also seems like a wise decision. Again, HOW that is done is as important as stating an INTENTION to get it done.

    Agreed. However, I don’t think it’s crucial for the LP to sort out all those details. Our influence in the political world is small, and if things to start moving in our direction, the details are unlikely to match whatever plan we prescribe. Given the nature of Libertarians and libertarians alike, putting forth details tends to get us wrapped around an axle. So, perhaps it’s more important for us to communicate the main points than to work out all the details.

  10. paulie Post author

    When do you cross the line from making fun of the mentally ill and play-acting mentally ill, and actually being mentally ill yourself? And have you already crossed the line?

    I don’t think there’s a line at all, just a slippery slope. I’m trying to hang on to what little sanity I have left by my fingernails. Hanging on the edge of the cliff as I do here, I occasionally have a natural need to relieve myself. I’m not proud that I do onto the faces, heads and open mouths of those who are even further down that slippery slope than I am. If I wasn’t hanging over that precipice, I would, could and should simply ignore those who are below it.

  11. Bryan

    Paulie at 13

    You couldn’t be more right about the details of this subject being difficult. There are way too many variables, decisions that would have to be made, ect…

    I think the LP should concentrate on the big picture, knowing that, when the time comes, the details will take time, and will include everyone in the debate, not just L’s.

  12. Robert Capozzi

    p13: However, I don’t think it’s crucial for the LP to sort out all those details.

    me: Yes, not ALL the details. If the banner can be held high WHILE maintaining credibility, I’m for it. Generally, though, banners are held most credibly at half or three quarters high. We can hoist the banner all the way later. 😉

  13. fun k. chicken

    Paulie and Milnes are both insane trolls who should be kicked out if they don’t leave here.

  14. Stop all war, stop all W.A.R. Strike the ROOT!

    Stop all war, stop all W.A.R. Strike the ROOT!

    As Thoreau said, stop striking at the branches, STRIKE THE ROOT!

    When the ROOT is ROTTen the Tree of Liberty WEAKENS FROM WITHIN.

    Money is not the ROOT of all evil
    WAR is!

    Stop striking at the branches, STRIKE THE ROOT!

    WAR is the ROTTen ROOT of all EVIL that ROTs the Tree of Liberty.

    Stop striking at the branches, STRIKE THE ROOT!

  15. Stop all war, stop all W.A.R. Strike the ROOT!

    W.A.R. = War Monger
    Strike The Root
    War is wrong
    W.A.R. is wrong
    Right the wrongs
    WRIGHTS strike the ROOT fix the WRONGS in LP
    Stop All Wars
    Stop all W.A.R.
    ROTT is ROOTed out LP Tree of Liberty Grows wRIGHTs again AMEN!

  16. paulie Post author

    As to the last few comments: I think this article deserves better than that, and I hope we get back to discussing the things we were discussing earlier on in this thread.

  17. Michael H. Wilson

    Major General Smedley D. Butler USMC, retired, now deceased and twice a recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor had this to say about war:
    “WAR is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.”

  18. Robert Capozzi

    mdh, ADR to Butler, but I’d suggest that war is not all that profitable, and that peace is FAR more profitable.

  19. paulie Post author

    War is very profitable for certain select crony capitalists at the expense of everyone else.

    Read this book:

    http://addictedtowar.com/atw1a.html

    (hit “next” to keep turning the 77 easy to read pages)

    The body of the book starts at
    http://addictedtowar.com/atw2a.html

    Although the book is incorrect IMO about suggesting the money should be used for government “services” instead – I’d rather let the taxpayers keep it – it does a great job of pointing out the military spending monopoly government-corporate cartel scam.

    Or watch is a video:

  20. Robert Capozzi

    p, I was referring to the profitability of defense contractors…they pale in comparison to other industries, last I checked.

    When you factor in the deadweight loss of military spending, including costs of blood, treasure, and opportunity costs, I’d say war is definitely NOT profitable.

  21. paulie Post author

    I was referring to the profitability of defense contractors…they pale in comparison to other industries, last I checked.

    How so? They take home a lot of money, and it’s paid from the taxpayers. In other words they don’t really have to outcompete other companies, the bids are rigged, and there are huge sinkholes where money disappears.

    When you factor in the deadweight loss of military spending, including costs of blood, treasure, and opportunity costs, I’d say war is definitely NOT profitable.

    Those costs are not borne by the same people that make the profits. So for them it’s a great deal. For everyone else, not so much.

    I recommend the book and/or video, despite the “guns vs, butter” myths that it perpetuates.

  22. Robert Capozzi

    p, for ex., Microsoft had a profitability rate of 32% in 2010, while General Dynamics was only about 8%.

    Yes, if the full social costs were factored in, then Microsoft would be nearly as profitable, and GD would likely be posting wild losses. (Microsoft does sell to the military, but that’s a small river of profits for them.) GD’s shareholders DO have a claim on some “easy money,” but not nearly as profitable money as MSFT’s shareholders do.

    We’re talking apples and oranges.

  23. paulie Post author

    Microsoft actually produces something that people willingly pay for with their own money, military contractors make junk that they can only sell to extortionists. You’re right, we’re talking apples and oranges.

  24. paulie Post author

    Furthermore, if you think that war profiteering is limited only to arms manufacturers, you haven’t really read Butler, much less the book/video I posted.

  25. Scott S.

    Guarded admiration to R Lee for sticking in there. I soured on the LP at the start of the first Gulf War when National took an informal phone poll of leading members and decided to go quiet on the anti-war message, a “policy” that still stands. The nomination of Barr/Root is a strong indicator that things will never change.

    There is an approach which I would like to see Ron Paul, or even a Democrat, use in opposing war and its funding: Defense, yes; Offense, no. Billions for defense, but not one cent for offense. Iraq, Afghanistan, bases abroad. even the DHS are NOT defense, they are offense – against foreigners AND the American taxpayer. Americans already oppose these continuing occupations and suspect their connection with our continuing financial straits, but support our military. This approach covers all bases and puts the warmongers in the spotlight, not the military. All it takes sometimes is a few words, a simple slogan, a distinction noone else has thought to make – from someone with a degree of credibility. Could this start a conversation about the difference between defending our country and policing the world for the profit of the military/security complex? The budget in the news and virtually nobody advocating cutting the Pentagon or DHS – could a few words change this?

  26. Robert Capozzi

    p: …if you think that war profiteering is limited only to arms manufacturers, ….

    me: Did you miss this statement by me: “(Microsoft does sell to the military, but that’s a small river of profits for them.)”?

  27. Robert Capozzi

    scott s: …could a few words change this?

    me: Unlikely. Minds are more likely changed with repetition and over time.

  28. Jerry S.

    @2 p writes
    “I hope that in his next article, or as soon as possible, Mr. Wrights will call for war crimes trials for US and other war criminals.”

    me – When the trials actually occur can we as a people ask that they be brought into and stand trial butt naked and blindfolded with dog collars and lead attached to their necks, with their torturers, er excuse me, guards holding bullwhips in case they are needed ? Also they might could be hung by their wrists above the floor during proceedings or maybe just waterboarded instead! Evil? Yes but, do unto others as you would have them do unto you is a GOOD thing.

