How the Donald Trumped the National Media

By Wayne Allyn Root, Former Libertarian Vice Presidential Nominee

I have spent the past few years predicting economic Armageddon on TV and radio shows across America. I have predicted the collapse of the dollar, the decline of the economy, the dangers of the debt and the Fed, and the incredible rise of gold and silver. All these predictions have been “on the money” while the liberal media has scoffed, rolled their eyes, and called me a fool. Monday’s downgrade of the U.S. economy by Standard & Poor’s should be a wake-up call to everyone, even the media. America is in deep trouble. Economic Armageddon is fast approaching. The media need only look in the mirror to find the fool.

This brings up two important questions. Why is the media blind to the economic disaster befalling America? And, what does this have to do with Donald Trump and the place of Obama’s birth?

The answer to the first question is the national media is populated by Ivy League elites- extremely biased, “Lucky Sperm Club” leftists who drink the socialist-flavored Kool Aid. Few have ever started a business, made a payroll, or created a job. They know nothing about economics, or what is happening to small business owners on Main Street.

The answer to the second question has everything to do with the media’s dislike, denigration and lack of understanding about the meteoric rise of Donald Trump’s Presidential prospects. They look down upon businessmen such as Trump. The reality is they are jealous of his success and chutzpah. Obama the community organizer is more their kind of guy. The liberal media elites who idolize Obama are angry when Trump questions where Obama was born. They consider this kind of question a joke. They believe no one could possibly care. They are clueless to the fact that real people, without liberal-elite agendas, are actually concerned about Obama’s background. But Donald Trump has figured that out.

You see “The Donald” is a businessman. He knows what his customer wants…and he is giving it to them. The media elites do not care or understand what their customers want. You think Katie Couric understood her customers? If she did, she would not be looking for a job right now. Donald Trump is interested in being hired, while Katie has just been fired for losing millions of viewers. That is the difference between a smart businessman and a leftist media elitist who thinks she knows it all.

Trump has brilliantly brought up an issue that millions of Americans are pondering. Main Street Americans are rightfully concerned to learn that it is impossible to get a passport in America without a long form birth certificate, yet we’ve allowed a man to become President without the same document. Real Americans are incredulous that it is impossible to land any corporate executive job without a detailed background check, yet we know virtually nothing about our President’s background. Real Americans have open and transparent college records, while we have elected a President who has sealed his college records. Real Americans suspect that where there is smoke, there might be fire.

You can not get a job at Microsoft, or Charles Schwab, or Bank of America without a stringent background check and proof of citizenship. Many reasonably ask why it is easier to get a job in Congress or the White House. Asking Obama to prove his background does not make you extreme, or crazy, or a lunatic. It does not even make you a “birther.” It just means you expect that all candidates for higher office should produce proof of citizenship and detailed records concerning their background. That is just common sense.

Do I personally believe Obama was born in a foreign country? I have no idea. I am not a birther, but I do believe there might be something damaging hidden in his college, if not his birth records. Why do I think that? Because Obama acts suspiciously. Because he hires armies of lawyers to keep his records sealed. I also believe all Americans have a right to ask the question of the man who commands our army and our economy. Ironically, the more Obama refuses to produce the proof, and the more millions of dollars he spends on legal maneuvering to hide that proof, the more concerned Americans become. Obama is the one stoking the fire, not Trump.

Now that it is not nutcases, conspiracy theorists, or extreme right wingers asking, but rather a credible American CEO, celebrity, and billionaire, wouldn’t you think Obama would produce the long form birth certificate, if it exists? If Trump is a charlatan…if Trump is exploiting a slanderous lie…then why exactly is Obama not destroying Trump’s political career by producing the birth certificate? It is so easy and simple- show it and the circus ends instantly. Trump’s gamble would turn into the biggest losing bet in modern political history. So Mr. President, why aren’t you shaming him? Where’s the beef?

Funny how the “crazy people” seem more credible every day, while the guy in the White House appears more and more as if he has something to hide. Every day Obama refuses to answer, Trump appears more credible and more Presidential…while Obama comes across more like the charlatan.

The media elites have missed the boat once again. They have refused to cover the biggest story of the year- one their customers want to hear about. They are blinded by their bias and one-sided leftist agenda. Just as they have been blinded to the damage Obama’s socialist agenda has done to the economy. They are in denial. But it is just bad business to ignore the interests of your customers.

And maybe, just maybe, the businessman and self-promoter extraordinaire who understands his customers, is actually a modern day Houdini. If Trump is proven right, he will have pulled the White House out of his hat and made Obama disappear. That could yet prove to be the most amazing magic act of all-time.

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

242 thoughts on “How the Donald Trumped the National Media

  1. Bruce Cohen Post author

    I don’t think Wayne wants to run with a liberal in favor of Socialized Medicine.

    Wayne is talking about how one man outsmarted the media, by telling America what it wants to hear.

    And about how the MSM outsmarted itself, and while trying to brainwash America, has lost billions.

  2. Nicholas Burdohan

    “If Trump is a charlatan…if Trump is exploiting a slanderous lie…then why exactly is Obama not destroying Trump’s political career by producing the birth certificate?”

    Because he would be an easy opponent? Because a lot of folks (right or not) consider him to be a joke? I figure the Dems would not mind Trump as the front runner to the opposition.

    I am not address the birther question, I personally have no interest one way or the other.

    On the bright-side, I could see it being good for the LP too, as long as we choose our candidate wisely.

  3. AroundtheblockAFT

    What is a long form birth certificate? If you’ve lost the one your parents were given after you were born, with your footprint in ink, etc, what does the state send you when you ask for a replacement copy (to get a passport, or life insurance or something)? Isn’t this what Obama has produced?

    Did Passport Control keep records for U.S. citizens entering the country back in 1960? If so, wouldn’t the birthers be better served trying to find out when Obama’s mother re-entered the U.S. and determining if it was physically possible for him to have been born in Hawaii? Heck, Ancestry.com can give you passenger manifests for ships calling at U.S. ports before the Civil War. If such records exist, and Obama blocked their release, one could draw a conclusion.

  4. Red Phillips

    “I do believe there might be something damaging hidden in his college, if not his birth records. Why do I think that? Because Obama acts suspiciously.”

    Root gets at the heart of the issue perfectly. Few people are “orthodox birthers,” meaning they think Obama was born in Kenya, but a lot more people than the media and the elites are willing to admit have serious doubts about the Obama narrative and think he is hiding something. And the longer he refuses to open up his records, the more suspicious people get. This issue is not going away until Obama opens up his records … if he can. The question is whether it will build enough of a critical mass to force action.

  5. George Phillies

    It is completely of no significance whether President Obama was born in Hawaii, Kenya, or the dark side of the moon, because his mother was an American citizen resident in the United States. However, he was born in Hawaii, and there is no rational doubt on this question.

    It is possible that President Obama is blocking the release of documents on this question, because it gives an opportunity for the crazy wing of the American conservative movement to display to sane Americans how they think — using the word “think” very widely.

    @5 There is I believe something very damaging hidden in those documents, namely there is no story here, but we can cause the Republican Party to self-destruct by running someone like Donald Trump or Sarah Palin for President, someone who 80% of Americans can tell is undoubtedly a nice person who is totally unfit for the job.

    The media is ignoring ‘the economic disaster befalling America’ because it is delusionary nonsense, my favorite description being “doomer pornography”.

    Yes, there is a possibility that the dollar will fall relative to other currencies, meaning American industry — whose fraction of the GNP has not changed in decades — will do even better than it is now doing at selling abroad. Such a result may happen anyhow, as witness the 8 percent increase in industrial productivity in a one year 2009-2010 period.

    Because American bonds are payable in dollars, there is no possibility that the Federal government will have to default on its debts, other than through legislative paralysis.

    That would be a real libertarian opportunity, namely we could root out of Washington all of the Republican nutwingers, roughly speaking all of their politicians who do not believe in evolution, and the Democratic nutwingers, say all of the Democratic politicians who think torture is just fine when Obama orders it.

  6. David Colborne

    *Pops open can of pre-warmed rant*

    All right, let’s pretend/assume (depending on your beliefs) for a second that Obama was not, in fact, born in the United States. Let’s pretend/assume that his election to the office of President was, in fact, illegitimate. Where does that leave us? Well, let’s consider a few what-if’s:

    buy generic dapoxatine how do i delete emails from my iphone 5 reverse chronological order essay viagra 100g see url word limit for college essay viagra online uk next day viagra aus deutschland bestellen viagra experiences yahoo viagra o gel go site how to buy a research essay not scanned by turnitin https://jesuswired.com/writing/essay-on-the-more-money-you-have-the-happier-you-are/12/ viagra use paypal mexicanpharmacies https://www.xpcc.com/a-custom-essay/ http://www.conn29th.org/university/free-students-essays.htm best website for essay writing effexor xr and bulimia levitra danger provigil viagra personal statement services viagra benifits avantage et inconveniant du viagra https://www.dimensionsdance.org/pack/12923-viagra-duration.html https://glennfoundation.org/drugstore/does-lexapro-cause-constipation/25/ what is a essay writing https://stageone.org/how-to-start-an-expository-essay/ easy viagra on line thesis entrepreneurship education cytotec online farmaceutica viagra doping female What if… incontrovertible evidence is revealed right now?
    If it’s revealed right now, Obama has already been sworn in as President of the United States. Consequently, the only way to remove him would be to impeach him. Since that requires 2/3 of the Senate to vote in favor, this would require a Democratic majority to impeach a president of their own party, which isn’t particularly likely. However, if the Senate felt that enough Americans cared about the issue to tilt their races if they didn’t do something, it’s not impossible. Were Obama impeached, Vice-President Joe Biden would become our new President.

    Would Joe Biden be a better or worse guardian for our civil liberties than Obama?

    I doubt it. Do you?

