Wayne Root:”Why Do Politicians Want to Punish Rape Victims?”

The following commentary by Wayne Root is in response to proposals by the Republican leadership in Congress to defund Planned Parenthood:

Are you aware that the number of rapes now surpasses breast cancer cases? Do you realize a woman or child is raped or molested in this country every two minutes? While politically correct politicians in D.C. wear the famous pink ribbon to acknowledge their sensitivity to the threat of breast cancer, those same men (and women) turn their backs on rape. Worse, they create bills that appear to punish rape and incest victims.

Are you aware politicians are now choosing to cut spending on abortions and medical care for rape and incest victims, instead of where the real money is spent? Are you aware that if they get their way, women will be required to pay for their rape kits and tests after being sexually assaulted? Talk about adding insult to injury. It’s occurring right now, but I’ve heard nothing in the news, or on talk radio. Nothing. The silence is deafening. The support for rape victims appears microscopic. However, there is still an injury attorney Pittsburgh who is dedicated to helping these women gain some form of justice against the perpetrators of these heinous crimes.

Speaker John Boehner, the man who cried through his interview on 60 minutes, has somehow lost his empathy when it comes to rape victims. His wife explained he was emotional about his new appointment as House Speaker. Really? So Mr. Speaker, where are your emotions when fast-tracking a bill on rape and abortion? Do you really want to expend political capital to cut funding for rape victims and require them to pay for their own tests and rape kits? Do you want people to believe that one of your first budget cutting decisions was to eliminate funding for little girls who have gotten pregnant through incest? Why support a bill lumping run-of-the-mill abortion with violent or criminal behavior?

Talk about being politically tone deaf!

Speaker Boehner, have you and your fellow Congresspersons taken a look at the statistics? Do you really want to make a case that this is about women trying to beat the system for a free abortion, rather than about men victimizing, brutalizing, and raping women and children? Do you really want to come across as punishing the victims? Do you really want to debate your opponents who will claim that you force women and teenage girls to have babies conceived during rape or incest? Where’s your empathy for a 12-year-old who winds up pregnant because her Step-Father, Uncle, or mother’s boyfriend decides to rape her? You lump those circumstances in with abortion, as if the teenage girl or rape victim is guilty of a crime or sinful decision? How can you be concerned with rape and violence against women and children in Libya, while men are still violating women’s rights in the Stone Age of 2011 right here in America?

Where is Sarah Palin, Hillary Clinton, or Nancy Pelosi on this issue? I must admit I’m a big fan of Sarah Palin’s position on the Second Amendment. Maybe if women watched her TV reality show they would learn to shoot a gun, defend themselves, and avoid being victims. But that doesn’t mean Sarah Palin is blameless. While Palin was mayor of Wasilla, the city billed sexual assault victims and their insurance companies for the cost of rape kits and forensic examinations. One of the legitimate functions of local government is to investigate crimes and prosecute criminals. Why bill the victims for a crime scene investigation? Are other victims of crime other than rape routinely billed for the investigation by government? Perhaps Sarah knew nothing about it then. But now that she does, it’s time she takes a stand against it.

While the GOP is fast tracking the HR-3 bill, do they realize last year only 119 abortions in the United States were covered due to rape? I don’t think cutting out the bill for 119 rape victims will help much with the national debt.

As one of America’s Libertarian/conservative and Tea Party political leaders, I’m a big supporter of cuts in spending and the size of government. We need dramatic cuts and we need them now. I’ve publicly suggested 33% across the board spending cuts over the next three years. I’m a supporter of ending Federal government funding of abortions. It is not Washington’s job to pay for abortions. I believe government has a limited role (as defined by the Constitution), and we should move back to that as quickly as possible. But why not first focus our efforts on spending cuts that most Americans can unite behind?

Combining rape and abortion on the same bill makes no sense. While we should never support the Federal government funding run-of-the-mill abortions, let’s at least be smart about this and make clear to the American public that we care about victims of rape or incest. I want to encourage fellow Americans – and that even includes a few Congressmen– to demonstrate you care for these victims by making a personal online donation to the Rape, Abuse, & Incest National Network (www.rainn.org), or volunteering at a local rape crisis center.

And I want to say two things to Speaker of the House John Boehner, Majority Leader Eric Cantor and the GOP Congress:

First, Americans put you back in power to cut the budget, not to focus on your social agenda, so don’t waste this opportunity by coming across as treating rape or incest victims as criminals.

Second, remember that the majority of Tea Party activists are women. And hell hath no fury like an angry and violated Tea Party woman!

Wayne Allyn Root is a former Libertarian Vice Presidential nominee. He now serves as Chairman of the Libertarian National Congressional Committee. He is the best-selling author of “The Conscience of a Libertarian: Empowering the Citizen Revolution with God, Guns, Gold & Tax Cuts.” His web site: www.ROOTforAmerica.com

78 thoughts on “Wayne Root:”Why Do Politicians Want to Punish Rape Victims?”

  1. Gene Berkman Post author

    Excellent commentary by Wayne Root.

    The Republicans have lost sight of personal liberty in their crusade to take away a woman’s right to control her own body.

    In February Bloomberg.com ran a commentary by Ann Woolner on Republican proposals to prohibit use of funds from Medical Savings Accounts to pay for abortions:
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-11/republicans-hug-big-government-in-abortion-fight-ann-woolner.html

    This is consistent with the statist idea that all our income belongs to the government, and a tax break is a “favor” to the taxpayer.

  2. Roger Gary

    As a libertarian I am opposed to the federal government financing any medical procedure. Period. End of discussion.

  3. Robert Milnes

    Berkman is supplementing the spoonfeeding of almost daily Root rot to IPR.
    Meanwhile paulie is going around editing my comments & I’m having problems commenting-even on the segregated **** thread.
    IPR>TPW?
    radicals, start thinking of where to go from here.

  4. Steven R Linnabary

    As a libertarian I am opposed to the federal government financing any medical procedure.

    We’re not talking about a “medical” procedure. We’re talking about crime investigation.

    Period. End of discussion.

    PEACE

  5. Steven R Linnabary

    Wayne is finally bashing Republicans. That is a good thing.

    AND Root never mentions Obama even once!!

    It IS refreshing!

    Further, this is an issue that Libertarians can all get behind. And it is an issue that NOBODY else has brought up.

    Will the LP write a release about this callous bill?

    PEACE

  6. Dan Singleton

    What kind of libertarian thinks that the federal government funding health care (if an organization that has killed more babies than Hitler can even be considered “health care”) is even constitutional, much less a good idea?