    I now, as in the past and everyday in the future wish to be “the good guys”. I don’t wish to be labeled with and want no part of what these despicable people(?) did as my so-called government representatives!
    *^*

    “Many, if not most, of the criticisms of libertarians I have read revolve around how the ZAP is interpreted. Some critics argue that libertarians are pacifists. Others argue that one or more core concepts of “The State” are good or “necessary evils”. Still others claim that libertarians will strike out and kill anyone who angers us using the excuse that the other person initiated force. On the other hand, anyone with a functional intellect can see and understand when force has been initiated. Carrying a gun in your holster is not initiating force, even if a hoplophobe sees it and has a panic attack. Pointing that gun at a person who is making an obscene gesture at you in traffic is initiating force. Taking a person’s property from them while implying that there will be consequences if the person does not comply is initiating force. Asking for a donation is not. The critics just don’t get it and are not thinking. They ignore the word “initiate” in almost all cases. Probably intentionally, since they have no other argument.” -Kent “Dull ‘Hawk” McManigal, http://www.dullhawk.com/libertarianism.html

    Great article Mr. Wrights. It seems some well known people agree.

    No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.
    – James Madison

    Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war.
    – John Adams

    America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.
    – John Quincy Adams

    Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.
    – Thomas Jefferson

    The spirit of this country is totally adverse to a large military force.
    – Thomas Jefferson

    It would take 500,000 men to do it, and even then it could not be done.
    – General Jacques Leclerc
    (Commander of French forces sent to reconquer Vietnam in 1946.
    Quoted by Barbara Tuchman in The March of Folly, p. 244.)

    If soldiers were to begin to think, not one of them would remain in the army.
    – Frederick the Great

    Over grown military establishments are under any form of government inauspicious to liberty, and are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty.
    – George Washington

    “If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.” – James Madison

    “The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become instruments of tyranny at home.” – James Madison

    “A state of war only serves as an excuse for domestic tyranny.” – Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

    “In war, truth is the first casualty.” – Aeschylus

    “Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” – Albert Einstein

    Some men sound like other men

    “Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing.” – Dwight D. Eisenhower

    “If we have reason to believe someone is preparing an attack against the U.S., has developed that capability, harbours those aspirations, then I think the U.S. is justified in dealing with that, if necessary, by military force.” – Dick Cheney

    “Not as tyrants have we come, but as liberators.” – Adolph Hitler

    “We will, in fact, be greeted as liberators.” – Dick Cheney

    sadly some men have other ideas

    “In the counsels of Government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the Military Industrial Complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together.” – Dwight D. Eisenhower…in his farewell speech to the nation as POTUS, January 1961…

    “War is never economically beneficial except for those in position to profit from war expenditures.” – Ron Paul

    “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed — and hence clamorous to be led to safety — by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” – H. L. Mencken

    “Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death.” – Adolph Hitler

    “Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar.” – Julius Caesar

    “The world can therefore seize the opportunity [Persian Gulf crisis] to fulfill the long-held promise of a New World Order where diverse nations are drawn together in common cause to achieve the universal aspirations of mankind.” – George H.W. Bush

    “We are not going to achieve a New World Order without paying for it in blood as well as in words and money.” – Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.

    “To defend the New World Order, U.S. soldiers will have to kill and die.” – Arthur Schlesinger , Jr.

    “I would support a Presidential candidate who pledged to take the following steps: … At the end of the war in the Persian Gulf, press for a comprehensive Middle East settlement and for a ‘new world order’ based not on Pax Americana but on peace through law with a stronger U.N. and World Court.” – George McGovern, former US Senator and 1972 DP nominee for POTUS…

    “Thus, in setting an American agenda for a New World Order, we must begin with a profound alteration in traditional thought.” – Joe Biden

    “But this present window of opportunity, during which a truly peaceful and interdependent world order might be built, will not be open for long. Already there are powerful forces at work that threaten to destroy all of our hopes and efforts to erect an enduring structure of global interdependence.” – David Rockefeller

    “Naturally the common people don’t want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” – Hermann Goerring

    “The easiest way to gain control of the population is to carry out acts of terror. The public will clamor for such laws if their personal security is threatened.” – Joseph Stalin

    “In order to bring a nation to support the burdens of maintaining great military establishments, it is necessary to create an emotional state akin to war psychology. There must be the portrayal of an external menace. This involves the development to a high degree of the nation-hero, nation-villain ideology and the arousing of the population to a sense of sacrifice. Once these exist, we have gone a long way on the path to war.” – Senator John Foster Dulles, Secretary of State 1950’s

    “It is part of the general pattern of misguided policy that our country is now geared to an arms economy which was bred in an artificially induced psychosis of war hysteria and nurtured upon an incessant propaganda of fear.” – General Douglas MacArthur

    “The powers in charge keep us in a perpetual state of fear and a continuous stampede of patriotic fervor with the cry of grave national emergency. Always there has been some terrible evil to gobble us up if we did not blindly rally behind it by furnishing the exorbitant sums demanded. Yet, in retrospect, these disasters seem never to have happened, seem never to have been quite real.” – Douglas MacArthur

    “Powerful dictatorships that make their leaders powerful need to stage wars to get ordinary people to march in lockstep like mindless Nazi robots. That is the road to Greatness.” – Michael Ledeen, Special Advisor to Reagan’s Secretary of State Alexander Haig

    “Paradoxically, preserving liberty may require the rule of a single leader—a dictator—willing to use those dreaded ‘extraordinary measures, which few know how, or are willing, to employ.’” – Michael Ledeen

    “If this were a dictatorship, it’d be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I’m the dictator.” – George W. Bush

    “We can’t be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans…” – Bill Clinton

    “The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer.” – Henry Kissinger

    “Claim everything. Explain nothing. Deny everything.” – Senator Prescott Bush, grandfather of President George W. Bush

    “Stop throwing the Constitution in my face. It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!” – George W. Bush

    “…if the American people had ever known the truth about what we Bushes have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched.” – George Bush Sr. – speaking in an interview with Sarah McClendon in December 1992

    “We need a common enemy to unite us.” – Condoleezza Rice, 2000

    “We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order.” – David Rockefeller

    “It means the potential of a weapon of mass destruction and a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event somewhere in the Western world – it may be in the United States of America – that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event.” – General Tommy Franks 2003

    “The truth is, there is no Islamic army or terrorist group called Al Qaeda. And any informed intelligence officer knows this. But there is a propaganda campaign to make the public believe in the presence of an identified entity…. The country behind this propaganda is the U.S.” – Robin Cook – Former British Foreign Secretary

    “What we in America call terrorists are really groups of people that reject the international system.” – Henry Kissinger 2007

    “In March, 1915, the J.P. Morgan interests, the steel, shipbuilding, and powder interest, and their subsidiary organizations, got together 12 men high up in the newspaper world and employed them to select the most influential newspapers in the United States and sufficient number of them to control generally the policy of the daily press….They found it was only necessary to purchase the control of 25 of the greatest papers. An agreement was reached; the policy of the papers was bought, to be paid for by the month; an editor was furnished for each paper to properly supervise and edit information regarding the questions of preparedness, militarism, financial policies, and other things of national and international nature considered vital to the interests of the purchasers.” – Congressman Oscar Callaway …in the Congressional Record…

    “There is no such thing, at this date of the world’s history, in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar weekly salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone. The business of the journalists is to destroy the truth; to lie outright; to pervert; to vilify; to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting an independent press? We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities, and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes.” – John Swinton, former New York Times Chief of Staff

    “We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected the promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world-government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the National auto-determination practiced in past centuries.” – David Rockefeller

    “For more than a century, ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.” – David Rockefeller …in his memoirs…

    “I am delighted to be here in these new [Council on Foreign Relations] headquarters. I have been often to, I guess, the mother ship in New York City, but it’s good to have an outpost of the Council right here down the street from the State Department. We get a lot of advice from the Council, so this will mean I won’t have as far to go to be told what we should be doing and how we should think about the future.” – Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State, 7/15/2009