    What if… incontrovertible evidence were revealed before November 7, 2008?
    Let’s say it’s late October, the primaries are done, and McCain is getting ready to kick off his SNL career. Suddenly, through the news wire, comes word that definitive proof has been shown that Obama was, in fact, not born in the United States. All of the Secretary of State offices around the country hastily purge Obama from the ticket, while Democrats fight feverishly to find a replacement as fast as humanly possible. McCain/Palin successfully use the confusion to squeak into the White House, despite the worst economic downturn in decades souring people on the Republican brand.

    Would John McCain be a better or worse guardian for our civil liberties than Obama?

    Well, McCain is a staunch interventionist and was the co-sponsor to the McCain-Feingold bill, only the greatest intrusion against free speech from the federal government in decades. He was also historically a “maverick” Republican, which usually translated to “I’m voting with the Democrats today”.

    I’m going to go with no.

    What if… incontrovertible evidence were revealed before the primaries?
    It was Hillary Clinton’s campaign that started the Birther movement, after all. You have to give her team credit – they researched everything they could about the guy, including his interesting choice of church membership (anyone heard from Jeremiah Wright recently?) and the fascinating circumstances surrounding his birth. Since the Democratic primary was neck to neck, we have to assume that, if Obama was found ineligible to hold the office of President, Hillary Clinton would have won the nomination, then proceeded to use her far more politically savvy team to rout McCain/Palin in short order. As an added bonus, Hillary serving as the first major party female candidate for US President would have eliminated the buzz McCain would have received for nominating Palin. Consequently, there’s an excellent chance Palin would have stayed in Alaska and would be currently serving out her term as governor.

    Would Hillary Clinton be a better or worse guardian for our civil liberties than Obama?

    You’re kidding, right?

    In conclusion, no matter how much evidence is turned up, no matter what the circumstances behind Obama’s birth really are, it doesn’t change the fact that, due to the broken nature of our current political process, American liberties would be no better off without Obama than they are with him. McCain, Clinton, Biden, Obama – it doesn’t matter. They’re all fans of using government to solve problems, whether it’s campaign finance “reform”, health care, whatever it is Biden believes in, or… health care (?!), it doesn’t matter. We’d still be dropping bombs on brown people in distant lands. We’d still have several key industries in this country nationalized. We’d still be up to our scalps in debt. So why should I or anyone else in this country care where Obama was born?

    Obama’s birth is an issue designed strictly to distract people from the real issues. It expends energy that would be better spent on dismantling every tentacle of the corporate-welfare state. Instead, we spend our time obsessing about whether a replaceable, fungible big government cog, pulled from the same bin as so many other replaceable, fungible big government cogs was, in fact, born in this country and has the right to be the chief replaceable, fungible big government cog. It’s a waste of time, a waste of effort, a waste of energy, and a waste of thought.

  7. George Phillies

    “I have spent the past few years predicting economic Armageddon on TV and radio shows across America.”

    Thank you for reminding us that an LNC member advocates economic nonsense.

    Curiously, your advice to the LNC is sometimes considerably better than that, e.g., one week mail ballots. OF course, sometimes it is not better, but no one is perfect.

    So I shall ask “If the LNC will sell out for $15,000 to bash some Republicans, will it sell out for $7500 to bash Democrats? How about $1000 to bash racist Republicans, like the author of the Ron Paul Survival Report?”

    After all, as Oscar Wilde said of the debutante who said she would marry an 80-year old man because he was worth a million pounds, to which Wilde responded ‘and will you sleep with me tonight for two shillings sixpence’, the response to the slap of the fan being the correct answer here:

    ‘after all, you have already established what you are. I am merely trying to establish your price.’

  8. Eric Dondero

    Yes, Joe Biden is preferable to Barack Hussein Obama, because Biden was born in the United States of America. Hillary Clinton would be preferable, Bernie Sanders, Dennis Kucinich. They are all Americans, despite their BS socialist views.

    Hussein Obama is not an American. He does not deserve to hold the office of the presidency of the United States of America.

    Really, is it too much to ask that the president of the United States be an American?

  9. Eric Dondero

    There is strong evidence to indicate Obama was born in Kenya. But worse, his origins are from northern Kenya, which is largely Muslim-controlled.

    Google “Raila Odinga”

  10. Thomas L. Knapp

    Dondero @ 10,

    If there’s such “strong evidence” that Obama was born in Kenya, who has it and how come they’ve never publicly share so much as a speck of it?

    If you Google Raila Odinga and actually read what you find about him, you’ll learn that he’s an Anglican Christian.

    I must say, though, that I’m Eric Dondero’s biggest fan right now. He seems bound and determined to leave a smoking crater with a “Caution: Batshit Insanity” sign on it where the Republican Party used to be. I’m good with that.

  11. John Jay Myers

    I have read this article twice and I can not figure out why anyone would think it was a good idea.

    Unless they were the bat shit crazy side of the Republican Party. If that is the case can I please send out this reminder “We don’t want them.”

    Even if we accepted the idea that some people might like his nutjobness, the fact is… Libertarians and Ron Paul people, hate the guy, and that should be our target audience at this point. When Ron Paul drops out of the Republican Primary we can not drop the ball again, and we need to be laying out the guest bed right now. Instead Wayne is opting to pander to someone who turns off libertarians, which will turn them off to us. What kind of strategy is this?

    It’s almost as if Wayne is just trying to hide behind what Trump is saying and doing, so he can endorse it without really endorsing it.

    Trump is a total moron, war mongering, douche bag, far from brilliant, especially after his articles about how we should just take over the Middle East, making him out to be the good guy here, is not doing this party any favors.

    Trump is a bad joke. I realize I am about to get an earful about how much media publicity he gets… “yeah” tons of media understand he is a douche bag.

  12. wolfefan

    Trump just says what people want to hear. Back in 1990 he favored Canadian-style health care and a 14.2 % tax surcharge on the wealthy. Now the winds have shifted, and so has he. By applauding this principle-free approach to politics, the article makes a mockery of the LP as the party of principle.

  13. Robert Capozzi

    Technically, S&P didn’t “downgrade” the US. It issued a negative outlook.

    I agree it IS suspicious that BHO has refused to release his birth certificate and college records.

    Trump is a celebrity business person. He’s good copy, even if we don’t like what he says. If Bill Gates started saying outrageous stuff, he’d be good copy, too. Gates’s nebbishy style might not rival Trump’s mensch-like ways, but Gates has the thicker pocketbook.

    Trump more fills a gap, because the R field is weak, despite BHO’s record being horrific. The Rs — beholden to the social cons — are in a box of their own making. Ya can’t beat something (BHO) with nothing, and the Rs got nothing.

    These bread-and-circuses times are ready-made for The Donald. And the times offer The Donald the crack his megalomania craves.

    The Donald and BHO are yin to the others yang…for now…until the next distraction comes along.

    B-.

  14. Steven R Linnabary

    Monday’s downgrade of the U.S. economy by Standard & Poor’s should be a wake-up call to everyone, even the media. America is in deep trouble.

    Wayne is on solid ground here, and should stick to economic issues, despite George’s opinion of the US economy.

    Hopefully Wayne stays away from kooky birther theories (regardless of how much fun they might be to discuss privately).

    IMHO, praising a statist republican that gave money to Raum Emmanuel (of all people) is repulsive of anyone claiming to be a “leading Libertarian thinker”.

    Regrettably, Wayne took a great “hook” with his leading paragraph and destroyed it with an essay about inane conspiracy theories.

    PEACE

  15. Red Phillips

    “It is completely of no significance whether President Obama was born in Hawaii, Kenya, or the dark side of the moon, because his mother was an American citizen resident in the United States.”

    @ George Phillies, this is not true. If Obama was not born in the US, according to the law at the time, his mother was not old enough to automatically confer citizenship on him.

    I think Obama was born in Hawaii, I just think it is quite possible he is hiding something and think curiosity about what he might be hiding is the natural intuitive response. But I have seen what you assert above asserted often, (it is what I initially assumed) but, as best as I can find from my study of the issue, it isn’t true.

  16. Red Phillips

    @George Phillies,

    “When enacted in 1952, section 301 [of federal immigration laws at the time] required a U.S. citizen married to an alien to have been physically present in the United States for 10 years, including five after reaching the age of fourteen, to transmit citizenship to foreign-born children. The 10-year transmission requirement remained in effect from 12:01 a.m. EDT December 24, 1952, through midnight November 13, 1986, and still is applicable to persons born during that period,”

    http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=105371#ixzz1K7PivWWp

    If you can find a legal opinion that contradicts this I am willing to listen. This debate is dominated by partisans on both sides so I am reluctant to accept anything as definitive, but I have seen this law cited MANY times and have yet to see a credible alternative interpretation.

  17. Red Phillips

    “If it’s revealed right now, Obama has already been sworn in as President of the United States. Consequently, the only way to remove him would be to impeach him.”

    @ David Colborne, I don’t pretend to know how this would play out in reality. It would clearly be a constitutional crisis. I suspect the outcry would be such that Obama would be forced to resign. But from a theoretical standpoint, I disagree with your premise that it would be necessary to impeach him. If he was ineligible, it would not matter if he was sworn in. If Arnold Schwarzenegger was sworn in he wouldn’t be the President no matter how many times he repeated the oath, because he is not eligible to be President. If it was somehow discovered that Obama was not eligible he would be ineligible from that moment and no impeachment would be necessary. He should be unceremoniously escorted off the White House property and Biden sworn in.

  18. Carol Moore

    Why would an American woman in an advanced state of pregnancy want to travel to a third world nation in the 1960s? And why would the father want there to be any doubt about citizenship by letting the child be born there? It just doesn’t make sense, since the only alleged “evidence” is the same piece of paper commonly used by Hawaiians to show as proof of where they were born. It’s absurdly silly, just like Trump and Root. (Oh, the sexual innuendos…) I’d say the worst they might show is something embarrassing like that Obama Sr. wasn’t the declared father. Unfortunately, much as he tries, Root just doesn’t have the ability to raise millions of dollars (in business or politics) AS WELL AS make a complete ass of himself publicly. So he’s only a pale shadow of Donald Trump in both regards.