  7. Let tax hefty on Pro-lifers that force this issue

    A lot of true conservative are good on a lot of issues except this one. I butt heads with the Pro-lifers. I have seen up close what it does to people and families in cases like this. It is very very sad when a daughter is raped by her dad and there are just too much that goes on. I have spoken up to even Sharron Angle on this one. I was told that she wasn’t going to push her view on others. I said I hope not. But it is very bad when people will vote Dumcrap on this alone. The dumcrap offer pro-choice, but a lot of other socialist views while the Repuli, more so RINO’s offer areas of socialism and pro-life. A true conservative who is for gun rights and lower taxes, thats great. However they really need to change the stance on abortion and allow people deal with this privately. Let the Pro-lifers pay a hefty tax for being pro-life to support the unwanted children, then lets see how much they will stay a pro-life.

  8. Tom Blanton

    Since when is rape under the purview of the federal government?

    Also, did any libertarian really believe that the GOP was going to make any significant cuts in government spending? These lying authoritarians have been talking about small government all my life and they have yet to demonstrate this by any actual action.

    We would all be better off if the federal government stayed out of rape and another contest between politicians about who cares the most about rape victims and who will be tougher on rapists.

    With Congress in charge, it wouldn’t be long before merely looking at a woman would constitute a criminal conspiracy to rape with suspects subject to enhanced interrogation and being offered plea bargains to avoid mandatory life sentences.

    Let rape be a local issue.

  9. Don Grundmann

    Mr. Root needs minimally needs a lesson in history; specifically that of Planned Parenthood.

    The real title of Charles Darwins most famous book is – On the Origin of Species AND THE PRESERVATION OF FAVORED RACES. It was this book which spawned the movement known as ” Social Darwinism ” which was dedicated to preserving the genetic superiority of the caucasians over their perceived ( via Darwin ) genetically inferior non-white enemies. It was this movement ( from which also sprang the ” Eugenics ” – race science – movement which the Nazis totally supported and which they imported from America ) which created, via the foaming-at-the-mouth racist Margaret Sanger ( who in her own writings called blacks ” human weeds ” ), Planned Parenthood. The entire purpose of Planned Parenthood has always and to this day been ( inclusive of ” international family planning ” ) to destroy the non-white enemies of the caucasian self-perceived Superiors. Any caucasians who die(d) are/were considered as ” white trash ” who also served the purpose of being useful covers for and diversions away from Planned Parenthoods real purpose of racial genocide. All of this is documented at BLACKGENOCIDE.ORG. If females want abortions government does not need to fund them; especially when the organization getting the money is dedicated to racist genocide. Believers in the religion of so-called ” Pro-Choice ” will be more than happy to pay for the deaths of as many children as possible. They should not get government aid to accomplish their aims. My own belief is that abortion actually supports and encourages rape since abortion has the same philosophy – the child is disposable crap – that the rapist has toward his target. Hence the bottom line battle is between Christian values – the singular, inherent, and inviolable value of the human being versus the anti-Christian Planned Parenthood and Social Darwinist/” Pro-Choice ” opposite that believes in ” survival of the fittest,” i.e.; power wins out which is also known as ” the law of the jungle.”

    Unfortunately only the Constitution Party openly stands in defense of the value of human life, the value of women, and the value of children. Every other party, inclusive of a Republican Party controlled by ” moderates,” is controlled by or simply mouths the Social Darwinist philosophy.

    Perhaps Mr. Root can take a stand against racial genocide, governmental endorsement of such, and the mass murder which it produces and which has already killed; and continues to kill to this second; countless millions; half of which were women. Such a stand will save the lives of countless women and children.

    Don J. Grundmann, D.C. Chairman American Independent Party, California branch of the Constitution Party

  10. Tom Blanton

    This Root article isn’t at NewsMax either – it must be one of those special columns in the special newsletter for members of the Reagan Libertarian Insiders’ Club.

    And like who’s going to fork over hundreds of bucks to belong to that group just to get a sinking newsletter? Even if it does contain secrets on how to get rich through multi-level marketing and sports betting.

  11. John Jay Myers

    I can’t believe this is Wayne, it doesn’t mention Obama, it rips on Republicans, it is an issue most of us don’t even really touch.

    I don’t think that rape or incest or even murder are the Federal governments business, but I think this sends the right message, and it just sounds libertarianesque without the the bitter aftertaste.

    I could have done without the Sarah Palin or Tea Party reference only because it seems like he was trying to force them into the article.

    But good job, except for my knit picking this was really good.

    If he is not putting this on his site, where is he putting it? I thought he put everthing on his site.

  12. Catholic Trotskyist

    Good post Don Grundman. At 10, I hope the Republicans do change their mind on abortion. Then the true pro-life conservatives can join the Constitution Party, and the silent majority of pro-life liberals can join the Catholic Trotskyist Party.

  13. Thomas L. Knapp

    Second look: I still suspect that this is either a general April Fool’s joke, or an attempt to punk IPR, on someone’s part. Usually when Wayne puts something out, it shows up on his own blog, at Newsmax, etc. This doesn’t seem to be anywhere except IPR.

    I support “de-funding” Planned Parenthood for any number of reasons, but I do agree with Wayne (if that’s really him) that doing so, especially in conjunction with rape-related legislation, is a big loser in the role of GOP show-off bullet point.

  14. LibertarianGirl

    unfunding Planned Parenthood ,and turning our backs on rape victims are 2 entirely different things. how many abortions in general v.s how many rape abortions is im certain quite a large gap.

    its no secret PP was founded by a racist who believed in eugenics. Nowadays , teens can get them w/o parental consent , some women use it as birth control and a plethora of other reasons , including rape.

    i personally believe abortions should be legal but others dont and should not have to have tax payer money go there.

    there are many ways PP could remain funded , Im certain womens groups , donors , among a ton of other avenues would keep the doors open .

    As for rape victims , unwed young mothers and others in dire need , i refuse to believe w/o goverment help that the needy would go unhelped. The gov has consistenty cost more and done less and a poor job at almost ( maybe every) form of welfare. trust me at least a chunk of that funding will be eaten up in bureaucracy and red tape ,

    churches , friends , families , outreach groups , communities , womens groups ,caring kind people and even celebrities are always available for getting unding for food , medicine , shelters , abused women , runaway teens etc etc.

    raped women would not be forced to pay for kits or abortions ….
    i believe this because i believe in the kindness of people

  15. Robert Capozzi

    Substantively, this essay is fine, IMO. If the Rs are wasting political capital on abortion funding to the exclusion of real cuts (which some Rs may actually want and which the Tea Party probably does), that does seem like a bad idea. Conflating abortion funding with the relatively-rare case of abortions for rape victims seems (sorry, can’t think of a better word) insensitive. Putting it in the headline amplifies the insensitivity.