    “The CIA owns everyone of any significance in the major media.” – William Colby – Former CIA Director

    “We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.” – William Casey, CIA Director 1981

    “Deception is a state of mind and the mind of the State.” – James Angleton – Head of CIA Counter Intelligence 1954-1974

    “I never would have agreed to the formulation of the Central Intelligence Agency back in forty-seven, if I had known it would become the American Gestapo.” – Harry S. Truman

    “These international bankers and Rockefeller Standard Oil interests control the majority of newspapers and the columns of these papers to club into submission or drive out of public office officials who refuse to do the bidding of the powerful corrupt cliques which compose the invisible government.” – Theodore Roosevelt

    “Perhaps the most obvious political effect of controlled news is the advantage it gives powerful people in getting their issues on the political agenda and defining those issues in ways likely to influence their resolution.” – W. Lance Bennett

    “A newspaper has three things to do. One is to amuse, another is to entertain and the rest is to mislead.” – Ernest Bevin – British Foreign Minister

    “The American people should be made aware of the trend toward monopolization of the great public information vehicles and the concentration of more and more power over public opinion in fewer and fewer hands.” – Spiro Agnew

    “By the skillful and sustained use of propaganda, one can make a people see even heaven as hell or an extremely wretched life as paradise.” – Adolph Hitler

    “If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.” – Adolph Hitler

    “There is nothing new in the world except the history you do not know.” – Harry S. Truman

    “The advertisement is the most truthful part of a newspaper.” – Thomas Jefferson

    “One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge — even to ourselves — that we’ve been so credulous. (So the old bamboozles tend to persist as the new bamboozles rise.)” – Carl Sagan

    “The ruling class has the schools and press under its thumb. This enables it to sway the emotions of the masses.” – Albert Einstein

    “Whoever controls the media, controls your mind.” – Jim Morrison

    “Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” – Voltaire

    “I don’t want a nation of thinkers, I want a nation of workers.” – John D. Rockefeller

    “In Haig’s presence, (Henry) Kissinger referred pointedly to military men as ‘dumb, stupid animals to be used’ as pawns for foreign policy.” – Bob Woodward & Carl Bernstein in their book The Final Days

    “I will begin to remove our troops from Iraq immediately.” – Barack Obama – Promise made during 2008 campaign speech

    “The tragedy of modern war is that the young men die fighting each other—instead of their real enemies back home in the capitals.” – Edward Abbey

    Let’s not forget the “ladies”

    “Why should we hear about body bags, and deaths…I mean, it’s not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?” – Barbara Bush

    “If my sons did not want wars, there would be none.” – Gutle Schnaper, wife of Mayer Amschel Rothschild

    Please sum this up Dr.Paul…

    “America was founded by men who understood that the threat of domestic tyranny is as great as any threat from abroad. If we want to be worthy of their legacy, we must resist the rush toward ever-increasing state control of our society. Otherwise, our own government will become a greater threat to our freedoms than any foreign terrorist.” – Ron Paul

    “Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” – Ron Paul

  29. paulie Post author

    @36 yes, I did miss that, but I was talking about many other kinds of profits from the war racket besides just military contracts per se.

  30. paulie Post author

    Guarded admiration to R Lee for sticking in there. I soured on the LP at the start of the first Gulf War when National took an informal phone poll of leading members and decided to go quiet on the anti-war message, a “policy” that still stands.

    Front page of LP.org today: Top and biggest headline

    http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/obama-kowtows-to-military-industrial-complex

    Obama kowtows to military-industrial complex

    Of the last 4 stories another is

    http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/america-should-stop-interfering-in-egypt

    And among the 10 last blog entries

    http://www.lp.org/blogs/staff/republicans-refuse-to-cut-selective-service

  31. paulie Post author

    Jerry,

    Evil? Yes but, do unto others as you would have them do unto you is a GOOD thing.

    If I commit war crimes, I hope I’ll get a fair trial for my actions as well.

    So, yes, I would do unto US and foreign war criminals as I would have them do unto me.

  32. paulie Post author

    scott s: …could a few words change this?

    RC: Unlikely. Minds are more likely changed with repetition and over time.

    Agreed.

  33. paulie Post author

    Jerry, I’m not sure where you deduced that I support torture from me saying that I want to put war criminals on trial for their war crimes, if that is what you were trying to say.

  34. paulie Post author

    Scott S.,

    There would be a greater chance that the LP would prioritize issues you consider most important if you were participating in the LP.

  35. Porn Again Christian

    Jerry, could you keep your lists of quotes a lot shorter please?

    That list definitely needs to be trimmed way way down.

  36. Porn Again Christian

    “Minds are more likely changed with repetition and over time.”

    There’s more to it than that, but that is one of the components.

  37. Scott S.

    paulie said:
    Scott S.,
    There would be a greater chance that the LP would prioritize issues you consider most important if you were participating in the LP.

    Been there, done that, made no difference. The LP has been drifting toward big-tent Republicanism, propertarianism, and liberventionism for two decades as real libertarians churned out. Given the Ron Paul/C4L movement is solidly anti-war and at least marginally visible, why should anti-war l’s work with an invisible organization that has sacrificed principle for the distracting idea of “winning” elections? I really hope I’m wrong, that R Lee, Mary R, or . . . . will be the nominee, but I don’t see enough chance of that happening to gamble my time and resources. I do hope that others are less cynical than I am.

  38. paulie Post author

    Given the Ron Paul/C4L movement is solidly anti-war and at least marginally visible, why should anti-war l’s work with an invisible organization that has sacrificed principle for the distracting idea of “winning” elections?

    Ron Paul won’t make it out of the primaries. People need a choice in the general election, not just Obama and whoever the Republicans nominate.

    Invisible: Not completely, and part of that is how much we do to make it visible.

    Winning elections: helps with that whole visibility thing. See Ron Paul.

    I don’t see enough chance of that happening to gamble my time and resources. I do hope that others are less cynical than I am.

    It wouldn’t have taken very many more votes for Ruwart to beat Barr in Denver. Just a handful of people making the choice not to participate made the difference. On the other hand, hell will probably freeze over and melt again before Ron Paul gets the Republican nomination.

  39. AroundtheblockAFT

    #35, you assert that the LP went quiet on the anti-war message at the start of the first Gulf War. What evidence can you cite? As I recall,
    a number of members dropped out because the LP wasn’t gung-ho for war. Some had also dropped out earlier over the LP’s non-suppport for the little excursion into Panama that took about 25 American lives.

  40. Robert Capozzi

    pac47: There’s more to it than that, but that is one of the components.

    me: Yes, I didn’t mean to suggest that repetition and time would cause any particular outcome, only that they are more likely to change minds. To really change minds, the most important ingredient is probably strong arguments put relevantly and with repetition.

    As I started out as a crypto-anarchist in the Rothbardian mold, I realized over time that crypto-anarchism is not a strong argument and, short of total meltdown, is not especially relevant. IMO. I checked and rechecked the premises, and it occurred to me that crypto-anarchism is a construct. Leninist tactics require a critical mass of well-placed cadre, ready to mobilize when the revolution is ripe.

    Constructs and cadre might have worked in Russia in the early 20th c. Those were simpler and poorer times. Such widespread risk taking seems unlikely to succeed in complex, affluent times.

    The model doesn’t work.