  19. Red Phillips

    “It is possible that President Obama is blocking the release of documents on this question, because it gives an opportunity for the crazy wing of the American conservative movement to display to sane Americans how they think”

    @ George Phillies, this is certainly one plausible, credible explanation for Obama’s reluctance to release his long form bc and other records. But any honest person has to admit that it is also plausible and credible that he has something to hide. On what grounds do you favor the former explanation over the latter? It is based on your hunch or what you want to believe. Just as people who favor the latter explanation base that on hunch and what they want to believe. But until he releases the documents in question, there is no way to know for sure. There are no grounds to definitively, dogmatically assert the truth of the former explanation and anyone who does is overstepping what we know. Likewise, there are no grounds to definitely, dogmatically assert assert that he MUST be hiding something.

    In my opinion the second explanation better meets the test of Occam’s razor, but that matters little. What matters is that we shouldn’t have to be having this conversation. Obama SHOULD open his records in the name of transparency so we can all know the truth.

    Aren’t you just the least bit curious to see what is on all those unreleased documents? Since this sort of curiosity is entirely natural (and I think it would be even more natural for a life of the mind professorial type like you), if you are not then I think you are being willfully incurious. Why? Do you hate the “crazy wing” of the conservative movement so much that you allow that to distort your thinking? That wouldn’t be very professorial or academic if you ask me. What happened to seeking the truth?

  20. David Colborne

    Red, did Bush I and Bush II release their long form (or equivalent) birth certificates? Did Clinton? Did Reagan? Did Carter? Since nobody even knew what a “long form” birth certificate was until Obama came along, I kind of doubt it.

    I’m personally in the “lodestone for crazy” school on this one. It does a far better job of discrediting the GOP than anything else could.

  21. George Phillies

    @23 You got that one right.

    You can’t amend the Constitution by passing laws. The Immigration and Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1793, written by the founding fathers, supply the legislative history on this question. A child of an American citizen whose residence is in the United States is an American citizen, especially when — as in the case of President Obama — they were born in the United States.

  22. Red Phillips

    Try to keep up Carol. I have already conceded, and have from the beginning, that Obama was very likely born in Hawaii. Him being born in Kenya has never made logistical or any other kind of sense, as you point out. But the “birther” center of gravity long ago moved beyond the allegation Obama was born in Kenya. While there are still “orthodox birthers” such as Dondero apparently, most people now concerned with the bc and Obama’s other records simply doubt the Obama narrative in toto and suspect he is hiding something by not releasing his records (Some have called these people neo-birthers.).

    “I’d say the worst they might show is something embarrassing like that Obama Sr. wasn’t the declared father.”

    This is one of the things that has been commonly speculated about. BO II doesn’t much look like BO I for whatever that’s worth. But if true, this would PROVE THE NEO-BIRTHERS CORRECT. That there is something fishy about the Obama narrative that he is endeavoring to conceal. Also, for this revelation to be “benign” it would have to come from some source other that the long form bc. If the long form showed that Obama Sr. was not the father then that would prove that the COLB that we have all seen is a patent fraud. That, may I suggest, would be a game changer.

    But, IMO, this would be beyond embarrassing. This would mean that the Obama narrative, one of the things that made him so appealing to people and he used to great advantage in the campaign, was a grand lie. Would this not bother you?

  23. Eric Sundwall

    1. The American media isn’t obligated to report on the Armageddon until it happens.

    2. “Lucky Sperm Club” is crass.

    3. Businessman who seek the Presidency often come off as oafish and unsophisticated. The media often reflects that.

    4. “Because Obama acts suspiciously.” Reminds me of the scene in Witness when the old man asks the kid how he knows a bad man when he sees him.

    5. “The liberal media elites who idolize Obama are angry when Trump questions where Obama was born.” . . . They’re bemused, I’m sure, not much more.

    6. “. . . then why exactly is Obama not destroying Trump’s political career by producing the birth certificate?” Great idea. Get up in the morning and use the most powerful bully pulpit in the world to trot out a slip saying nah nah nah to the Donald. Devestating. Lee Atwater couldn’t have come up with anything as cunning.

    7. aargh . . . . do I have to read the whole thing ?

  24. Red Phillips

    @George, you are moving the goal post. No one denies that Obama would be an American citizen if he was born in Hawaii, which I believe he was. You said he would be an American citizen even if he was born in Kenya or the dark side of the Moon. If his dad was an alien, as his reported father was, and his mother was 18, as she was, then no he would not be according to the law at the time.

    You cite the Constitution and then mention two legislative acts. Unless I’m forgetting something, the Constitution itself does not address citizenship until the 14th Amendment (which is wrongly interpreted to require birthright citizenship I might add). A legislative act can override a previous legislative act, and the naturalization law that was in effect at the time of Obama’s birth is as I state above.

    Unless you have contrary information, you would be better off just admitting you were wrong.

  25. Michael H. Wilson

    As I said before, or something similar this is a dirty trick played by the Demoncraps to keep a group of people twisted in knots while other get a few laughs.

  26. Root's Wiggle Room

    Root: Do I personally believe Obama was born in a foreign country? I have no idea.

    Root fans the flames of Birtherism, while leaving himself some “plausible deniable” wiggle room.

    It’s like when the equally sleazy Hillary Clinton said, regarding the possibility of Obama being a Muslim, “Not to my knowledge.”

    Hillary (and Root) raise a stink, insinuate the worst, but can still say, “I never actually said Obama was a Muslim/Kenyan.”

    Much like Root praised Mubarik by “quoting” from an anonymous businessman, leaving Root himself wiggle room to later flip flop and attack Mubarik.

  27. Root's Wiggle Room

    John Jay Myers: It’s almost as if Wayne is just trying to hide behind what Trump is saying and doing, so he can endorse it without really endorsing it.

    BINGO!

    Very much like Root previously hid behind his “anonymous Egyptian businessman’s letter” so Root could praise Mubarik without really praising Mubarik

  28. George Phillies

    @27 The Immigration Act of 1790 can be replaced as many times as you want. It’s function at this very late date is to provide legislative history as to what the Constitutional wording, which can only be amended by a Constitutional Amendment, means.

    For example, Congress could pass a law defining “arms” to be limited to crossbows, swords, and spears, but some gun owners would insist that their black powder muskets were still covered by the Second Amendment, because Congress defining a term of art for one law does not change the Constitution’s meaning.

    Also, the law you quote dpoes not do what you say it does, in that Obama’s mother qualifies under “When enacted in 1952, section 301 [of federal immigration laws at the time] required a U.S. citizen married to an alien to have been physically present in the United States for 10 years, including five after reaching the age of fourteen, to transmit citizenship to foreign-born children. ” She and he were both present for ten years after the age of 14, and nothing in the law excludes tourism.

    Lesson: do not trust nut world doubtfully.

  29. George Phillies

    Also, the Congressional Research Service once did a survey, to which I cannot find a full link, which appeared to claim that the WND interpretation of that law has almost no support among Constitutional Scholars.

  30. Robert Capozzi

    34 GP, please clarify. I don’t think the Birthers are saying Obama’s not a CITIZEN, but that he’s not a “natural born citizen.” They seem to be referring to the Constitution’s Article II, Section 1: “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President….”

    To be clear, I’m NOT a Birther, and I don’t care for this issue. I’m just trying to understand.

    Please elaborate.

  31. wolfefan

    Hi Robert Capozzi –

    FWIW, Obama has released his birth certificate. Check out either snopes or factcheck and they can link you to it. Even the WSJ editorial page thinks this is looney. George Will called out Huckabee and Gingrich for this kind of stuff 2-3 months ago. Does anyone think George Will is an apologist for liberals? Does Wayne believe that George Will has drunk the socialist kool-aid?

    The irony in so much of this is that Obama is not a “born into the elite” kind of guy like Root keeps talking about. Whatever you think of the various birther theories, none argue that Obama is not the son of a single mom and none argue that he didn’t have some hard times growing up. Obama is far more similar to Root’s “son of a butcher” background than most of the elites that Root decries. None of this makes his policies right or wrong, but it’s just weird that Root keeps harping on this re a guy whose background is in some ways similar to his own and in some ways even rougher.

  32. Steve

    @ Dondero – I also googled this Raila Odinga character. According to the BBC, he was raised as an Anglican and converted to some type of evangelical church. Not sure what that proves. His mother did apparently come from the same area of the country as Obama’s father and he’s used the term “cousin” to refer to Obama. The Obama family says it only refers to the possibility that two people from the same region have a lot in common. More likely, Odinga wanted to bolster his domestic political popularity by claiming a close connection to the US President, which is quite common among aid-receiving countries.

    As for birther ideas, I like Tom Knapp’s Obama-in-the-CIA theory. I got a mass email from some local birthers so I sent that back in reply. They went nuts and I had a great laugh, so thanks Tom.

    Apparently the new idea of the birthers, having all their previous ideas discredited, is that Obama is “native-born” but not “natural-born.” Apparently being born on US soil to an American citizen mother is not enough to qualify one these days.

  33. George Phillies

    37 In a government Skul, I imagine

    After birth, works fine. After all, from the standpoint of the child, what mommie did before you were born has no effect.

  34. 2nd-grade math teacher

    @41 – Is there a school where 18 -14 != 4 ?

    Is there where you teach?

  35. 2nd-grade math teacher

    @39 – “none argue that Obama is not the son of a single mom”

    Mr. Obama has claimed that his mother was married to a British national at the time of his birth; and that said British national was his father of record. This is the crux of the debate. You seem to be woefully uninformed.

  36. Pingback: Wayne Allyn Root: How the Donald Trumped the National Media · Hammer of Truth

  37. George Phillies

    @44

    However, 19-14=5, and the young lady was resident in the USA for the year after the child was born.