    Mocking Boehner for crying seemed gratuitous and cruel. I’d admire Ron Paul just as much as I do if he publicly cried, for ex.

    This could have been a good essay, IMO, if the narrative was:

    1) Rs are wasting capital on PP funding.
    2) Reasonable people can disagree on when life begins and when fetuses should be protected by law.
    3) If Root really felt strongly about the right to abort rape-created fetuses…we should realize that many believe that some abortions are the result of rapes
    4) Root could have stated his position, which I am not sure what it is…leave abortions to the states, get FedGov out, for ex.
    5) IF Root’s extreme examples are true, he could cite them here. (I think it’s not clear whether this factoid (“politicians are now choosing to cut spending on abortions and medical care for rape and incest victims,”) is a single piece of legislation or, as is more likely, PART of the effort to defund PP. Perhaps PP should be defunded EXCEPT for cases of rape as part of the transition of this program to the states or charitable funding.
    6) Singly out PP funding – to zero — is a mistake. This maneuver may jeopardize any serious efforts (or even tame ones!) to cut federal spending. It’s a battle for another day.

    Like many Ls, Root is an aggressive writer. That’s his strength and IMO also his weakness. When culturally sensitive issues come to the fore, his aggressiveness can come across as offputting.

    Mocking, even demonizing, the “other” side can be effective in whipping up the “true believers.” Still, as a tiny minority, it strikes me that Ls are unlikely to make headway in the public square doing so. I’d think that even absolutist Ls might recognize that aggressively alienating the “other” side could lead to a form of “blowback” – in this case, marginalization. The column represents such an example. Very large numbers of people are pro-life, including Ls, although not me.

    I noted that Mitch Daniels has suggested to Rs that there be a “truce” on social issues. I suspect he means that those are important issues, but with the economy being a mess and now three wars being waged, social issues should be downplayed as agenda items.

    On this, I think Daniels is correct. For Ls, we might continue to bang the drum on SOME social issues like same-gender marriage or medical marijuana, but abortion…not so much. Abortion in cases of rape, definitely not.

    Finally, this: “Second, remember that the majority of Tea Party activists are women. And hell hath no fury like an angry and violated Tea Party woman!” may be true. Many pro-lifers are women, too, perhaps a majority. I would not be surprised is a very large percentage of TP women are pro-life, some strongly so.

    This could have been a B+ effort by Root, but all things considered, C-.

  16. Tom Blanton

    Mocking Boehner for crying seemed gratuitous and cruel.

    I adamantly disagree. Mocking Boehner for any reason is warranted, especially if he smells like booze. Mocking any member of Congress, including Ron Paul, is an American tradition that should be continued, even in these times of great sensitivity.

    The members of Congress mock the American people constantly, it is only fitting that this flagrant animosity is returned. I wholeheartedly support any negative activity directed at members of Congress short of assassination.

  17. David Colborne

    I haven’t seen this essay in my e-mail or on his site, so I have a sneaking suspicion that it’s an April Fool’s prank by someone. If that’s the case, it’s an incredibly well written one. If Wayne didn’t write this, he really should have. Is it pure, unadulterated minarchist-approved Libertarianism? No, but it makes a damn good point – we’re not going to meaningfully cut federal spending if “cut federal spending” is just code for “cut federal spending on special interest groups we don’t like”.

    Regarding the history of Planned Parenthood – so what? People had all sorts of stupid ideas 70-100 years ago, then we outgrew them. Eugenics was mainstream because, before Hitler showed what it really meant to carry out a eugenics-based program, it made a certain amount of sense to the sensibilities of the time. It combined observances from existing agricultural practices (this at a time when most people were at most a generation removed from farming), recent insights in genetics at the scientific level, and a sense of optimism in industrial science and techniques, then applied them to humanity. Getting it out of the mainstream took Hitler, along with a better understanding of genetics and sociology that ultimately proved that things like Down Syndrome and poverty had a lot less to do with inheritable genetics than people originally thought, to finally discredit the movement. Heck, Henry Ford was a big fan of eugenics and a raving anti-Semite – it doesn’t mean we should all stop buying Fords now, nor does it mean that all current C-level employees at Ford are eugenics-worshiping anti-Semites.

    Sorry, but the whole “Years ago, X supported disgraced theory Y, therefore X still supports Y” is the laziest and most obnoxious sort of debate. It removes individual free choice and agency from the current advocates and members of X, whatever X might be, and ascribes to them a set of beliefs that nobody is alive anymore to answer for. It’s not meant to foster intelligent discussion about the merits of a particular institution or their beliefs but instead to shut it down. The same thinking that declares “Planned Parenthood was founded to support a eugenics-driven agenda, so that means they still support it,” is the same lazy, destructive thinking that declares “White people owned slaves, so that means all white people are racist aspiring slave-owners,” or, “Jews killed Christ, so we get to kill Jews.”

    With that out of the way, does Planned Parenthood deserve federal funding? No, but, in their defense, I don’t think anyone else does, either. That said, I do think rape kits and investigative equipment in general should be among the last things we discuss de-funding at any government level. If government does have a legitimate role (and yes, I know that’s certainly open to debate on this board), fair, just, and even enforcement of the law would be it.

  18. paulie

    Meanwhile paulie is going around editing my comments

    False.

    radicals, start thinking of where to go from here.

    “We”?

  19. paulie

    As a libertarian I am opposed to the federal government financing any medical procedure. Period. End of discussion.

    As long as they are still funding anything I would think rape kits and rape investigations would be high up on the list of things to fund.

  20. Daniel Wiener

    Posting articles apparently does not happen everywhere in the world at the same instant. This article is now on Wayne Root’s website as well as on Newsmax. So it’s certainly not an April Fools joke, unlike some of the other stuff on IPR today.

  21. Robert Capozzi

    26 tb, yes, your view reminds me of how Rockwell once told me he views his politics…like a demolition derby.

    If I thought mocking and character assassination worked, I might see its value. It doesn’t so I don’t. Politicians don’t generally “mock” citizens, but they do often/nearly always adopt policies that hurt the mass of citizens. I’ve seen no evidence that that is their intent. It’s more a matter of poor analysis, dysfunctional judgment, and haste intended to get re-elected.

    Perhaps you have seen evidence otherwise. Perhaps you believe attacking pols from the sidelines makes an appreciable difference in their policy stances. I can think of a few cases where that has worked, but generally it has not worked. Repeating the demolition derby approach might feel like vindication in your mind, but to persuade me that outcomes change you’d need to show me why you think so.