  41. Scott S.

    paulie:
    I admit, I “almost” went to Denver. I’ve always considered the LP an educational organization that is structured as a political party in order to capitalize on the brief windows of public attention every 2/4 years. RP/C4L is the same thing, but a) more visible, and b) possibly effective enough to damage the more warlike of the true political parties. RP’08 got more media attention than all LP presidential campaigns combined. That said, once RP loses the nomination, the “big window” is the ballot statement of the LP candidate, so that does have value. I really don’t want to continue in this vein, discouraging activists and people of good intent, and I think the more people out there working for choice, the better, whatever plan or organization they choose. I don’t have the wisdom to say one person’s approach is more effective than another’s. Maybe the LP can pull itself out of the hole, or maybe just crash, burn, and rise again without all the ex-Republicans. But no matter what you think of Christine Smith, she spoke for me when she said: why be asociated with a party that would even come CLOSE to choosing someone like Bob Barr to be its spokesperson? I just can’t get past that for now.

  42. Scott S.

    AroundTheBlockAFT:
    About the LP going quiet on the anti-war message at beginning of the Gulf War: I was the rep of the state party to the organized anti-war movement, and got tepid support (at best) locally for this. Which surprised me. Rumor (am I wrong?) at the time was that National did some calling around to donors and figured they were going to lose money if they came out hard against the war, so they didn’t. I was seeing more and more ex-Republicans coming into the state party. These folks were tepid if not hostile to libertarian social agenda and foreign policy, but real, real big on property rights, regulation, taxes. The writing was on the wall by the early 90s, the influx was going to change things. And then the platform was gutted. So it’s a chicken/egg situation, the more the LP abandoned principle, on war and other issues, in favor of big-tent “moderation” which would help win elections, the more principled members withdrew and left things to the compromisers. This is all old news. The LP needs a Skokie. This refers to the departure of many Israel supporters from the ACLU in the 1970s(?) over legal support for neo-Nazis to demonstrate in Skokie, a Chicago suburb with many Holocaust survivors. A clear case of supporting the principle of freedom of speech and assembly over the emotional attachments of often wealthy members. In taking the opposite tack on the Gulf War, the LP – party of principle – made a big mistke. It was an opportunity to purify the party, shake loose those who would support other agendas over the most central of libertarian principles, the non-initiation of force – ragardless of the monetary cost.

  43. AroundtheblockAFT

    #55, I was on LNC at the time and just don’t recall this as happening. Guy named Perry Willis was in charge of fund-raising at the time and he was very opposed to American imperialism.

  44. paulie Post author

    Scott, are you sure you are not confusing Gulf War 1 and 2? The platform was not gutted til 2006, and the polls I can think of took place just after 9/11 that come close to what you say. I was not around for Gulf War 1, I was a Democrat until 1992.

  45. Scott S.

    Paulie: Gulf War I was before 2006, conforming to my narrative. If National again shaped their policy toward what donors wanted after 9/11, it wouldn’t surprise me in the least.
    AroundtheblockAFT: It was a rumor – you are better placed than I to discover its truth. Are you saying it didn’t happen, or just that those who did it, didn’t tell you? I know PW; money has always been his biggest concern and I didn’t even know that he had any political principles other than what he would tout in a fundraising letter. The vacuity of his letters was why I stopped contributing to National long before I left the party. He was in my state prior to moving to DC to become a more effective leech on the movement, but had little to do with local libertarians when he was here. We had to do some work to mollify a local “victim” of one of his stupid letters.

    By the way, I misspoke in an earlier posting, identifying those who left ACLU as supporters of Israel rather than as Jews, which in itself would be an assumption. I’ve gotten in the habit of saying “American SofI” instead of “Jews” when criticizing US foreign policy.

  46. Robert Capozzi

    ss55: And then the platform was gutted. So it’s a chicken/egg situation, the more the LP abandoned principle, on war and other issues, in favor of big-tent “moderation” which would help win elections, the more principled members withdrew and left things to the compromisers.

    me: Yes, well, it could be that the some who’ve left considered themselves “principled” because the LP platform no longer states that NO weapons can be regulated as inherently dangerous. Others might consider themselves “principled” by taking the view that that is crazy talk.

    Being “principled” is the damndest thing.

  47. Jerry S.

    @44 p,

    “Jerry, I’m not sure where you deduced that I support torture from me saying that I want to put war criminals on trial for their war crimes, if that is what you were trying to say.”

    No,no I didn’t think that about you paulie. I keep remembering the pictures of how they treated those people in Iraq and I not anyone else, I say as they treated them then it would be perhaps justice to have them (Bush on down) treated the same and “dressed” as those men were in those pictures (a blindfold and a dog collar) while they have their FAIR war crimes trial! Won’t happen but just My thoughts…

  48. paulie Post author

    wanting to “regulate” the nukes I got in my storage shed…

    You’ll get my nukes when you pry them from my cold, dead planet? /

  49. paulie Post author

    @60 Ah sorry, misunderstood you. You were talking about you, not me.

    I don’t think two wrongs make a right.

    However, I would not necessarily oppose allowing the victims of war crimes’ families choose the venues for war crimes trials, such as for instance a Taliban court.

    If US war criminals are ill treated there, that doesn’t make it right, but it wouldn’t be something we would actually perpetrate.

    As for what will or won’t happen…you never know.

  50. Robert Capozzi

    Jerry, I’ll see you one private nukes and raise you one view of Loose Change: Final Cut, which you seem to be linked to. In some circles, that’s “principled,” too.

    I repeat: Principles are the damndest things.

  51. AroundtheblockAFT

    #58 Scott. Well, if the rumor reached you in a state organization, it would have reached the members of the LNC. I say it was merely a local rumor, perhaps started by someone with antipathy toward Mr. Willis. I remember the “victimization” well – Willis wrote a fundraising letter condemning the U.S. invasion of Panama. One of the soldiers killed was a Phil Lear. Willis saw an interview with Lear’s dad where the dad said Phil’s death was senseless.
    Willis put a line in the fundraiser about Lear “didn’t want to die to capture Noriega.”
    Lear’s girlfriend, back home in Washington state, took exception saying Lear was “willing to die,” which is, of course, true for anyone who volunteers for military service. But not quite the same as what Willis had claimed but some members of the LNC made an issue of it. In any case, Willis survived the flap and continued to raise money for the Party for several years. And, yes, his letters got vaguer and vaguer as “Project Archimedes” was launched.

  52. Robert Capozzi

    Jerry S65: Now Mr. C. of almost 100 videos to view you list but one, Very interesting!

    me: Here’s how it went in my mind…who’s this Jerry S?…where’s he coming from?…Oh, I see he’s got a link, let me take a closer look…scroll down the home page…Oh, look, videos are highlighted…oh, look, Loose Change is on the home page, looks like Jerry S. might be Truther or a Truther sympathizer…yes, it makes sense that someone coming from that perspective might view the platform clean-up as “unprincipled” and a “gutting.”…it takes all kinds, even the sanctimonious, which admittedly is a form of sanctimony once removed.

  53. paulie Post author

    Here’s how it went in my mind…who’s this Jerry S?…where’s he coming from?…Oh, I see he’s got a link, let me take a closer look…scroll down the home page…Oh, look, videos are highlighted…oh, look, Loose Change is on the home page,

    Loose Change Final Cut is a movie that asks a lot of questions, but does not make many assertions. I’ve seen it, I’m not sure if you have.

    I think the questions it asks are interesting. I don’t have the answers to them.

  54. Robert Capozzi

    p, nope. Nor have I seen the G. Edward Griffin doc, either. Perhaps I don’t give enough credence to Truthers or Birchers, even if they sometimes speak some relative truths. I’ve seen enough of this sort of thing to conclude that they are not my cup of tea.

  55. paulie Post author

    I would classify “final cut” as a “more questions than answers” video – IE “what is the truth” not “we know the truth, here it is.”