    Unless you are claiming that Congress intended that children born of 18 year old mothers (the other conditions being satisfied) could not be elected President.

    You would have to be a conservative moran to believe that.

    Also, she was in the USA in Hawaii at the time of birth, so the other claims do not matter.

  38. Root's Double Standard

    @ 39: it’s just weird that Root keeps harping on this re a guy whose background is in some ways similar to his own and in some ways even rougher.

    Root has implied (in his Reason interview) that Obama only got into Harvard because he’s black — and that being white is why Root didn’t get into Harvard.

    @ 39 “born into the elite” kind of guy like Root keeps talking about.

    Further irony: Dakota Root — the daughter of a “Republican millionaire” — can more accurately be said to have been “born into the elite” than was Obama.

    Root dismisses Obama’s achievement of being accepted by Harvard, yet brags about his own daughter’s similar achievement.

    Why is a Harvard acceptance something to brag about if you’re white, but not if you’re black?

  39. wolfefan

    @47 – I’ve seen the affirmative action discussion on other boards, notably Volokh. If Obama was an AA admission (and I have no reason to believe he was) then he is an example of the program working at it’s best (which it often does not.) He was editor of the Law Review at Harvard, which is clear evidence of his intellect and academic prowess while there. I’m not claiming he’s a genius or anything, but you don’t make Law Review, let alone Editor, if you aren’t among the very best at your school.

    @44 – The issue I was discussing was Obama’s background vis-a-vis Root, not any birther claims. To be more precise, he is the son of a woman whose husband abandoned her and her child. Is that more accurate that single mom? FWIW Root seems to have the better of the two backgrounds.

    And thanks for posting the long-form. Since there are some bogus one floating around on the internet, as well as in some of Alan Keyes’ and Orly Taitz’s court filings, I’ll check a little more before commenting further, but I do appreciate the opportunity to learn if I was wrong. I confess I am leery of one who insists their information be redacted from such a form while demanding that someone else release an unredacted one.

  40. Wayne Root

    Duh. Could be that my daughter Dakota’s getting into Harvard as a HOME-SCHOOLED student is a rather remarkable achievement.

    Oh by the way…she was accepted by Harvard, Stanford, Duke, Columbia, Penn, brown, Chicago, Cal-Berkeley and others. And she turned down Yale when offered acceptance early for her athletic skills.

    Now she’s a straight A student (with one B+) and 2nd Team All Ivy League in fencing.

    That could be why it’s impressive.

    Her story could be the most successful home-school story in America.

    It certainly proves that alternative education trumps government-run education. And that the solution to failing schools is school choice.

    And as far as black vs white, you’ve got the story all confused. When asked how he got into Harvard Law School if his grades were so poor…that he sealed his records…I simply made an educated guess that perhaps affirmative action was helpful in getting him into Harvard Law School.

    Because certainly if he had perfect grades at Columbia…he wouldn’t have sealed his records, now would he?

    Or can you come up with another reason he has sealed his college records?

    I’d say poor grades is the best reason…I’m giving Obama the benefit of the doubt.

    But if it’s another reason…I’m sure Americans would like to hear it.

    Old classmates at Occidental (Obama’s first college) report he was a poor student who failed classes.

    No one at Columbia remembers him…no one I knew ever met him or saw him…Obama himself says he was a hermit at Columbia. His records are sealed. Obviously he was not #1 in his class.

    So how did he manage to gain acceptance to Harvard? And who paid for it?

    We’ll never know. the records are sealed.

    It doesn’t take a genius to figure out there is something he doesn’t want us to know.

    So when a homeschool student earns perfect 800 SAT scores to gain acceptance to Harvard…I think everyone should be proud and applaud her achievement.

    When a student with grades so bad…that he sealed his records…gets into Harvard Law School…I don’t think anyone should leap to their feet in applause.

    Affirmative action at work? I don’t know. Thats an educated guess.

    Either that or the gods of good luck were smiling on Mr. Obama that day.

    Or perhaps a Saudi prince donated $20,000,000 to make sure he was accepted.

    It must be one of those.

  41. Andy

    “Wayne Root // Apr 21, 2011 at 5:03 pm

    Duh. Could be that my daughter Dakota’s getting into Harvard as a HOME-SCHOOLED student is a rather remarkable achievement.

    Oh by the way…she was accepted by Harvard, Stanford, Duke, Columbia, Penn, brown, Chicago, Cal-Berkeley and others. And she turned down Yale when offered acceptance early for her athletic skills.

    Now she’s a straight A student (with one B+) and 2nd Team All Ivy League in fencing.

    That could be why it’s impressive.

    Her story could be the most successful home-school story in America.”

    Impressive achievement indeed. Kudos to Dakota and to the Root family.

    “I’d say poor grades is the best reason…I’m giving Obama the benefit of the doubt.

    But if it’s another reason…I’m sure Americans would like to hear it.”

    Obama’s background is quite bizarre to say the least. His family apparently had CIA connections. Perhaps Barrack H. Obama (aka-Barry Sotero) is a long term CIA asset.

    If Obama’s school records are sealed merely because of poor grades, I think that people would have more respect for him if he released them.

  42. 2nd-grade math teacher

    @46: “Congress intended that children born of 18 year old mothers

    … and a foreign national father to claim his natural right to father’s citizenship and no American citizenship at all. This is the plain and clear intent of the legislation; and anyone who would claim different is either illiterate or disingenuous.

  43. 2nd-grade math teacher

    @49: He was editor of the Law Review at Harvard, which is clear evidence of his intellect and academic prowess while there. I’m not claiming he’s a genius or anything, but you don’t make Law Review, let alone Editor, if you aren’t among the very best at your school.

    This is true of every law school except Harvard.

    At Harvard the Law Review President (not editor — little or no editing is actually involved) is elected by other students. It is nothing but a political/popularity contest.

    Only some of the editors and assistant editors (presumably the ones who do most of the actual work) are selected based on grades and merit.

    Hope this helps.

  44. Andy

    John Jay Meyers said: “Libertarians and Ron Paul people, hate the guy, and that should be our target audience at this point. When Ron Paul drops out of the Republican Primary we can not drop the ball again, and we need to be laying out the guest bed right now.”

    BINGO! John Jay Meyers just hit the nail on the head. This is an extremely important point. It is absolutely imparative that the Libertarian Party get its act together and be in place to capture the wave for liberty that the Ron Paul campaign created in 2007-2008 and that it will create again in 2011-2012 if Ron Paul runs again. The Libertarian Party squandered a golden opportunity to do this in 2008. We can’t afford another failure like this in 2012.

  45. RedPhillips

    @ George Phillies and Robert Capozzi

    George, I think you are conflating two different issues, citizenship and “natural born” citizenship.

    What the Founders intended by “natural born” citizen is an interesting and entirely legitimate but somewhat separate question. This would have to do with whether Obama is a “natural born” citizen based on the fact that he was a dual citizen at birth because of his alleged Kenyan father and/or whether he arguably became an Indonesian citizen when he moved there as a child.

    I think your references to the Constitution and constitutional scholars has to do with the meaning of “natural born.” I don’t know what constitutional scholars would have to say about 1950s immigration and naturalization laws. I don’t know what the Founder’s intended by “natural born” because I haven’t seen a good originalist study of the issue. I would love to see one. But it is certainly plausible that they intended to exclude from that definition people born with dual citizenship. And I wouldn’t trust most “constitutional scholars” as far as I could throw them because most modern “constitutional scholars” aren’t originalists. I would trust a good originalist scholar like Kevin Gutzman or Thomas Woods.

    The issue I challenged you on was not natural born citizenship, just citizenship. You stated that it wouldn’t have mattered whether Obama was born in Kenya because he would be a citizen based on his mother being a citizen. I said that according to what I have read, this is not true. This has nothing to do with the Constitution or constitutional scholars. It has to do with the immigration and naturalization laws that were in effect at the time.

    As I said, I am open to correction. The problem with this debate is that it has largely been waged by partisans on both sides at partisan sites. If our press was doing its job and wasn’t in the tank for Obama this issue would have been clarified in the MSM for the masses by disinterested subject matter experts long ago. But it hasn’t so it has been left to be hashed out by partisans. And the person seeking the truth has to try to sort through all the information and disinformation coming from both sides.

    Here is why I think I am right. I have seen what you said about Obama’s citizenship “even if” he was born in Kenya ASSERTED many times. I have seen this assertion rebutted many times with reference to the law at the time and the mother’s age. I have yet to see this reading of the law credibly refuted. If this were not the correct reading then I would have expected it to have been successfully rebutted. I even recall reading one birther debunking site that addressed this issue and they basically dismissed it by saying it didn’t matter because Obama was born in Hawaii anyway, but they didn’t refute the birther reading of the law. I saw the fact that a reputable debunking website didn’t challenge this reading of the law as a concession it was correct.

    To be honest, this reading of the law originally struck me as odd as well. I am open to the idea that this has to do with an American parent who is residing in a foreign country, rather than just a transient there. This may be an issue of the letter vs. the spirit of the law. Whether Obama would be a citizen “even if” he was born in Kenya really should be a rather straight forward matter of law that I suspect a lot of subject matter experts would know the answer to off the top of their heads. But I have seen no subject matter experts because the MSM hasn’t provided them in what should have been a proper vetting. So I have to try to sort out the truth by weeding through emotionally invested bickering partisans. If you can show me a credible refutation of the birther reading of the law, then I am open to it, but foot stomping assertions don’t count. And again, I am referring here to your “even if” claim, not to the constitutional meaning of “natural born.”

  46. Adrian Galysh

    @ Andy and John Jay – You bring up a good point. It seems as though Ron Paul will run for President. I am a fan of his, as are most libertarians (big L or small l). I am not sure how the LP could capture the wave of pro liberty supporters that Ron will gain/or has. While I generally don’t accept the notion of a “spoiler” – wouldn’t the LP running any candidate “against” Ron be a bad idea? I don’t think Ron will run , lose the GOP nomination, and then join an LP ticket – just as he didn’t in 2008. Out of curiosity John and Andy, what should the LP have done differently in 2008 (besides not run Bob Barr) in your opinion? I like the idea of more libertarian candidates… Ron, Gary Johnson, the LP candidate… just not sure how this momentum can be used to WIN.