    I adamantly disagree. Mocking Boehner for any reason is warranted, especially if he smells like booze. Mocking any member of Congress, including Ron Paul, is an American tradition that should be continued, even in these times of great sensitivity.

    The members of Congress mock the American people constantly, it is only fitting that this flagrant animosity is returned. I wholeheartedly support any negative activity directed at members of Congress short of assassination.

  22. Alan Pyeatt

    O.k., now that we know it’s an authentic article, I have to challenge Wayne (or his supporters) to cite the exact language which would “cut spending on abortions and medical care for rape and incest victims” or “cut funding for rape victims and require them to pay for their own tests and rape kits.”

    The Library of Congress summary tells a very different story about what’s in the bill, and even says, “such prohibitions shall not apply to an abortion if: (1) the pregnancy is the result of forcible rape or, if the pregnant woman is a minor, incest; or (2) the woman suffers from a physical disorder, injury, or illness, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, that would place her in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, as certified by a physician. ” I don’t see anything in the summary about rape test kits or any law enforcement equipment or procedures whatsoever: http://thomas.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d112:1:./temp/~bdR6Sa:@@@D&summ2=m&|/home/LegislativeData.php|

    Somebody’s spreading hogwash here. If it’s the Library of Congress’ Thomas website, then Wayne can point to the actual language in the bill.

  23. Alan Pyeatt

    It occurs to me that maybe the article appeared on IPR before it appeared on Wayne’s blog and Newsmax because Wayne’s using IPR to gather comments and “test the water” before publishing it to a broader audience.

    If so, then I think that’s a good idea and would encourage him to continue doing so in the future. (Obviously, I don’t speak for Paulie or anybody else at IPR.) However, that doesn’t relieve him of the responsibility for diligent fact-checking.

  24. Jill Pyeatt

    Alan, your link isn’t working (it says it’s been timed out). Can you fix it, or perhaps find it elsewhere?

  25. Daniel Wiener

    I have some of the same questions as Alan @ 35. All I could find on line was a January 20th version of H.R.-3; does anyone have more up-to-date language? That old version says nothing about rape kits or victims paying for their own tests.

    I have seen some criticisms on blogs which argue that victims might have to shell out their own money for rape testing so that they could later prove to the IRS that any medical tax deductions or HSA expenditures for abortions met the rape or incest exception. Maybe that’s what is being referred to? But I can’t find anything which says or implies that a victim who reports a crime to the police would then have to pay for the forensic testing.

    Various news reports also say that the word “forcible” which was briefly added as a modifier to “rape” has since been removed from the bill.

    So I remain puzzled by a lot of Wayne’s article. I’m really hoping that either Wayne or someone else here can provide some clarity and hopefully some links to additional information. Because my own research has been unsuccessful.

  26. Don Grundmann

    ” Regarding the history of Planned Parenthood – so what? People had all sorts of stupid ideas 70-100 years ago, then we outgrew them.”

    Response – The Social Darwinist and anti-Christian philosophy of Planned Parenthood has NEVER been ” outgrown ” nor has it changed in any way. As BLACKGENOCIDE.ORG documents the jihad of the Religion of Pro-Choice goes on to this second against the black community in our nation and, via ” international family planning,” throughout the world. In fact the primary foreign policy focus of the U.S. government still, nearly 40 years later, hinges upon the implimentation of National Security Study Memorandum 200 ( NSSM-200 ) which was formulated in approximately 1973 via Henry Kissinger and Brent Scowcroft. Its Darwinist philosophy maintained that the number 1 security threat to the U.S. was overpopulation in ( surprise, surprise ) non-white nations around the world who would, without our ” help ” in reducing their populations; i.e.; killing them, challenge us for the resources our economy needs to function. Bottom line – Just as Planned Parenthood adopted its name after WWII as an advertising/public relations gimmick to deflect its support of and founding by the Eugenics movement of WWII and before so does its foundational Darwinian philosophy continue to this second via the ” health centers ” which dispense their ” help ” to the targets of this never dying concept for and love of the death of presumed and assumed genetic inferiors. Eugenics is alive and well in our nation to this second. Just check the phone book of any major city. Just check out the statistics which show that black communities are targeted by Planned Parenthood and their genocidal friends. Just check the political support for abortion of all ( except the Constitution Party both nationally and in California ) major and minor parties throughout the nation. Of course everyone will laughably and pathetically hide behind the pant legs/dresses of females in claiming that their support for abortion is in fact support for women; despite the fact that 1/2 of the millions of children killed are women and irrespective of the many other virtually countless horrors that abortion inflicts upon women. The documented and right-out-in-the-open attack upon the black community, and on all other non-whites, is simply and incredibly ignored. Is this an accident??? Answer – no possible way. There is, and always has been, a Mount Everest of money behind the Darwinist genocide attack against humanity. Minimally too much money is at stake to try to rock the boat. Maximally these same forces have no intention of losing their jihad against humanity. One way or the other they and their virtually countless lackeys will keep their enemies in check – permanently and no matter what it costs to do so.

    Don J. Grundmann, D.C. Chairman American Independent Party, California branch of the Constitution Party

  27. Jill Pyeatt

    I’ve been a little confused as well. Is Wayne saying that the federal government should pay for rape kits AND any resulting abortion? If that is indeed what you’re saying, Wayne, then should the federal government pay the victim for the negative result of any crime?

    I’m not trying to pick a fight , I’m just really unclear about the intent of the article.

  28. Alan Pyeatt

    O.k., the search results time out so you have to go to http://thomas.gov/, then click the button for “Bill Number,” then type “HR 3” into the search box.

    Sorry about that.

  29. Ayn R. Key

    Wayne is trying here. He’s trying to reach out to the libertarian wing of the Libertarian Party. He understands that libertarians are not just “socially tolerant” but downright “socially liberal”. Unfortunately he really doesn’t understand it very well and falls back into the “they must be Democrats on this subject” false dichotomy that plagues the Reform caucus.

  30. Robert Capozzi

    40 jp, it’s not clear what Root’s view is. If government (at some level) paid for rape kits, I certainly have no objection, as it’s police work. If government (at some level) subsidizes/pays for a rape-created abortion, I also have no objection.

    I can understand why an anarchist would, since an anarchist often adopts MNR’s “no particular order” stance. This stance may seem “consistent” and “principled,” but I’d say it lacks a sense of proportion.

    To the extent that the Rs in Congress are pushing for slightly bigger cuts in federal spending than the Ds, it would be a tragic if their efforts are sabotaged by this effort to defund PP. Most Ls would ultimately wish to see PP subsidies go away, but I’d like to think that we’re savvy enough to realize that we would not push for ending PP subsidies to the exclusion of other federal overstepping. Not being at the table, our critique of the State remains largely unheard. Pity.