    Definitely worth a view, no matter what your own opinions on the matter.

    If you have answers to the questions it poses, I’d be curious to hear them.

  56. JT

    Paulie: “On the other hand, hell will probably freeze over and melt again before Ron Paul gets the Republican nomination.”

    I second this. RP’s supporters are fervent, but there aren’t anywhere near enough of them to actually win the nomination. But I hope he runs for it again anyway.

  57. paulie Post author

    It does present an educational opportunity that is in some ways better, and in others worse than the LP.

    What I do like about it is that it reaches people that the LP can’t.

    What I don’t like about it – besides differences on a few social issues, and any collateral support it gives to the non-Ron Paul apparatus of the Republican Party – is that some people stop putting time and effort into the LP because of it, rather than seeing it as a parallel effort and a way to draw new people into the LP so we can keep working between the conclusion of the primaries and the general election.

    Of course, part of that will depend on who the LP nominates for president, but that will in turn depend on who chooses to participate in the selection of that nominee.

  58. JT

    Paulie: “What I don’t like about it – besides differences on a few social issues, and any collateral support it gives to the non-Ron Paul apparatus of the Republican Party…”

    I understand, but his campaign wasn’t really about social issues and the media didn’t focus on them much in connection with him. His attention and the coverage was primarily focused on foreign interventionism, the monetary system, the income tax, runaway spending, and other positions libertarians can strongly support.

    As for “any collateral support it gives to the non-Ron Paul apparatus of the Republican Party,” what do you mean by that exactly? I don’t see offhand how RP running for the Republican nomination lends support to the “non-Ron Paul apparatus” of the party.

  59. paulie Post author

    I understand, but his campaign wasn’t really about social issues and the media didn’t focus on them much in connection with him. His attention and the coverage was primarily focused on foreign interventionism, the monetary system, the income tax, runaway spending, and other positions libertarians can strongly support.

    I agree, which is why “What I do like about it is that it reaches people that the LP can’t.” Implicit in that is that the message is largely libertarian.

    As for “any collateral support it gives to the non-Ron Paul apparatus of the Republican Party,” what do you mean by that exactly? I don’t see offhand how RP running for the Republican nomination lends support to the “non-Ron Paul apparatus” of the party.

    Part of the process in many states is registering as a Republican (many people don’t switch back, although some do), becoming a Republican Party committee person, then some go on to raise money for the Republican Party and promote non-Ron Paul Republicans in an effort to “become more influential” within the Republican Party. I’m speaking of people I know who used to be in the LP.

    Other Ron Paul Republicans pay various fees to attend Republican events, pay filing fees as Republican candidates to the Republican Party, and so on.

    On the whole, I think it does a lot of good, so don’t get me wrong. But it does have some drawbacks.

    Most of that energy never would have found its way to the LP, but a small portion of it would have, and a lot of air does tend to go out of the LP tire when Ron Paul runs.

    Hopefully, the LP will manage its candidate selection and relations with the Campaign for Liberty post-nomination this time around.

  60. Robert Capozzi

    p, I just watched LOOSE CHANGE: FINAL CUT, on your rec. I must say that, like most Alex Jones productions, it is extremely well done from a technical perspective. Jones has access to some very talented documentarians and technical crew. I sometimes have to wonder where he gets his funding, since the production values are so high. It appears that there’s some overlap with Bircher-types, which again doesn’t make it (skilled) misdirection/propaganda, but I admit to great skepticism.

    I’d watched an earlier version of LOOSE CHANGE. There probably are a lot of unanswered questions. Could this have been a standard war game twisted to manipulate public opinion, as is the implication? Possible, I suppose. The enormity of the manipulation is so vast as to be incomprehensible for me, though. Perhaps we need to wait for some deathbed confessions by someone at least somewhat in the know, assuming that 9/11 was, somehow or in some ways, an inside job. If it was, I’d like to know so, and I believe it could lead to a paradigm shift of epic proportions.

    In the meantime, my thinking about the State has not shifted after watching this documentary. I remain a lessarchist, moderate by L standards, edgy by general public standards.

  61. JT

    Paulie: “I agree, which is why “What I do like about it is that it reaches people that the LP can’t.” Implicit in that is that the message is largely libertarian.”

    You’re right, Paulie. But implicit in “What I don’t like about it – besides differences on a few social issues” is that those social issues played a substantial role in his campaign. In response to that sentence, I just said they didn’t. He didn’t talk about them much, they didn’t draw significant media attention, and he’s not going to win the Republican nomination anyway.

    Paulie: “On the whole, I think it does a lot of good, so don’t get me wrong. But it does have some drawbacks.”

    I do agree in those cases, Paulie. But I also think you’d agree that those particular things are greatly outweighed by what he says (maybe I’m wrong about that though). Any help he gives to the GOP in general is small and his libertarian message is big–otherwise I think many Republican Party leaders wouldn’t oppose him running for the nomination.

    Paulie: “Most of that energy never would have found its way to the LP, but a small portion of it would have, and a lot of air does tend to go out of the LP tire when Ron Paul runs.”

    I don’t know of the actual evidence that “a lot” of air goes out of the LP tire when he runs. Maybe there is, but I’m not aware of the proof that RP running for the Republican nomination hurt the LP a great deal. Is it anecdotal?

  62. paulie Post author

    like most Alex Jones productions,

    I thought it was Dylan Avery. I didn’t know Alex Jones was involved. I met Avery at the LSLA in Vegas (2008 I believe), and listened to him speak after he showed his movie. I don’t remember him saying anything about financing from Jones.

    Perhaps we need to wait for some deathbed confessions by someone at least somewhat in the know, assuming that 9/11 was, somehow or in some ways, an inside job. If it was, I’d like to know so, and I believe it could lead to a paradigm shift of epic proportions.

    I’d like to see more independent investigations, and I’d like to see them granted access to information. I don’t necessarily think they should be tax-funded, since I oppose tax funding generally, but then again it would just be drop in the bucket even if one was.

    I don’t want them to assume that it was an inside job, an Israeli job, or a foreign non-government terrorist group job – with or without US government knowledge before the fact. I just want the questions that are asked in this film to be answered.

  63. Robert Capozzi

    jt: Is it anecdotal?

    me: Has to be…it only happened 1x! A lot of Ls registered R to vote in the R primaries, including member of the 08 Platcom, as I recall.

    No major candidates stepped forward until RP was all-but-eliminated, as the LNC attempted to get him to come back to the LP as our candidate. This alone likely dampened momentum for the LP nomination.

    Is that “provable,” like 1+1 = 2? No.

  64. paulie Post author

    You’re right, Paulie. But implicit in “What I don’t like about it – besides differences on a few social issues” is that those social issues played a substantial role in his campaign.

    When I went door to door to hand out a few hundred Ron Paul slim jims, one of the 3-4 issues emphasized was an immigration position completely at odds with my own. So, there was at least some emphasis. Nevertheless, I sucked it up and figured I was doing more good than harm.

    I also think you’d agree that those particular things are greatly outweighed by what he says (maybe I’m wrong about that though). Any help he gives to the GOP in general is small and his libertarian message is big–otherwise I think many Republican Party leaders wouldn’t oppose him running for the nomination.

    Yes, absolutely, I agree.

    I don’t know of the actual evidence that “a lot” of air goes out of the LP tire when he runs. Maybe there is, but I’m not aware of the proof that RP running for the Republican nomination hurt the LP a great deal. Is it anecdotal?