  47. Gains

    The way I see it, the Republican Party is fracturing. They will like reject the libertarians again in 2012, and it may be their death knell.

    I think that what we can learn from Dr. Paul that it is not “principle” nor “fanaticism” that holds you back. Go watch his videos especially back in the 80s. He was (and in a more grandfatherly way now still is) a firebrand for freedom. His career was made up of going around and making friends with as many like minded folk as he could meet. They were not exactly like him and some of them were not perfect. Many are very very kooky. None of that matters a whit. It was his capacity for building coalition that gave him the base he has. It is what Libertarians most need to learn to do to move forward as an organization. Parties are coalitions or they are fallow.

    The GOP will reject the Libertarians again, and there will be more disillusionment. We will want to capture some of that. BUT most of all, when he runs, and with the drama that unfolds, the word libertarian will be on everyone’s tongue in 2012 and will stay a recognizable word for some time and that, I think, will be the real gold Libertarians can mine.

  48. 2nd-grade math teacher

    @57 Give it up. The crank will never admit he’s wrong. He’s now saying the “proper” reading of the statute bends time and space, since at some time in the future Stanley Ann would have resided in the US for five years — therefore, once those five years had been reached Barry would be naturalized, but wait, it would actually reach back in time to his birth and naturalize him when he was born and blah blah blah. The man is clearly insane.

    And as you point out, none of this is even considering what “natural born citizen” really means. (Hint: correspondence from Jay to Washington.) Cogent discussion of that issue would no doubt bring out another level of fourth-dimensional communist inanity from the good professor.

  49. Michael H. Wilson

    @ 55 Andy writes; “BINGO! John Jay Meyers just hit the nail on the head. This is an extremely important point. It is absolutely imparative that the Libertarian Party get its act together and be in place to capture the wave for liberty that the Ron Paul campaign created in 2007-2008 and that it will create again in 2011-2012 if Ron Paul runs again.”

    The LP needs to be ahead of the wave. We need to get out in front of movements, ideas and show some leadership. Be ahead of the curve, or in this case ahead of the curl!

  50. Robert Capozzi

    60 G: [RP] career was made up of going around and making friends with as many like minded folk as he could meet.

    me: Agreed. Until 2007-8, RP’s supporters were a tiny bunch. They still are, but now he and they are on the map. Prior to that, he was of virtually no influence on the main stage. Now he’s of some influence.

    Guerilla warfare is a slow slog in a place where policy is made in a centralized place. Unless we want to “Go Galt,” for Ls to be of influence on the main stage we’d have to act like players who deserve to be there.

  51. wolfefan

    Hi math teacher – thanks for the correction. The general point still stands, though – membership of the editorial board (which includes the president) is merit based.

  52. Red Phillips

    On the subject of Obama’s academic prowess, much of the early “genius” buzz that surrounded Obama was based on the quality of his memoir Dreams from my Father. Now we know, based primarily on the work of Jack Cashill, that Obama almost certainly didn’t actually write it and by far the most likely ghost author is Bill Ayers.

    Do any of the Obama apologist on here seriously dispute the claim that Obama didn’t write Dreams?

    And since on the campaign trail he very specifically claimed he did, and he also very specifically denied knowing Bill Ayers very well, do you consider this a significant issue? Is this kind of grand deceit OK with you?

  53. Robert Capozzi

    Red, no Obama apologist here, but books by pols are almost always ghostwritten.

    It’d be amusing to me if Ayers wrote it, and not surprising. Obama’s past associates has not “stuck” as an issue somehow or other. Beating that dead horse doesn’t seem like the best use of one’s time, though.

  54. 2nd-grade math teacher

    @65- You are still incorrect and your point is still meritless — much like Obama’s tenure on Law Review!

  55. Red Phillips

    “books by pols are almost always ghostwritten”

    I agree, but IMO having a ghostwritter is inherently deceitful. If time and/or talent does not allow you to write your own book, then you should be honest and acknowledge a co-author. (And I say this knowing that a certain politician I greatly admire likely used a ghostwritter.)

    But Obama’s case seems more problematic than the routine deceit common to politicians. First, he specifically said he wrote his books. (His first and second book clearly do not have the same author.) In context he was clearly implying that he, unlike other mere politicians, actually wrote his books. He said this to a group of teachers who clearly got the implication. Second, he denied knowing Bill Ayers saying he was just a neighbor. I’m not sure how much better you can know someone than having them write your memoir.

    Again, much of the early genius buzz around Obama was based on the quality of the writing in Dreams. If he didn’t write it, then much of his image is based on a lie.

  56. Steve

    “books by pols are almost always ghostwritten”

    Unfortunately, I have to point out, Dr. Paul’s books are ghostwritten as well, reportedly by Tom Woods. And yes, it is best to simply acknowledge a co-author. John McCain of all people is honest at this as all his books are By John Cain with . . .”

    As for the “natural born” I can’t see how a person born on American soil to an American mother would not be natural born regardless of the father’s citizenship. I’d like to hear a good argument about that.

  57. David Colborne

    @63:

    The LP needs to be ahead of the wave. We need to get out in front of movements, ideas and show some leadership. Be ahead of the curve, or in this case ahead of the curl!

    This will sound incredibly strange, but I actually disagree, and I have a principled libertarian reason for doing so. The Libertarian Party is a political party – that’s what it’s registered as and that’s how it behaves. It runs candidates who, at least ostensibly, have the goal of winning whatever election they’re running in. With that in mind, ask yourself this – if a political candidate offered to “educate” you, would you listen?

    Yeah, me neither.

    So, if I don’t trust anything any politician, aspiring or otherwise, says, and you don’t trust anything any politician, aspiring or otherwise, says, then why on God’s green Earth would you expect anybody to be receptive to getting educated by an aspiring politician with an L next to their name? It doesn’t make an ounce of sense.

    Political parties are sales organizations. Their (our) job is to sell the political product that the philosopher-engineers are cooking up.

  58. Thomas L. Knapp

    Quoth Wayne Root:

    “Now she’s a straight A student (with one B+)”

    And I’m an amputee, except that I haven’t had an amputation.

    “No one at Columbia remembers him…no one I knew ever met him or saw him”

    It’s now been some time since Jim Davidson informed you that he met Obama at Columbia, so that one’s well past the “honest mistake” stage and into “attention-getting lie” territory.

  59. Ghostwriter

    I’m sure Root wrote most of his latest book.

    But it’s also been rumored that he had advice (i.e., how to spin and phrase his positions to appeal to libertarians) from Aaron Starr.

  60. wolfefan

    Hi math teacher –

    I must not be doing well at communicating – I apologize for that. What point is it that you think I am trying to make? If I can understand that, maybe I can understand where I am falling short in communicating it.

  61. wolfefan

    Sorry for the double post – also, are you saying that HLS Law Review is not merit based? Sorry to be so obtuse…

  62. Robert Capozzi

    71 dc, I second that emotion. A political party should not be ahead of the wave. It should be part of the swell, the force pushing the wave. That’s where the true “power” is.

  63. Don Lake, FYI, not necessarily a unilateral endorsement

    Questions have been raised about how much of the book [Profiles In Courage] was actually written by Kennedy and how much by his research assistants.

    Some time after April 1957, journalist Drew Pearson appeared as a guest on the The Mike Wallace Interview[2] and made the following claim live on air: “John F. Kennedy is the only man in history that I know who won a Pulitzer Prize for a book that was ghostwritten for him.”[3]

    Wallace replied “You know for a fact, Drew, that the book Profiles in Courage was written for Senator Kennedy … by someone else?”

    Pearson responded that he did, and that Kennedy speechwriter Ted Sorensen actually wrote the book.

  64. Darryl W. Perry

    @72 Tom – You know as well as I that Mr. Root doesn’t take kindly to being corrected – he will find a way to label you a “detractor” and disregard everything you say or write.

  65. Michael H. Wilson

    Damn y’all are right. Let’s not suggest that the LP ever be first to promote anything. Let’s wait till its safe and then come out for stuff.

    What kinda stuff ya think might be safe to support? Zoning? Public education?

  66. Andy

    “While I generally don’t accept the notion of a ‘spoiler’ – wouldn’t the LP running any candidate ‘against’ Ron be a bad idea?”

    The Libertarian Party candidate wouldn’t be running “against” Ron Paul. Ron Paul is going to run in the Republican primaries, and given that the Republican Party is corrupt to its core he’s not going to win the Republican Party’s Presidential nomination. I just don’t see any way for Ron Paul to capture the Republican Party’s nomination. The establishment won’t allow that to happen.

    “I don’t think Ron will run , lose the GOP nomination, and then join an LP ticket – just as he didn’t in 2008.”

    Once Ron Paul appears on the ballot in certain states for the Republican primary, he will be prohibited from appearing on the ballot in those states as a minor party or independent candidate. These states have what are known as “sore loser” laws which prohibit candidates who lose their primary races from appearing on the general election ballot under a different label. I think that there are 20 states that have these laws.

    “Out of curiosity John and Andy, what should the LP have done differently in 2008 (besides not run Bob Barr) in your opinion? I like the idea of more libertarian candidates… Ron, Gary Johnson, the LP candidate… just not sure how this momentum can be used to WIN.”