  31. Gains

    RC @45:

    Personally, I have seen JP @40 doing political action that is party building and does engage “the table” more and more as her circle of activists grows. Its at a local level so far, but her dedication to her local party is commendable and she, sir, is running the practical game you have expressed wanting to see done.

    I understand why you might think that a philosophic anarchist and practical, productive political action are mutually exclusive. JP is proof that you would be incorrect if that were so.

    You should visit her sometime, I think you would be impressed… and make a lot of friends 🙂

  32. Robert Capozzi

    46 g, sure, anarchists can believe that statelessness is an ideal and yet engage the center. As a theoretical asymptotic anarchist, that’s close to my view, too, although I’m skeptical that actual statelessness is possible in a sustainable way in a modern social order.

    I was making no comment on JP’s effectiveness. I was actually agreeing with her that Root’s column leaves a lot of answered questions. (Assuming it wasn’t a 4/1 prank.)

  33. Michael H. Wilson

    RC @ 45 writes: “Not being at the table, our critique of the State remains largely unheard. Pity.”

    We might try writing to our congressional delegation as a starting point for getting our message out. Next would be to ask for an appointment when the member is in their home district and of course speaking at town hall meeting.

  34. Robert Capozzi

    48 mhw, yes, one could do that. However, most MCs possess a completely different worldview than myself and most Ls. Re-orienting their thinking toward maximizing liberty as a constituent seems quixotic. It seems more likely that running credible L candidates might pay higher dividends, as we would be challenging them at a higher level.

  35. Robert Capozzi

    50 mhw, yes, I’ve been watching the efforts of the RLC over the years. Largely, the results have been minor at best.

    It’s a question of bandwidth and a calculation of what’s likely to be effective. Different people will come to different conclusions on what is likely to be effective given one’s current set of resources.

  36. JT

    Jill: “I’ve been a little confused as well. Is Wayne saying that the federal government should pay for rape kits AND any resulting abortion? If that is indeed what you’re saying, Wayne, then should the federal government pay the victim for the negative result of any crime?”

    Yeah, it’s not a very clear piece. I think his point is that he doesn’t think the federal government should have anything to do with abortion, but abortion-related funding shouldn’t be one of the first things cut by Congress? Seems like an odd thing for a Libertarian to write about, especially given everything else politically that’s going on right now.

  37. Thomas L. Knapp

    JT @ 33,

    You write:

    “I think his point is that he doesn’t think the federal government should have anything to do with abortion, but abortion-related funding shouldn’t be one of the first things cut by Congress?”

    That’s not how I read it. More like his point is that if the GOP makes — or allows the Democrats to make — cutting this particular funding a “marquee item,” then the debate will be seen as about this particular funding rather than about the need to make big cuts in the budget and that that shift of perception will work to the disadvantage of fiscal conservatives.

  38. Robert Capozzi

    tk has a more likely take on Root-o-glyphics than JT here, IMO. I happen to agree with this take, yet I would not have made this point, particularly not in this way.

  39. JT

    Knapp: “That’s not how I read it. More like his point is that if the GOP makes — or allows the Democrats to make — cutting this particular funding a “marquee item,” then the debate will be seen as about this particular funding rather than about the need to make big cuts in the budget and that that shift of perception will work to the disadvantage of fiscal conservatives.”

    That could be. I was basing what I said on this:

    “As one of America’s Libertarian/conservative and Tea Party political leaders, I’m a big supporter of cuts in spending and the size of government. We need dramatic cuts and we need them now. I’ve publicly suggested 33% across the board spending cuts over the next three years. I’m a supporter of ending Federal government funding of abortions. It is not Washington’s job to pay for abortions. I believe government has a limited role (as defined by the Constitution), and we should move back to that as quickly as possible. But why not first focus our efforts on spending cuts that most Americans can unite behind?”

  40. Robert Capozzi

    52 jt: …but abortion-related funding shouldn’t be one of the first things cut by Congress?

    me: It’s not that your interpretation is “off,” it’s that TK IDed the more important nuance in his take: The notion of making abortion defunding the “marquee” issue.

    The Rs have increasingly allowed the social cons to have a veto on the GOP’s positions. They are even in many ways becoming the driving force of all actions by R pols. They would rather go for broke to defund PP EVEN IF that positioning jeopardizes their efforts to trim the growth of federal spending.

    The extremism of the social cons blinds them to political realities and opportunities. They are so fixated about abortions that this issue dictates all their political positioning. Of course, PP is not the only way a woman can get an abortion, making this gambit all the more ill conceived. I could see their logic if somehow they could reverse Roe v. Wade as part of this budget wrangling, but that is not at option for them at the moment. Even if they get PP defunded, then, it’s not much of a “win” for them.

    For Ls, this should do two things:

    1) Illustrate the importance have having a sense of proportion when negotiating in the public square.

    2) Provide us with further validation that a real third party is a ripe idea. The Rs are run by the social cons and the neocons. The fiscal cons are simply not being represented.

    NAP zealousness is IMO more disproportionate than pro-life zealousness. At least pro-life zealots have a tangible goal: in their minds, saving lives. If we continue to cling to an absolutist stance on the NAP, the fiscal cons will continue to be unrepresented, unless some other force takes a seat at the table. That force is NOT looking like the Tea Party, which is quickly being co-opted by the social cons.

  41. Thomas L. Knapp

    “If we continue to cling to an absolutist stance on the NAP, the fiscal cons will continue to be unrepresented”

    And if you voted for Goldwater, you’d get a war in Southeast Asia.

  42. Gains

    TK @57:

    If you vote for Goldwater you will get Nuclear War! 10… 9… 8…

    The GOP will, if they think they can unseat Obama, run a Huckabee or a Romney. It will not matter how many libertarians there are, there will never be a libertarian GOP candidate in a race that might win.

    The only chance that Ron or Rand Paul for instance might be considered is if they knew it was a loser like in 1964. Then they will offer them up as sacrificial lambs and participate in the shark attack to destroy the freedom movement in their party.

    It is what they do for coalition management. It is why they are bleeding voters faster than the Democrats, who at least put up a facade of caring for their base.

    RC @56:

    You are as much an anti-NAP-absolutist as any NAP-absolutist I’ve met; or at least it comes off that way. Man, I think that if you want to concentrate on practical work like electing people to office, you are on the wrong tack.

    Leave the philosophers alone and do your thing man. In my book it is absolutism of any type that leads to crazy, out of control, and inappropriate projects that diminish good works with force or fraud.