    Yes, it’s anecdotal. I found that Libertarian campaigns for the presidential nomination were not getting support in the early stages, and many people told us that it was because they were doing everything they could for Ron Paul and did not have anything left for the LP. Some of them also seemed to really believe that Ron Paul would win the Republican nomination, and would not concede that there was any need for a Plan B.

    It was due to the failure of the campaigns for the LP nomination that got started earlier to gain any traction that other candidates were recruited into the race in the later stages.

    The dynamics of how that all played out have been discussed to death on past articles here, but we know what the end result was.

    Thus, I am hoping that this time more Libertarian supporters of Ron Paul will leave over just a little of their money and time for candidates running for the Libertarian nomination as well, and that a Libertarian candidate who can capture the support of a lot of Ron Paul supporters gets the Libertarian presidential nomination.

  65. JT

    Me: “Is it anecdotal?”

    Robert: “Has to be…it only happened 1x! A lot of Ls registered R to vote in the R primaries, including member of the 08 Platcom, as I recall.”

    Something happening once doesn’t mean the evidence for it has to be anecdotal. And assuming this is true, how does a lot of Libertarians registering Republican to vote in the Republican primaries hurt the LP a great deal?

    Robert: “No major candidates stepped forward until RP was all-but-eliminated, as the LNC attempted to get him to come back to the LP as our candidate. This alone likely dampened momentum for the LP nomination.”

    What do you mean by “dampened momentum for the LP nomination”? The 2 latest-entering candidates for the nomination were the 2 finalists for the nomination.

    Paulie: “I found that Libertarian campaigns for the presidential nomination were not getting support in the early stages, and many people told us that it was because they were doing everything they could for Ron Paul and did not have anything left for the LP.”

    Well, what level of support weren’t those campaigns getting that they did get in the past? Was there a huge drop off in aggregate from 2004 in volunteer time or funds raised?

    Paulie: “Some of them also seemed to really believe that Ron Paul would win the Republican nomination, and would not concede that there was any need for a Plan B.”

    That’s sad. Some Libertarians really need to stop deluding themselves.

    Paulie: “It was due to the failure of the campaigns for the LP nomination that got started earlier to gain any traction that other candidates were recruited into the race in the later stages.”

    What about the idea that a large portion of the LP membership didn’t think any of those early candidates were good ones for the party’s nomination for President? I thought it was embarrassing.

  66. Robert Capozzi

    jt: The 2 latest-entering candidates for the nomination were the 2 finalists for the nomination.

    me: yes, that’s true, I think. Preparations for a run takes at least 6 months, even in the LP. It takes years in the Rs and Ds. They need to think through a number of philosophical, political and financial matters, and begin to put together a team and supporters. That happened in 04 as I recall FAR ahead of the convention. 00 was a repeat performance by Browne, who had 4 years to polish up.

    Politics, even L politics, is a job, something someone prepares for. One doesn’t just show up and announce, nominate me!

    Why is this controversial for you?

  67. paulie Post author

    What do you mean by “dampened momentum for the LP nomination”? The 2 latest-entering candidates for the nomination were the 2 finalists for the nomination.

    Precisely. And they entered the race very late, because candidates who were in it earlier were not getting traction, at least in part because a lot of people who would have helped them in one way or another were too busy working for Ron Paul to do anything else, and too tapped out contributing money to Ron Paul to have any for the LP.

    The Barr campaign never built up much momentum, in part because it got started very late. It built up enough to get the LP nomination, yes, but that doesn’t take a lot.

    Well, what level of support weren’t those campaigns getting that they did get in the past? Was there a huge drop off in aggregate from 2004 in volunteer time or funds raised?

    I believe so. I know we were not getting much help at all on the Kubby campaign. Phillies mostly self-financed; he donated a lot more to his own campaign than other people donated to him. I think the Russo and Nolan campaigns raised a lot more going into the 2004 nomination (although I have no numbers in front of me), although it’s true that Badnarik coasted into the nomination on fumes.

    Given all the libertarian energy I was hearing from average voters while doing ballot access, even before the Ron Paul campaign took off, I thought 2008 had the potential to be a big year for the LP.

    What about the idea that a large portion of the LP membership didn’t think any of those early candidates were good ones for the party’s nomination for President? I thought it was embarrassing.

    Kubby was a good candidate, but he didn’t get much support, dealt with some temporary travel restrictions at the wrong time, fumbled with learning to use a teleprompter and got the flu at the wrong time…the timing of everything on that campaign was bad.

    I could go on and on, but Kubby should have captured the support that Mary Ruwart ended up getting, plus some.

    He also would not have turned down a VP offer, and a Barr-Kubby ticket would have sent a whole lot different message than a Barr-Root ticket.

  68. paulie Post author

    That happened in 04 as I recall FAR ahead of the convention. 00 was a repeat performance by Browne, who had 4 years to polish up.

    And for ’96, Browne got started a lot earlier, ’94 IIRC.

  69. JT

    Robert: “Politics, even L politics, is a job, something someone prepares for. One doesn’t just show up and announce, nominate me!

    Why is this controversial for you?”

    Why? Because that’s exactly what happened in 2008. Barr announced his candidacy in May (the month of the convention). He jumped into the race without any momentum that had been building for months, yet he still won the nomination. So the idea that RP “dampened momentum for the nomination” of the LP on the behalf of late-entering major candidates as you said before isn’t true.

    Paulie: “Precisely. And they entered the race very late, because candidates who were in it earlier were not getting traction, at least in part because a lot of people who would have helped them in one way or another were too busy working for Ron Paul to do anything else, and too tapped out contributing money to Ron Paul to have any for the LP.”

    Maybe, Paulie, but this begs the question of whether those earlier candidates didn’t gain “traction” because of how most Libertarians viewed them. If a Libertarian equivalent of Ralph Nader announced his candidacy for the party’s 2008 nomination for President many months before the convention, I suspect that he’d have gotten way more “traction” than any of the earlier 2008 Libertarian candidates did–despite Paul running for the Republican nomination.

    Paulie: “Kubby was a good candidate, but he didn’t get much support, dealt with some temporary travel restrictions at the wrong time, fumbled with learning to use a teleprompter and got the flu at the wrong time…the timing of everything on that campaign was bad.”

    Then we have a difference of opinion on Kubby being a good candidate for President. U.S. Representative? Sure. Not President, IMO. I’m not convinced RP had much to do with Kubby not getting more support early on. I think more Libertarian delegates just liked Ruwart better as a candidate for President–despite her entering the race just 3 months before the convention.

    Bottom line: I don’t think Paul running for the Republican nomination really harmed the LP substantially. I don’t think a large portion of the money and time LP members in particular spent on his campaign was fungible to the Libertarian candidates, and there wasn’t any momentum necessary for Barr to win the Libertarian nomination for President.

  70. paulie Post author

    I’m not convinced RP had much to do with Kubby not getting more support early on.

    I worked on the campaign, and heard plenty of it. So, I’m convinced, even if I haven’t convinced you.

    I’ve heard the same thing anecdotally from people working on other campaigns at that time, from people raising money for the LP national office and state parties, etc.

    Barr announced his candidacy in May (the month of the convention). He jumped into the race without any momentum that had been building for months, yet he still won the nomination. So the idea that RP “dampened momentum for the nomination” of the LP on the behalf of late-entering major candidates as you said before isn’t true.

    Maybe we read the same thing two different ways, but it was the early candidates for the nomination that were dampened. And in general, although the late entering nomination candidates built more momentum for the nomination, they did not build enough going into the campaign itself.

    Barr would have been a stronger candidate if he hadn’t just started running at that point.

    Ruwart may have won the nomination had she had more time to prepare and build support.

    And so on.