    First off, a Libertarian Party Presidential candidate should get really involved in the Ron Paul r3VOLution. I’m not talking about just a simple endorsement. I’m talking about a lot more than that. I’m talking about going on the road and actively campaigning for Ron Paul. I’m talking about becoming a well known figure in the Ron Paul r3VOLution. They should market themselves as a backup candidate to Ron Paul just in case he doesn’t win the Republican primary. Libertarian Party members should attend Ron Paul Meet Ups and talk up the Libertarian Party and bring sign up sheets with them and get contact information from everyone at the Ron Paul Meet Ups who is not already a Libertarian Party member (these sign up sheets should include email, mailing address, and phone number). The Libertarian Party should adopt the r3VOLution logo and put the word Libertarian in front of it. The Libertarian Party should say that it is not going to run a Presidential candidate IF Ron Paul wins the Republican primary (in the unlikely event this happens, everyone should vote for None of the Above at the LP National Convention). There’s no way that the Republican establishment will allow Ron Paul to win the Republican primary, so the Libertarian Party WILL run a Presidential candidate in 2012, however, we let the Ron Paul people know that we are not delusional egomaniacs and that we will not run a Presidential candidate if Ron Paul somehow captures the Republican nomination.

    When the Libertarian Party choses its Presidential candidate, the party ABSOLUTELY MUST nominate somebody who is not going to be a turn off to the Ron Paul r3VOLution. The choice of Bob Barr in 2008 was an absolute disaster. We can’t let something like this happen again. Harry Browne would have been great (if he had still been alive). The same thing goes with Aaron Russo. Michael Badnarik would have been good as well if he had sought the nomination. Steve Kubby or Mary Ruwart would have been fine as well. As I said above, a Libertarian Party Presidential candidate needs to get heavily involved with the Ron Paul r3VOLution. Become well known and respected in that movement and it becomes far easier to bring people in from that movement after Ron Paul loses the Republican primary.

    The Libertarian Party needs to have “all of its ducks” in a row as much as possible in going in to 2012 in order to attract as much of the Ron Paul r3VOLution as possible. We can’t afford to have any of the nonsense that went on in 2008 go on in 2012. One area where the party really needs to improve is in ballot access. 2008 had the worst ballot access for the LP in a Presidential election year since the 1980’s (only 45 states). We need to be on the ballot in all 50 states plus DC in 2012. This can be done with the proper planning and execution.

    2012 has the potential to be the best year ever for the Libertarian Party. Let’s not screw it up like we did in 2008.

  67. Andy

    Michael H. Wilson said: “The LP needs to be ahead of the wave. We need to get out in front of movements, ideas and show some leadership. Be ahead of the curve, or in this case ahead of the curl!”

    I agree with you here. The LP does need to be ahead of the wave. We need to be out in the ocean on our sufboard waiting for that big wave to happen. Then we can be the one who ride in front of the wave instead of missing it like we did in 2008.

  68. Robert Capozzi

    84 Andy: I’m talking about going on the road and actively campaigning for Ron Paul.

    Me: Interesting counsel. Given the timing, this would be LP would-be nominees like Lee Wrights going to RP campaign events prior to the LP convention, campaigning FOR a R. That may or may not work. I’m not sure it’s appropriate for either RP or the LP. Nor am I sold that that would convince RP to endorse the LP candidate or get Paul supporters to turn around and vote LP in November.

    How would that transference work? I do like the general idea, to be clear, I’m just not sure it can be done on a practical level.

    What’s in it for Paul? The current field of Ls is not exactly household names. If Root gets in, he has a somewhat higher general public profile, but I seem to recall Rockwell’s castigating Root, so that may indicate that Root would not be welcome on the RP campaign.

    85 Andy: We need to be out in the ocean on our sufboard waiting for that big wave to happen.

    Me: Metaphors are rarely perfect, but I think this makes sense for L candidates. Candidates can and should exploit the power of a wave. A party, however, is probably better as part of the swell. I would note that you have to part of the action to participate in it. If the LP goes a mile away from the shore, we may be positioned too far from the shore’s edge. We catch no waves; we mutter to ourselves how our ideas are ahead of their times, wishing that others would see that ours are the “superior” ideas.

  69. Thomas L. Knapp

    lg,

    You write:

    “if RP wins the GOP nod , im quite certain we would not run a candidate.”

    What’s the point of having a Libertarian Party if you won’t run candidates against conservative Republicans?

  70. Robert Capozzi

    88 mhw, that’s a nice saying. Milnes makes the leadership case for PLAS, but he seems to be gettign no traction. Perhaps PLAS is just ahead of its time.

    Similarly, the LP has displaying PLAS-like “leadership” now for 4 decades. How’s that been working out, IYO?

  71. Tom Blanton

    Would a U.S. Passport be issued to a citizen if Kenya? If, in fact, a “long-form” birth certificate is required to obtain a passport, it would seem that Obama is an American citizen if he has a legitimate passport. Of course, he may have purchased his passport from a Islamofascist counterfeiter.

    But considering that Root has never produced his “long-form” birth certificate, why is he so worried about Obama’s?

    What is Root hiding?

    Was he born in Israel, Poland or Uruguay? Is Wayne Newton his real father? Is he part of the Mormon conspiracy to establish a global caliphate?

    Could Root be hiding the fact that he was not born at all? Could he possibly be a mutant clone made by a Nazi war criminal scientist in Paraguay from the DNA of Fred “Christ” Trump, a millionaire Scot, and father of the Donald?

    Why isn’t the LNC asking these questions? Has Wayne fooled the media? Has he fooled IPR?

    IPR should get to the bottom of these issues immediately and refuse to republish anything by Root until he clears things up by producing his “long-form” birth certificate. He must also prove that the document is not counterfeited.

  72. Darryl W. Perry

    @Tom, to the best of my knowledge; one must provide proof of legal status to obtain a passport… I know several people that have become US citizens (after being born elsewhere) that have US Passports

  73. JT

    Knapp: “What’s the point of having a Libertarian Party if you won’t run candidates against conservative Republicans?”

    Let’s be clear: There’s ONE so-called “conservative Republican” in Congress who wants to end the federal drug war, corporate welfare, speech restrictions, trade barriers, and the warfare state (as well as the welfare state). So I’d say there’s still a point to it.

  74. 2nd-grade math teacher

    @76 – Yes, to again repeat myself – only some of the positions @ Harvard Law Review are merit based. HLR President is decidedly not merit-based. It is akin to being selected “class president” and is based solely on a vote of class members.

    This is unique to Harvard Law School — if we were talking about any other American law school your original assumptions would have been correct.

  75. 2nd-grade math teacher

    @94 — Good point. The LNC should definitely consider having all candidates for the P/VP nomination present their birth records and records detailing their parents’ citizenship, and/or other records proving they are qualified to serve as President.

    At the very least, the nominees should present such evidence to the LNC or Judiciary Committee after receiving the nomination.

  76. Thomas L. Knapp

    JT @96,

    “Let’s be clear: There’s ONE so-called ‘conservative Republican’ in Congress who wants to end the federal drug war, corporate welfare, speech restrictions, trade barriers, and the warfare state (as well as the welfare state). So I’d say there’s still a point to it.”

    Right — so Ron Paul is libertarian on some policy issues, just like Barney Frank.

    And he’s anti-libertarian on others, just like Barney Frank.

    The main difference between the two vis a vis libertarians is that Paul is closer to libertarians than Frank is.

    Much closer.

    So close that frequently he’s between them and their wallets.

    And people seem to think that’s a good thing.

    Russell Means in 1988 would probably have been a mistake. Whether it would have been as big a mistake as Paul turned out to be, and whether or not Means is a mistake the LP would have kept on making for more than 20 years as it has with Paul, instead of re-thinking and repudiating, are interesting “what if” scenarios.

  77. Rachel Hawkridge Leaves Party

    90 There is exceedingly little point in having a Libertarian Party whose candidates wander around supporting Republicans. Or Democrats, for that matter.

    @62 Are we hearing here another conservative seditious character who is outraged that we have an African-American President, and will make up facts, legal interpretations and whatever else is needed in an effort to drive the validly elected President from office? Or are we hearing here another conservative airhead who has a total ability to believe any claim, however nonsensical, that makes him feel superior through his secret knowledge, whether it is that the Illuminati blew up the world trade tower, evolution is wrong, there is not large-scale man-made global warming, America has huge undiscovered oil fields twice the size of Saudi Arabia’s, or…? Inquiring minds want to know.

    @62 By the way, it’s not flat, either. Nor is it less than ten thousand years old.

  78. Rachel Hawkridge Leaves Party

    @96 Yes, there is one conservative REpublican who wants Constitutional amendments letting states ban abortion, ban gay marriage, not to mention wanting to ban immigration — from his campaign ads, for those darker of hue who must enter by swimming shallow rivers — and proclaim Christian Dominionism, the Supremacy of the Christian Bible over the Constitution.

  79. 2nd-grade math teacher

    @99 – What is unlibertarian about refusing to engage in a criminal conspiracy to undermine the Constitution by installing a President with foreign loyalties? I thought libertarians were against global government? Can’t we leave that sort of thing to the Democrats, Republicans, and the Socialist Worker’s Party?

    @102 – No, we’re hearing a seditious communist character who is making up facts and legal interpretations in order to prop up a British President who is destroying America. Hope this helps.

  80. 2nd-grade math teacher

    Of course; that’s why you need to examine the parents’ citizenship so you can see where the natural loyalties lie.

  81. David Colborne

    Regarding Ron Paul, I fail to see what the LP would get out of supporting him that we can’t get from anyone else. It’s not like he wins outside of his district anyway. Heck, Bernie Matthews wins – how viable is she and her ideas outside of her constituency? Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad he could fracture the GOP and smoke out some libertarian-leaning folks. But let’s get serious – his endorsement of the Constitution Party candidate didn’t do them any favors. What do we seriously believe he’d do for the LP?

    As for @106: Why stop with the parents? Shouldn’t we look at the grandparents, too? Or the great-grandparents? How about aunts, uncles, and cousins? Oh right, I remember why – because it’s only important when you’re talking about “Kenyan” people. Right.