  43. Alan Pyeatt

    The GOP will not nominate Ron or Rand Paul in 2012. They can’t afford to let them on a stage that big, because even in losing the election, either one of them would spread the philosophy of liberty. The GOP can’t afford that, because it would spread like a disease.

    The social conservatives and neo-cons are having a hard enough time fighting libertarianism as it is. They will keep trying to make the Pauls (and all libertarian Republicans) look like extremists or idiots, and will probably find ways to limit free speech on the internet and other non-MSM communication channels.

  44. Gains

    AP @59: “The GOP will not nominate Ron or Rand Paul in 2012. They can’t afford to let them on a stage that big, because even in losing the election, either one of them would spread the philosophy of liberty. The GOP can’t afford that, because it would spread like a disease.”

    I hear your sentiment, and were the GOP leadership of a reasonable mind for engaging the body politic I might agree with you. I think that they are entrenched and immovable, and they are existing in a paradigm of denial of what people want.

    The GOP has a formula for dealing with internal insurgents and it is ablative. If you could convince me that the delegate selection process is headed by fair minded representatives I might give your position more credence but it does not feel that way at all. I think that much of the delegation will be decided by the old guard again this election and they will pull whatever dirty tricks they need to keep it that way just like they did in 2008.

    It is a terrible model for a political party. It may be a good way to keep one faction in power in perpetuity, but it is a recipe for bleeding off everyone else. The GOP is failing to pick up new voters. Part of that is because of how young people view their capacity for being effective in the party they choose. The Democrats are doing better there but not by much because they too encapsulate their coalitions partners for control.

    The party that restores faith in sound ethical and inclusive coalition behavior will be the one that attracts new voters. Choosing expedience and control over purpose and representation is a breach of the primacy of a political party is and voters are hungry for a solid flag to gather around. It is in this concept of fairness and representation an independent or third party movement can prosper. The dirty tricks and exclusiveness that are the stuck rudders in the two status quo parties are their weakness.

  45. Robert Capozzi

    57 tk, yes, Goldwater was a fiscal con and probably not what we’d today call “neoCon.” I’d cut him a bit of slack in the sense that the “Red Menace” was in many ways a clear and present danger, as they had the wherewithal to launch major attacks on the US. SOME slack. I think Vietnam was a mistake, but Goldwater’s position was that IF the US is to fight there, it should do a full-out onslaught vs. the police action it did. That was not an unreasonable position on its face.

    Fiscal cons in the Goldwater mold I — a dove — can have a meaningful conversation with. In my experience, social cons and Neocons are too far gone in their ideology to actually communicate with.

    58 g: Man, I think that if you want to concentrate on practical work like electing people to office, you are on the wrong tack.

    me: Thanks for your advice. I am just one person with VERY limited resources. My Johnny-One-Note theme — NAP absolutism relegates L-ism to the fringes — is about all I can offer at this time. As a caucus of one, I simply challenge the premises of both NAPsolutists and Reagan Ls. My hope is, at a minimum, NAPsolutists and Reagan Ls will re-examine their ideas and strategies, perhaps making them more powerful and persuasive.

    I could throw in the towel, acceding to either approach in the name of a greater good. At the moment, that lacks integrity for me, though.

  46. Don Grundmann

    ” The extremism of the social cons blinds them to political realities and opportunities. They are so fixated about abortions that this issue dictates all their political positioning.”

    Response – Is it REALLY ” extremism ” that brings what are referred to as the ” social cons ” ( or anyone else ) to work to defund the most racist organization in the history of the nation; one which has killed more blacks/non-whites than the KKK ever dreamed of killing or could possibly achieve??? Do ” political realities and opportunities ” dictate that such a genocidal organization be both defended and untouched in the political/financial discussions of our nation?? If so, if these points are considered to be true, that goes a long way to explaining why America is in the deep hole on so many fronts that it is. When political parties dare not to challenge the power of Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry as a whole because they will culturally, socially, or in any other way be made to ” look bad,” i.e.; when it is more important to protect their precious ego and ” image ” than to stop literal genocide against black or any other citizens then the REAL core problem of our nation is exposed as the collapse of morality; that religious, and in America specifically Christian, term that political parties and their members ( except for the Constitution Party and pro-life Republicans ) run like rabbits from except when they complain about Christian morality being ” extremist,” yada, yada, yada. In this collapse of morality as long as any ” morality ” standards support their immorality then everything is cool, including when the black race and countless other citizens are literally under a genocidal attack right in front of their ( if they really wanted to see ) eyes. Perhaps America could not only survive but (re)prosper by trying a novel concept – do what is right ( like working to stop genocide against our citizens ) and say the hell with ” political positioning.” That is what the Constitution Party and pro-life Republicans have been doing but of course we get bricks thrown at us in response. Will the Libertarians EVER condemn such genocide much less join forces with others to stop it?? I won’t be holding my breath waiting for that to happen as I will get ( and have already gotten ) enough bricks, if not simple deafening silence on the subject, thrown at me for raising the genocide issue much less other collapse of morality issues. The Democrats and Greens will of course NEVER denounce or challenge the genocide in any way since they are its most open supporters and cheerleaders even when they incredibly cry crocodile tears of being defenders of the very people they attack. Hence the field is open for the Libertarian Party to politically position ( if nothing else ) itself as working to defend the black community from attack. Will they step forward to do the right thing or simply ( because they don’t want to, or dare, ” look bad ” ) blow it off and ignore it as our nation, with the ever willing compliance and aid of the media ( who in fact agree with the genocide ) as controlled by the Plantation Masters of the nation, has done to this moment? Perhaps Libertarians can join the Constitution Party and the forces of the pro-life Republicans with ” political positioning ” being damned for the greater, and real, cause of being ” fixated ” on the value of human life. Will they work to defend human life or cower in the corner lest they be accused of being ” extremists?”

    Don J. Grundmann, D.C. Chairman American Independent Party, California branch of the Constitution Party

  47. Robert Capozzi

    62 dg, thanks for making your stance so plain. You seem certain that your position is THE “moral” one, and pro-choicers are “immoral.” Most pro-choicers I know would beg to differ, and there are an awful lot of them.

    I consider the death penalty to be “immoral.” However, I recognize that mine is a minority view. I COULD insist that Congress defund all states that use this barbaric act, sometimes killing innocent people who’ve been long outside the womb. (I doubt I’d get an audience, however.)

    I don’t do that, not because I don’t hold my position strongly (I do), but because I recognize (a) my view of morality in this matter is a minority one and (b) because I believe other liberty infringements are of a higher priority, in part because they are more likely to be successful. I could become a single-issue crusader against the death penalty, but at the moment I’m dealing with the practice, offensive as it is to me.