    Then we have a difference of opinion on Kubby being a good candidate for President. U.S. Representative? Sure. Not President, IMO.

    Yes, we sure do have a difference of opinion about that. Did you watch the debate in Denver? That’s the real Kubby, not what people saw at LSLA and the California convention when he had the flu, or his stumbling first efforts with teleprompters and video over internet.

    His life story would have made for a compelling news story.

    I think more Libertarian delegates just liked Ruwart better as a candidate for President–despite her entering the race just 3 months before the convention.

    Actually, I think because of, not despite. If she had entered early on, given what we were dealing with at that stage with everyone being so focused on Ron Paul, by the time the convention rolled around she may have had some of the same problems we did, with being thought of as old news going nowhere. On the other hand, she would not have suffered the rumors and misinformation about health and criminal status. But, I think Kubby did better in the Denver debate.

    Getting back to the present and 2012, do you think Wrights or anyone else seeking the LP nomination will be able to get a lot of support after Ron Paul announces and before the Republican primaries shake out the field?

  71. Robert Capozzi

    jt, my bad. I now see that my informally written sentence was sloppily written:

    “This alone likely dampened momentum for the LP nomination.”

    Should have been “nominee,” not “nomination.”

  72. JT

    Paulie: “I worked on the campaign, and heard plenty of it. So, I’m convinced, even if I haven’t convinced you.”

    I don’t doubt you, Paulie. Just because people told you that, it doesn’t mean it was the primary reason he didn’t gain much greater support than he did. I suspect it wasn’t, but admittedly that’s speculation on my part.

    Paulie: “Did you watch the debate in Denver?”

    Yes, I watched it online. Kubby was good then–clearly better than Ruwart was. I don’t think he was a good candidate regardless. I’ve said elsewhere that I think a good Libertarian candidate for President is someone who wants to greatly reduce government across the board (not an anarchist, Capozzi), doesn’t have a prominent history of conservative or liberal activism, is very articulate and polished, doesn’t talk about the Obama-was-born-outside-of-America or 9/11-was-an-inside-job or the-income tax-is-unconstitutional stuff, and is able to put together an experienced team and raise a substantial amount of $ before the convention. I’m amending my figure of $500,000 though after thinking about it. I think more than $100,000 prior to the nomination would be enough to show solid fund-raising ability from much of the LP membership.

    Paulie: “His life story would have made for a compelling news story.”

    I don’t want the LP candidate for President to be publicized for that. I don’t like the perception of many that Libertarians are just pot-obsessed, pro-choice Rightists. I think that story would confirm the first part in many people’s minds.

    Paulie: “Getting back to the present and 2012, do you think Wrights or anyone else seeking the LP nomination will be able to get a lot of support after Ron Paul announces and before the Republican primaries shake out the field?”

    None of the announced candidates so far. That would be the case whether RP was running for the Republican nomination or not, IMO. But if a Libertarian equivalent of Ralph Nader announced he or she were running for the nomination, then I think the LP membership support would be greater than in 2004, when RP didn’t run for the nomination. Neither Nolan nor Russo raised a great deal of money or had a massive volunteer network before the LP convention. Neither was someone that LP members were particularly excited about.

  73. JT

    A couple corrections to my above post:

    “doesn’t have a prominent history of conservative or liberal activism” should be “doesn’t have a prominent history of socially conservative or economically liberal activism.”

    “I don’t like the perception of many that Libertarians are just pot-obsessed, pro-choice Rightists” should be “…libertarians are just pot-obsessed, anti-military, pro-choice Rightists.”

  74. paulie Post author

    I don’t doubt you, Paulie. Just because people told you that, it doesn’t mean it was the primary reason he didn’t gain much greater support than he did. I suspect it wasn’t, but admittedly that’s speculation on my part.

    I know for a fact that there were people that were putting every last spare minute and dollar they had into the Ron Paul campaign, so where would they get resources for the LP or LP candidates?

    I’ve said elsewhere that I think a good Libertarian candidate for President is someone who wants to greatly reduce government across the board (not an anarchist, Capozzi), doesn’t have a prominent history of conservative or liberal activism, is very articulate and polished, doesn’t talk about the Obama-was-born-outside-of-America or 9/11-was-an-inside-job or the-income tax-is-unconstitutional stuff, and is able to put together an experienced team and raise a substantial amount of $ before the convention. I’m amending my figure of $500,000 though after thinking about it. I think more than $100,000 prior to the nomination would be enough to show solid fund-raising ability from much of the LP membership.

    Other than the raising money part, Steve would have qualified. The raising money was a chicken and egg thing. If we could have raised a fairly small amount of money for such basic things as literature and getting him to a few state conventions, maybe things could have taken off in ways you can’t even conceive of now. Oh well.

    I don’t want the LP candidate for President to be publicized for that. I don’t like the perception of many that Libertarians are just pot-obsessed, pro-choice Rightists. I think that story would confirm the first part in many people’s minds.

    The first step is getting noticed at all. Having a compelling story helps. Being able to turn those publicity opportunities around and turn the narrative to your advantage is key as well. Steve knows how to do that, and has done it before. And really, “pot-obsessed” would be a better thing for us to confirm at this point than “the far right flank of the Republican Party.”

    None of the announced candidates so far. That would be the case whether RP was running for the Republican nomination or not, IMO. But if a Libertarian equivalent of Ralph Nader announced he or she were running for the nomination, then I think the LP membership support would be greater than in 2004, when RP didn’t run for the nomination. Neither Nolan nor Russo raised a great deal of money or had a massive volunteer network before the LP convention. Neither was someone that LP members were particularly excited about.

    They did better than the 2008 candidates pre-nom. Is Ron Paul the only factor in that? No. Is he a factor? I believe so, yes. It’s conceivable that a 2012 candidate could turn that around by becoming well known within the Ron Paul campaign while simultaneously marketing themselves as a Plan B. I’m not saying it will happen, but maybe it could.

    “I don’t like the perception of many that Libertarians are just pot-obsessed, pro-choice Rightists” should be “…libertarians are just pot-obsessed, anti-military, pro-choice Rightists.”

    I don’t know how complicated you expect most people’s political thinking to get. If they think of us as anti-drug war, anti-interventionist, and pro-sexual freedom as well as against high taxes, high spending and heavy red tape, I would consider that to be better than what most people seem to think now, which is that we’re just Beck/Palin clones with no differentiation from the right who don’t win elections.

  75. JT

    Paulie: “I know for a fact that there were people that were putting every last spare minute and dollar they had into the Ron Paul campaign, so where would they get resources for the LP or LP candidates?”

    That doesn’t mean if RP weren’t running that much of that money and time would have gone to Kubby.

    Paulie: “Other than the raising money part, Steve would have qualified.”

    Yes. That “other than” is key to me.

    Paulie: “The first step is getting noticed at all.”

    Not all publicity is good publicity, IMO. I don’t want to be noticed for things that contribute to a stereotype of libertarians.

    Paulie: “I don’t know how complicated you expect most people’s political thinking to get. If they think of us as anti-drug war, anti-interventionist, and pro-sexual freedom as well as against high taxes, high spending and heavy red tape, I would consider that to be better than what most people seem to think now, which is that we’re just Beck/Palin clones with no differentiation from the right who don’t win elections.”

    I agree it would be better than that. But pot-obsessed and anti-military isn’t the same thing as being anti-drug-war and anti-interventionism though.

  76. paulie Post author

    That doesn’t mean if RP weren’t running that much of that money and time would have gone to Kubby.

    No, definitely not all of it. But a little would have gone a long way.

    Yes. That “other than” is key to me.