    I don’t like Obama any more than anyone else here. Heck, I probably like the guy significantly less. All of that has to do with his policies and philosophies, though, and has nothing to do with the misguided idea that people related to dark-skinned immigrants can’t possibly be an American.

  82. Julie Kinnear

    How come that such a trivial issue as Obama’s birth certificate takes priority over the most daunting problems that the US faces in the area of economy or national security. I can’t understand this.

  83. Michael H. Wilson

    Neither can I Julie, so ya have to make fun of it all. That being said I’m out to collect some signatures for an initiative petition this evening. Y’all have fun.

  84. 2nd-grade math teacher

    @107 — No thanks. The Constitutional requirement is fine by me.

    @109 – What “dark-skinned immigrants” are you referring to?

  85. Robert Capozzi

    109 dc, good point. I suspect a LOT of RP’s attraction to his small but fervent followers is that he’s an R and a congressman. His followers like his anti-establishment establishment credibility.

    His endorsement of the CP’s Chuck Baldwin did very little in terms of transferring his supporters to Baldwin. Perhaps some of them voted Baldwin and maybe even threw Baldwin a few bucks to little avail.

    I would not be surprised to see Rand and Ron both run this time, in part as a way from Ron to transfer the mantle to his son. It seems very clear that they have little to no interest in giving significant support to a third party, and I’m not sure they could even if they wanted to.

    The LP of course should take advantage of the draft Paul creates. Making the “Revolution” our primary vehicle seems unwise, however.

  86. Red Phillips

    @Tom Blanton #94

    “If, in fact, a “long-form” birth certificate is required to obtain a passport, it would seem that Obama is an American citizen if he has a legitimate passport.”

    Obama’s passport records is one of the things he has sealed and refused to release. In fact, some people got in trouble for trying to access them illegally. His passport records are one of the things that naturally curious people would like to see and the deliberately looking the other way crowd seems oddly incurious about. “Move along now. There’s nothing to see here.”

  87. Andy

    “David Colborne // Apr 23, 2011 at 3:04 pm

    Regarding Ron Paul, I fail to see what the LP would get out of supporting him that we can’t get from anyone else.”

    You really don’t get it. What the Libertarian Party would get is the very large small “l” libertarian base which supports Ron Paul. A lot of them are hardcore activist types and many of these are young people. These are people that the LP desperately needs.

  88. Andy

    “What’s the point of having a Libertarian Party if you won’t run candidates against conservative Republicans?”

    Ron Paul is not a conservative Republican. It would be completely idiotic and irrational for the Libertarian Party to run a candidate for President if Ron Paul were to somehow capture the Republican nomination. Anyone who can’t see this is either a fool or an establishment plant.

  89. Andy

    “What’s in it for Paul?”

    Ron Paul doesn’t have to do anything. The candidate for the Libertarian Party’s Presidential nomination should campaing for Ron Paul to help build support for the cause of liberty. The other reason is to build a name for themselves and to win the trust and support of Ron Paul supporters (many of whom are new to politics).

    Hopefully the candidate for the Libertarian Party’s Presidential nomination will build up a lot of momentum for themselves and maybe Ron Paul will endorse them. However, even if Ron Paul does nothing it is still a winning situation for the LP candidate.

  90. Andy

    “How would that transference work? I do like the general idea, to be clear, I’m just not sure it can be done on a practical level.”

    I’ve been to numerous Ron Paul Meet Ups and Campaign for Liberty meetings around the country. Most of the people at these meetings are open to the Libertarian Party. There are two main reasons why a lot of these people have not come on board with the LP.

    1) They perceived the LP as being irrelavent (as in an organiztion that isn’t doing much of anything and isn’t going anywhere).

    2) They did not like Bob Barr. They think that the LP sold out by nominating Barr.

    The people that I’m refering should be ripe picking for the Libertarian Party. If we can’t recruit these people who are already small “l” libertarians and who already agree with us then we are a pathetic and dysfunctional organization.

  91. Andy

    “But let’s get serious – his endorsement of the Constitution Party candidate didn’t do them any favors. What do we seriously believe he’d do for the LP?”

    That’s because Chuck Baldwin jumped in the Presidential race at the last minute (he basically didn’t really have a campaign before the Constitution Party’s National Convention which was held in April of 2008). The Constitution Party only had ballot access in 37 states, and by the time Chuck Baldwin received that endorsement it was too late to get on the ballot in most of those states. The Constitution Paty had their ballot access in the most populated state of California hijacked by a pro-Alan Keyes faction. They weren’t prepared and so they weren’t able to benifit from the endorsement as much as they would have had they been better prepared.

    Also, it should be pointed out that the only reason that Ron Paul endorsed Baldwin was because Bob Barr pissed him off.

  92. JT

    Knapp: “The main difference between the two vis a vis libertarians is that Paul is closer to libertarians than Frank is.”

    From an ideological standpoint, Paul falls along the libertarian/conservative line of the Nolan Chart. Frank falls in the far liberal part. So yes, Paul is much closer.

    In addition, on the small number of issues where Paul isn’t closer than Frank, he still opposes federal involvement. Other than immigration, Paul consistently votes the same way that a Libertarian in the House would. That’s truly amazing given the records of every other member of Congress–for as long as Paul has served in Congress.

    Knapp: “So close that frequently he’s between them and their wallets.”

    Huh? Many Libertarians want to support him based on his overall political record and statements. What does that have to do with your original question?

  93. Michael H. Wilson

    Andy I am probably no threat to you and paulie when it comes to collecting signatures and you prove to be just as thoughtful when you write“Also, it should be pointed out that the only reason that Ron Paul endorsed Baldwin was because Bob Barr pissed him off.”

    Barr pissed off a lot of people to say the least. Time to bar Barr.

  94. LibertarianGirl

    ” his endorsement of the Constitution Party candidate didn’t do them any favors. What do we seriously believe he’d do for the LP?””

    me_ RP was making a point , and it was deafening…even if his endorsement wouldnt have meant the moon and the sky , it sent a message. Lets face it , we missed a huge opportunity. RP is the only successful Libertarian politician , and what Barr did was classic cutting off your nose to spite your face!

  95. LibertarianGirl

    DC_”Regarding Ron Paul, I fail to see what the LP would get out of supporting him that we can’t get from anyone else.”

    me_ um did you see the money he made , and the supporters he rallied, we need that , bad.. hell we need even a small %. we have to have him on our side , we have to….

  96. Robert Capozzi

    119 Andy, yes, your anecdotal experience makes some sense. If the LP is seen as “irrelevant,” transference from Paul to the LP seems unlikely, and even MORE unlikely to the CP. That’s quite a stumbling block! The LP’s ability to be relevant is a function of its perception as being “influential.” Since we have very few elected officials and no elected officials at the federal level, that seems unlikely to change any time soon. Paul – being a congressman – gains immediate credibility for his views. That has weight for the average Paulista, I suspect. Most of them were introduced to Paul at the R debates. If he were “just” a country doctor, most Paulistas would not have paid his words any mind.

    I suspect Barr is old news for Paulistas. But even if they hold a grudge against Barr (and, by association, the LP) three years later, there’s absolutely nothing to be done about the history. Barr did not handle relations with the Paul campaign well, I agree. Writing alternative histories might be fun, but even if, say, Ruwart, had gotten the nomination, the level of transference would likely not be significantly higher, as the LP would still be perceived as “irrelevant.”

    The message, “If you like Paul, you should consider the LP” is a good one. However, the LP isn’t and should not be an appendage of Paul 2012, IMO. Paul will likely do what he did in ’08 and maybe return to Congress for a few more terms. Meanwhile, the LP needs to build itself as an institution, preferably as a relevant one. Reaching out to the hard-right and hard-left simultaneously is something a sitting MC/amiable country doctor can pull off with some facility. We might draw from a wider prospect pool, however, including, but not limited to, the Paulistas.

  97. Robert Capozzi

    123 lg: RP was making a point , and it was deafening…

    me: Please clarify “deafening.” Paul’s non-endorsement of McCain didn’t seem to make any difference at all, that I can see. McCain was a very weak candidate who did not rally the R base much, and may have had some appeal to independents. Once Paul was eliminated, he was a non-factor in the prez elections, near as I can tell.

    Let’s keep in mind that Paulistas are tiny in number. Bigger than the LP, of course, but still a small, yet energetic, bunch.

  98. Robert Capozzi

    120 Andy: …the only reason that Ron Paul endorsed Baldwin was because Bob Barr pissed him off.

    me: Evidence? I don’t recall him ever saying so.

    And, gee, if that’s true, that seems awfully petty reasoning.

  99. Red Phillips

    I thought this thread was about Root, Trump and Obama’s concealed records?

    But re. Ron Paul, what many don’t seem to understand is that Ron Paul was able to build the kind of COALITION he built BECA– USE he appealed to libertarians AND conservatives. Run a purist libertarian in the GOP primary who is pro complete open borders (getting rid of borders really), pro-judicial activism to enforce gay marriage on the states, pro baby killing, etc. and see how well he does.

  100. Robert Capozzi

    122 mhw: Barr pissed off a lot of people to say the least.

    me: That’s impossible. A lot of people may have ALLOWED themselves to be “pissed off,” but that’s a question for oneself.

    Ruwart or Badnarik or Browne or Marrou, etc., might well trigger a person to allow themselves to be pissed off, or disappointed, or whatever. Being a pol involves putting oneself out there to be a trigger for the reactions of others.

    We do, though, have free will, and we can choose our emotional interpretation of facts as they present themselves.

    We could choose to set our emotional baggage aside, and choose the option that best represents the L perspective, all things considered. Or, we can allow ourselves to be “pissed off” about something or other. Why one would choose the latter, I cannot say….

  101. LibertarianGirl

    Capozzi , deafening being the stunned silence surrounding the whole debacle.

    RP supporters are huge in #’s- just look at the money raised, thats not a little better its way fucking better.