  48. Gains

    RC @61:

    It seems to me that ammeliorating the effects of extreme people like what you identify as a “NAPsolutist” is better found in empowering those not they. I think that it is the exclusive nature of that type that is really harmful, that the exclusion is what pain you point at and the “NAP” is only thematic. Concentrating on the behavior that is damaging can heal the issue. Making an object out of it and assigning people into positions of objects only strengthens the mania and obfuscates the problem.

  49. Robert Capozzi

    64 G, you may be right. However, given the static I saw on the 08 Platcom over even deleting what came to be known as the “private nuke” clause, I can’t say I agree. Near as I could tell, the NAPsolutists didn’t defend the clause per se…even they saw that it was extreme.

    I prefer to no longer tell the Emperor he has clothes on when he doesn’t. I’m going right at the cancer that sabotages the cause of liberty at the inception point: The NAP itself. More properly, I’m challenging the literalistic interpretation of the NAP, I’m OK with the sentiment.

    If I thought I was strengthening the mania, I’d stop. But I’ve watched it for 30 years and I’ve seen no evidence that it is abating from benign neglect.

    As for empowering those who do not think the NAP is the shit, most of them are right-wing fusionists, near as I can tell. That’s not my bag, either. Nor is running on a treadmill…it goes nowhere fast.

  50. Gains

    RC @66:

    Seriously it almost feels like you have latched onto a self defined conundrum by creating an object “NAPsolutist” defining it, justifying it and celebrating it.

    I am ok with “NAPsolutist” as a sentiment but… 🙂

    I think that there are buds of healthy Libertarians around and they need solid positive experienced input from people that can empower them. Warnings of this extreme element or that thing then… is not useful to them. They want to know what has worked, and why, not what is broken.

    It is not that mistakes do not provide lessons. To find value in mistakes does not reside within the mistake itself. It is in the positive understanding that comes from it. Mistakes do not empower you by concentrating on the people involved either. It is the solution in the end that is important and the personality is a side note.

    In 30 years what positive lessons learned can you provide our new members. I understand that you work as you can and you do what you can in electronic communication? I am betting that what you might offer in real value is considerable. 🙂

    The only thing it might cost you is a tiny change of frame to no loss of self or purpose.

  51. Alan Pyeatt

    Gains @ 60: The GOP, just like the Democratic Party, exists for one purpose only: to transfer wealth and power from the masses to the elite. Period. No, most of the rank and file members probably don’t understand that, but the leadership does.

    Gains: “If you could convince me that the delegate selection process is headed by fair minded representatives I might give your position more credence but it does not feel that way at all.”

    Me: Why would I try to convince you of that? You obviously see the paradigm differently than I do. I met a Ron Paul Republican who was trying to get funding for a federal lawsuit because (according to him) the GOP was violating its own rules to prevent Dr. Paul’s supporters in Los Angeles County from being seated at their meetings. My view of their internal dynamics does not assume that they are fair, it assumes exactly the opposite.

    IMO, at some level whether the GOP or the Democrats win an election is not the issue. They BOTH serve pretty much the same masters, so their rivalry doesn’t matter to those at the top of the food chain. What DOES matter is keeping ideas and personalities that would expose this whole sham out of the media. That’s why the GOP leadership has to suppress the Ron Paul supporters as much as they can. After all, they can’t have anybody derailing their gravy train.

    In fact, if the left and right wings of the American political system seem somewhat evenly matched, the cover story seems much more plausible to the sheeple who need to be lulled into complacency. Clinton instead of Bush I? Obama instead of McCain? Tweedledee and Tweedledum, as one of Dr. Paul’s early campaign fliers put it.

    But I could be wrong. After all, I read lots of Murray Rothbard (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard62.html). And some of his detractors, like Cass Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule (http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/387.pdf).

  52. Gains

    AP @68: “Why would I try to convince you of that? You obviously see the paradigm differently than I do.”

    Because I am a rational, empathic human being that is constantly evolving and learning. I enjoy discourse for the strengthening of wit and the consideration of the new. When I stop learning and growing I will be dead.

    You honor everyone participating in the conversation with your feedback. I hope that you do not feel that my disagreement on any issue should halt you expounding your thoughts. I, myself, am not above playing devils advocate to better understand another persons point.

    I think that for you to say, Ron Paul should get the support of every freedom lover. I am bound to agree with you. The pressure would be enormous. Not bad for Libertarians in any scenario.

    I do want to accentuate that it is not the end all win for those in the third party movement. That we should be working hard to make sure we are positioned to push hard when he runs (I am being assumptive) and to not let that push blow us up, because the insurgent parties are going to be a large part of the coming political shakedown.

  53. Robert Capozzi

    67 g: In 30 years what positive lessons learned can you provide our new members.

    me: Being involved in politics at any level is a personal decision that either enhances one’s sense of personal growth or not. Fair-minded openness and skepticism of statements by authorities is highly liberating. This includes “friends” and “foes.” Whether it’s MNR telling us that fetuses are parasites or W telling us that Saddam had WMD, both statements have some truth and a lot of hyperbole. When one recognizes that no one has a monopoly on truth, including oneself, the liberation begins.

    Despite my diagnosis that NAPsolutism has checked the growth and effectiveness of L ideas, our ideas have been of some consequence. 30 years ago, few believed in the benefits of capitalism, now many do. L social ideas have slowly and circuitously eroded the conventional wisdom about personal behavior. And challenging the notion of the US as world’s policeman was once conventional wisdom; despite the setback of 9/11, more and more see that empire-like behavior is counterproductive.

    If there were no political parties, it’s my sense that a moderate L could be elected president. A fiscal conservative, social liberal, war averse candidate is positioning that tens of millions agree with today. If true, it’s a very hopeful sign.

  54. Don Grundmann

    ” 62 dg, thanks for making your stance so plain. You seem certain that your position is THE “moral” one, and pro-choicers are “immoral.” Most pro-choicers I know would beg to differ, and there are an awful lot of them.”