    Hence my point here. The initial first steps on the ladder were missing, partially because so many people were doing everything they could for Ron Paul. But at this point the conversation just gets circular.

    Not all publicity is good publicity, IMO. I don’t want to be noticed for things that contribute to a stereotype of libertarians.

    Anything that gets you noticed will contribute to some stereotype that someone has. It helps that Steve’s marijuana use is literally saving his life, so there’s ample opportunity to turn the narrative around in our favor.

    I agree it would be better than that. But pot-obsessed and anti-military isn’t the same thing as being anti-drug-war and anti-interventionism though.

    We also hate children and the environment, and want all poor people to kill each other with guns while high on drugs. If possible, while they are still children, instead of going to school, because we’ll shut down all the schools. There is no position you can take that some people won’t twist around.

    Lee Wrights in this article is addressing the anti-military thing; we are not pacifists, but we are against war. The same thing can be done on any other subject. Some people will listen, some won’t.

    Likewise, the Ron Paul thing is coming our way, and we know from last time at least some of what to expect, so we either figure out a way to ride that wave or it washes over us.

  77. JT

    Paulie: “Anything that gets you noticed will contribute to some stereotype that someone has.”

    Good point. The “libertarians just want to smoke pot legally” thing is so widespread though and I hate that. I empathize with Kubby’s situation, but I don’t think someone whose activism has been focused on marijuana is the person I want as the subject of a lot of media coverage. So we’ll agree to disagree on that.

    Paulie: “We also hate children and the environment, and want all poor people to kill each other with guns while high on drugs.”

    In my experience, I don’t think such views are as nearly prevalent as pot-obsessed and anti-military when it comes to libertarians. And some Libertarians enthusiastically play into that, as opposed to “hating children and the environment.” Maybe your experience is different.

  78. paulie Post author

    Yeah, it’s different. Anyway. We’re way off track.

    I don’t feel like working my way back, so instead…

    I’ll go back to the beginning of the thread and start over.

    @2 I said, “I agree that the cause of peace should be a greater emphasis for the Libertarian Party.

    I hope that in his next article, or as soon as possible, Mr. Wrights will call for war crimes trials for US and other war criminals. I believe that right now, with long standing dictatorships falling like dominoes in the Arab world, is a great time to issue such a call.”

    And @ 5 “I really can?t emphasize that enough. Recently, Darryl Perry made this point at https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2011/02/darryl-perry-you-cant-spell-hosni-mubarak-without-u-s-a/
    And right now a resolution to this effect is being considered by the BTP.

    I hope similar calls will be issued not only by Mr. Wrights, but by other possible candidates for the nomination and by Libertarian Parties at various levels. I don?t really expect such an article from Mr. Root, although he has surprised me before, so who knows? I would hope to see one from Mr. Duensing and Mr. Burns, in addition to Mr. Wrights.

    State and local LPs can justifiably have something to say about this, because Americans from their local areas are dying in the wars perpetuated by these war criminals, being ordered to commit war crimes, and because other Americans in theirs states, counties, etc., are being coerced into paying through it with taxes.

    Generally, I do agree that state and local LPs should focus more on concerns closer to home. I would make this the exception rather than the rule, because I think the reality of US war crimes is a massive one that has to be swept out from under the rug. Much more on this in the comments at

    https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2011/01/lee-wrights-the-state-of-the-union-is-still-a-state-of-war/

    There’s now been some progress on this.

    1) The BTP has passed this resolution

    https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2011/03/boston-tea-party-national-committee-passes-resolution-supporting-war-crimes-trials/

    2) At least one of the regions on LA County, California Libertarians may be considering it.

    Hope to hear from many more candidates and LP locals on that.

    Who knows, maybe one day LP national.

  79. Don Lake, FYI, not necessarily a unilateral endorcement

    Kubby needs all the help he can get. Such a bad earlier street rep.

    Steve’s inspiring personal history also works against him. He needs a second in command whom is pro pot with out ever needing the medicine.

    Hey, second in a hotly contested race. Hey, if the top candidate had gotten LESS than 50%. And the PR, the photo alone, are light years ahead of Denver and Long Beach.

    I, for one, see, victory, if not at least progress in the near future.

  80. Jerry S.

    @68
    Jerry S65: Now Mr. C. of almost 100 videos to view you list but one, Very interesting!

    me: Here’s how it went in my mind…who’s this Jerry S?…where’s he coming from?…Oh, I see he’s got a link, let me take a closer look…scroll down the home page…Oh, look, videos are highlighted…oh, look, Loose Change is on the home page, looks like Jerry S. might be Truther or a Truther sympathizer…yes, it makes sense that someone coming from that perspective might view the platform clean-up as “unprincipled” and a “gutting.”…it takes all kinds, even the sanctimonious, which admittedly is a form of sanctimony once removed.
    **^**

    I should have typed “over” 100 videos not almost.

    Who is this Jerry S?

    I’m just waiting on a “day pass” to get out of here (wink wink) Mr.C, I think you understand completely!

    Never seen loose change one or two or…

    I thought at the time (9-11-01) watching on tv, man how did that building fall like that? Looks like one of those demolition jobs they sometime show.

    On a Ron Paul forum in ’08 I politely ask (I try to keep an open mind with anyone who even leans my way on politics) a strong advocate of the “truther” movement a question. I was seriously wanting an explanation in regard to them stating that no aircraft actually hit the petagon or crashed in PA. “Where are the passengers if this was all a staged event?” That was my question. Instead of an answer the guy unloaded on me, not with just both barrels but with a machine gun! So to speak. Since then I know not to ask too many questions as some of the truthers SHOULD BE waiting on a “day pass”!

    I’m glad you still realize “it takes all kinds” hence I’m still welcome. The is a great deal of room in that top quadrant of the Nolan Chart. If we “could all, all er all getgetget along”…

    btw I googled Mr. Robert Capozzi
    – 589,000 EVEN yes EVEN
    needless to say I didn’t get pass the front page today !

    PEACE

  81. paulie Post author

    Steve’s inspiring personal history also works against him. He needs a second in command whom is pro pot with out ever needing the medicine.

    I don’t smoke, and I don’t think Knapp does either, but timing and process sucked.

    Wrights looks like he has it more together, schedule of conventions from http://wrights2012.com/events/
    If this means he will be at all of these

    Kentucky Libertarian State Convention
    March 5, 2011
    9 a.m.-6 p.m.
    French Quarter Inn
    25 E. McDonald Parkway
    Maysville, Kentucky 41056

    Georgia Libertarian State Convention
    March 11-12
    Atlanta Airport Westin
    Atlanta, Ga.

    Arkansas Libertarian State Convention
    April 9, 2011
    9 a.m.-5 p.m.
    Little Rock, Ark.

    North Carolina Libertarian State Convention
    April 15 – 17, 2011
    Park Inn
    Hickory, N.C.

    Tennessee Libertarian State Convention
    April 29 – April 30, 2011
    Best Western Cedar Bluff Inn
    Knoxville, Tenn.

    Hawai’i Libertarian State Convention
    May 21, 2011
    2-6:45 p.m.
    First Unitarian Church
    2500 Pali Highway
    Honolulu, Hawaii

  82. paulie Post author

    btw I googled Mr. Robert Capozzi
    – 589,000 EVEN yes EVEN

    Putting the name in quotes so it searches for the exact phrase cuts it down to less than 10,000. You can add additional terms to narrow it down further.

  83. paulie Post author

    Well, sometimes you have to poop even while you’re at a party. I’m just not going to pack it in for hours like some people. 🙂

Leave a Reply

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