    Response – Robert, thank you for your commentary but I must ask – Do pro-choicers, and/or for that matter Libertarians, object to genocide? If they see the statistics and documentation at BLACKGENOCIDE.ORG which show how the black community has been attacked by the abortion industry/Social Darwinist religion will they still ” beg to differ?” My own prediction/answer is YES and emphatically so since, as I mentioned before, they are 1) not will to give up their own socially engineered belief that there are ” too many people ” ( while leaving out the words ” non-white ” ); 2) not willing to openly admit that they support genocide as an/the answer to ” The Problem,” and 3) don’t want to ” look bad ” ( the horror of horrors for any anti-God person ) leaving the only option to ” beg to differ ” regarding their ” Emperors New Clothes ” morality; such as it is. Unfortunately my own experience with Libertarians is that they will scream like wounded vampires/banshees over drug legalization but when it comes to confronting literal racial genocide they are bored to death/tears/sleep and will not lift a finger to do anything but complain like #21 above – ” Grundmann, your comment is so wrong on so many levels. – while, as usual, providing no specifics. Of course that is exactly one reason why the genocide is so successful. Another reason can be that ( my prediction ) a lot of the big cheese moneybags of the Libertarian Party support the genocide. So given a choice between defending the black community from slaughter and confronting the rodents within their party who support, endorse, and impliment that slaughter we all know what group will be ” thrown under the bus. Too bad. Here is a perfect opportunity for the Libertarian Party to

  55. Don Grundmann

    Robert – to complete my above commentary – Here is a perfect opportunity for the Libertarian Party to stand up for humanity in general and the black race in particular. To stand for that most basic freedom – the freedom to live. Too bad that a great moment will find ( my prediction – which could be wrong? ) a group of ” trolls under the bridge ” who will work not to defend those under attack but to support their attackers/overlords in exchange for the scraps which fall from their Masters table.

    Don J. Grundmann, D.C. Chairman American Independent Party, California branch of the Constitution Party

  56. Gains

    Yes but sell it to libertarians on the “government should not be funding this” aspect of it is my advice. There are Libertarians that may agree with you on the evils of planned anything to do with childbirth and birth control. That government would do any spending on programs that dicker with reproduction feels icky in the extreme.

    What about the genocide of black people in the American justice system too? The dissolution of family values with prohibitionist reactions to the drug problem?

  57. Robert Capozzi

    72 dg, I respect that you sincerely believe that abortion is murder and, near as I can tell, that PP is a eugenics outfit, targeting especially blacks for “genocide.” Fair? Being open minded, I’ll take a look, and then start asking questions…

    Let’s see, in 1970, the US pop. was about 203MM and African Americans were 11.1% of the pop. In 2010, US pop. was about 309MM and African Americans were 12.2% of the pop.

    On its face, your case seems VERY weak to me. I see no case that “genocide” is happening. The pop. is growing, both black and non-black.

    So, it sounds to me like you are wildly overstating your case. Do correct my perception if I’m missing something.

    I have not looked closely at PP’s history. Perhaps it was part of a eugenics movement at one point. It might even be one now, but the record shows they are ineffective at causing “genocide.” There is no genocide, against any race or generally.

    I respect the pro-life position, though I’m tepidly pro choice. As a matter of law, I believe the Supremes overreached in Roe v. Wade, but I happen think believe their conclusion was pretty good policy. A woman has the right to control her body until the fetus starts to become too close to being a human, at which point that human starts to gain superior rights. Much of this is gray, I fully admit.

    Were it up to me, I would defund PP tomorrow. Of course, I would defund a LOT of government programs. I would also defund capital punishment. If PP was a “genocidal” organization, I would FUND government efforts to stop them.

    My feedback is that your wild overstatement hurts your case. If pro-lifers want to win the argument, they need to convince a lot more people that abortion is murder and that a woman’s right to control her body ends at the moment of conception.

    My take is that the political situation in DC is: will the budget be “cut” $60b or $30b? I prefer $60b. Both numbers are too low, but the forces that want $60b want further cuts down the road. IMO, it’s imperative that the budget be slashed for all 300MM of us. I want that theme to prevail. If the forces that CLAIM, at least, to want to cut spending lose this first battle because they are fixated on PP subsidies, I’d call that poor tactics and prioritization, from a realpolitick perspective. Full PP defunding is a battle for another day, as I see it.

  58. JT

    Most Libertarians simply don’t accept your premise about abortions being genocide, Grundmann, so there’s no reason to speculate about why most Libertarians support “genocide.” They do support ending government funding for Planned Parenthood though (and many other things). That’s the whole explanation.

  59. JT

    I will say though that the claim that “3 out of 5 pregnant African-American women will abort their child” seems amazing to me, given the percentage of black women in the U.S. population. There’s no source listed for this claim, however, so I don’t know where it even came from.

  60. Don Grundmann

    ” Let’s see, in 1970, the US pop. was about 203MM and African Americans were 11.1% of the pop. In 2010, US pop. was about 309MM and African Americans were 12.2% of the pop.”

    Response : Robert – Thank you for your comments.

    In a post World War II world mass murder of your opponents is a bit more difficult in our relatively open society since we don’t ( yet ) have the secrecy and concentrated power which was available to Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot. Hence the Eugenics crowd, who did in fact start working toward their goals well before WWII and who also hijacked the machinery of our government well before then, have to tailor their attack to the limitations of not being able to wipe out their opponents via mass murder and simply be satisfied with containing and crippling them by teaching them to kill themselves via the ” womans right ” of abortion which, just by coincidence of course, results in at least 1/3 of all abortions being those of black children. Of course the Social Darwinists are also dealing with an international ” problem ” and so in addition to having ” international family planning;” i.e.; overseas killing of their enemies; they; in my opinion, are also the people who created the bio-weapon known as AIDS ( see ” AIDS – The Crime Beyond Belief ” by William and Donald Scott and found at trafford.com ) in order to accomplish a better killing rate over time than the much slower method of abortion could accomplish. Combine this international “outreach ” with the promotion of Uncle Toms/house negroes like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and ( locally ) Barbara Lee to pacify and cripple their domestic targets and the result is a black community decimated by disease, crime, and poverty via the ” help ” which their ” friends ” provide for them.

    As regard to sheer numbers since approximately 50 million + children ( just counting domestically ) have been killed via abortion since Roe v Wade if we low-ball that figure to say that ” only ” 5 million of those were black children then such a number is still an absolute ” success ” and proud ” achievement ” for the enemies of humanity who form the foundation of the abortion industry.

    The attack upon the non-white portion of humanity by the Social Darwinists has been comprehensive from its very inception. Social Darwinism, and one of its action arms known as Social Engineering, works not only to diminish absolute numbers ( killing one child ends all future generations which could follow ) but to crush the cultural and social fabric of the targets so that they become compliant and docile slaves of the Plantation Masters of the nation who accept their slavery/chains while singing in the fields; an attack program, and a very successful one, that targets both the black community and the nation as a whole.

    Don J. Grundmann, D.C. Chairman American Independent Party, California branch of the Constitution Party

Leave a Reply

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