    It was deafening because RP belongs to us. We shoulda got his endorsement by default , but we didnt. Barr shoulda made every effort to play nice and get his support. Thats what a smart candidate would do…Exactly who did Barr think he was? he was the new guy and he pretty much came in and pissed all over 1 of our heroes. Bob Barr cost us money , supporters , reputation , opportunity etc etc. to this day RP fans dont trust the LP.

    a paranoid person might stop and wonder if it wasnt intentional, i dont belive that 100% but its crossed my mind and wouldnt surprise me

  102. Robert Capozzi

    130 lg: RP supporters are huge in #’s- just look at the money raised…

    me: Yes, RP supporters are a generous bunch, and generally intense. My point is his vote totals in the primaries (early ones, especially) suggest to me Paul has a narrow but deep base. The LP is an orange to the Paul apple, but it’s base is substantially smaller and not nearly as deep.

    We’d need to look at some stats of supporters vs, say, Obama or McCain. I’m pretty confident that the numbers of Paul supporters are a fraction of the 2 nominees.

    lg: Barr shoulda made every effort to play nice and get his support.

    me: I know from an impeccable authority that Barr was trying to do just that. He was in Paul’s office a lot, seeking some sort of support. I agree that when Paul staged that 3rd party debate, Barr did not handle that situation well.

    My view is that poor handling was not nearly as poor as Paul’s handling of NewsletterGate.

    I think we all make mistakes. Pols make them in public. Expecting “our” pols to be error-free sounds like a setup for monumental failure to me.

    128 RP: …Ron Paul was able to build the kind of COALITION he built BECA– USE he appealed to libertarians AND conservatives. Run a purist libertarian in the GOP primary who is pro complete open borders (getting rid of borders really), pro-judicial activism to enforce gay marriage on the states, pro baby killing, etc. and see how well he does.

    me: yes, although Paul also appeals to self identified progressives to some extent, too. He’s an excellent anti-politician politician in that sense.

    There is no such thing as a “purist” L, btw.

    Bringing it back to Trump, I find it bizarre that his social liberalism is not a non-starter for the GOP. His celebrity seems to overcome the Guiliani experience of 08.

    To the extent that the GOP is perceived as the economic conservative party, their litmus-test social issues restrict their appeal to the broadest constituencies. Hence, the compelling need for a real third liberty-oriented party, IMO.

  103. JT

    LG: “Barr shoulda made every effort to play nice and get his support. Thats what a smart candidate would do…Exactly who did Barr think he was? he was the new guy and he pretty much came in and pissed all over 1 of our heroes.”

    This is one point on which I differ with some other Ron Paul supporters. I’m not a Barr fan, but I think Barr did make an effort to “play nice” with the RP campaign and try to get his endorsement. Then, less than 2 months before the election, the Barr campaign found out that RP was holding a press conference not to endorse ANYONE, just to urge people to vote for AN alternative candidate for President. His decision to endorse Baldwin wasn’t made until AFTER he said he wasn’t going to endorse someone.

    Okay, so say I’m running for President as the Libertarian candidate and RP is holding a press conference showcasing alternative candidates as one lump item. I’d probably be annoyed as well. I don’t think votes for candidates who are solidly in the liberal or conservative part of the Nolan chart are valuable just because they’re “anti-establishment candidates.” I want RP to endorse ME as the Libertarian candidate, not to lump me in with other ones. I’m trying to differentiate myself, not say “hey, all of us candidates are in the same boat, folks. Please vote for one of us.”

    Paul’s press conference in Sept. 2008 should have been held to give the Libertarian candidate his endorsement, not to do THAT.

  104. Andy

    “Paul’s press conference in Sept. 2008 should have been held to give the Libertarian candidate his endorsement, not to do THAT.”

    I’m not convinced that there was a Libertarian Party candidate for President to endorse. I mean, yes, the Libertarian Party had a candidate, but was he really a libertarian? There were good reasons to not trust Bob Barr, and on top of this, he ran an inept campaign (whether or not this was intentional, I don’t know).

    I don’t blame Ron Paul for doing what he did in this situation.

  105. Andy

    “128 RP: …Ron Paul was able to build the kind of COALITION he built BECA– USE he appealed to libertarians AND conservatives.”

    Ron Paul also brought in support from the left. I’ve encountered a bunch of people who said that they were or are Greens or Democrats who said that they supported Ron Paul.

    In addition to this, a lot of independents and people who had been non-voters supported Ron Paul as well.

  106. Andy

    “Bob Barr cost us money , supporters , reputation , opportunity etc etc. to this day RP fans dont trust the LP.”

    I’ve heard this multiple times from Ron Paul supporters over the last few months.

  107. Andy

    “Robert Capozzi // Apr 24, 2011 at 5:52 am

    119 Andy, yes, your anecdotal experience makes some sense. If the LP is seen as ‘irrelevant,’ transference from Paul to the LP seems unlikely,”

    Making oursleves (as in members of the Libertarian Party) more relavent is the anwser. How do we do this? By being more active. Libertarian Party members should get involved with Campaign for Liberty and take up leadership roles. Libertarians should organize pro-liberty events and demostrations/protests. Invite the general public. Let everyone know that the event/demonstration/protest is sponsored by the Libertarian Party. Libertarian Party members spend too much time talking to other Libertarian Party members, either preaching to the choir or debating minutia. There should be a greater focus from Libertarian Party members on talking to people who are not Libertarian Party members, particularly if they are independent or non-voters, and especially if they are already small “l” libertarians (whether they realize it or not).

    The LP could easily multiply in size right now if it could just get even a small percentage of the small “l” libertarians out there to join the party as dues paying members.

  108. Robert Capozzi

    137 andy, I don’t disagree, but the most obvious solution for irrelevance is to run relevant campaigns.

    Look real by acting real.

    Protests are things done by non parties.

  109. JT

    Andy: “I mean, yes, the Libertarian Party had a candidate, but was he really a libertarian? There were good reasons to not trust Bob Barr, and on top of this, he ran an inept campaign (whether or not this was intentional, I don’t know).”

    So you think it would be better to hold a press conference with Bob Barr, Cynthia McKinney, Ralph Nader, and Chuck Baldwin to say vote for one of these people?

    Whatever his shortcomings (and he definitely had some), Bob Barr was the most libertarian of those people. And he didn’t run a campaign that was more “inept” than any of them. At the very least, RP shouldn’t have held a press conference at all–certainly not one that implies all alternative candidates are good choices.

    Again, if I’m the Libertarian candidate for President and I’ve been trying to get his endorsement, I’m not cool with that either.

  110. Robert Capozzi

    139 tk, in his latest interview with Matthews, he introduced RP as “libertarian” and RP called himself “libertarian-conservative.” I’ve also heard him refer to himself as “constitutional conservative.”

    All these labels are pretty elastic. RP’s on the team as I see it, despite getting too close to haters at times.

  111. LibertarianGirl

    so JT , your saying that when we get shut out and dissed from the two major parties its one thing , when we tell people they arent wasting their votes, to vote their conscience and consider a 3rd party you mean that only applies to us …. when it comes to other parties/candidates its ok to employ the same nose snubbing and arrogance , cause they arent really a valid choice

    that strikes me as entirely 2 faced

  112. LibertarianGirl

    and for gods sake Bob Barr was not the most Libertarian at the time, altho he has made good strides lately… and im quite certain noone else has been a cia operative nor spent years denying people their rights and putting them in cages

  113. Andy

    “So you think it would be better to hold a press conference with Bob Barr, Cynthia McKinney, Ralph Nader, and Chuck Baldwin to say vote for one of these people?”

    Under the circumstances, yes. I say this because Bob Barr was not a good candidate. He ran a lousy campaign and there were good reasons to question his credibility as a libertarian.

    Also, I thought that it was cool that Ron Paul offered a forum for the minor party and independent candidates who were on the ballot in enough states to theoretically win the election.

    Sure, I would have prefered it if Ron Paul had also endorsed a Libertarian Party candidate for President, but in my opinion, the Libertarian Party did not have a candidate for President that was worth endorsing.

    “Whatever his shortcomings (and he definitely had some), Bob Barr was the most libertarian of those people.”

    I’m not so sure about this. I think that it is quite possible that Chuck Baldwin was more libertarian than Bob Barr. For instance, I know that Bob Barr came out against Fully Informed Juries, and that Chuck Baldwin said that he favored Fully Informed Juries.

    “And he didn’t run a campaign that was more ‘inept’ than any of them.”

    They all had pretty weak campaigns. Ralph Nader probably had the best campaign of any of these candidates.

    “At the very least, RP shouldn’t have held a press conference at all–certainly not one that implies all alternative candidates are good choices.”

    I thought that it was good that he hald the press conference. Also, all of those candidates were better than Barrack Obama and John McCain.

    “Again, if I’m the Libertarian candidate for President and I’ve been trying to get his endorsement, I’m not cool with that either.”

    Barr didn’t “try” to get Ron Paul’s endorsement. His campaign was very arrogant. Barr jumped in the race at the last minute and made a bunch of big promises which fell flat. Barr purposely avoided participating in any unscripted debates. Barr did a poor job of promoting the Libertarian Party during the campaign. Barr just assumed that Ron Paul supporters were going to flock to him, and that everyone would overlook his anti-liberty past as well as all of the reasons people questioned whether his conversion to libertarianism was for real.

  114. Andy

    “He says he is. So are you mistaken, or is he lying?”

    This is playing word games. A libertarian could call themselves a liberal, as in liberal comes from the word liberty. A libertarian could also call themselves a conservative, as in they are trying to conserve liberty.

    Ron Paul is trying to move the Republican Party in a libertarian direction, so of course he is going speak in terms to which Republicans can relate.

    Labels are meaningless. Ron Paul could call himself a communist and it would not matter.

  115. Andy

    “and im quite certain noone else has been a cia operative nor spent years denying people their rights and putting them in cages.”

    It also should be pointed out that Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney, and Chuck Baldwin all came out in favor of a new investigation into 9/11. Bob Barr took the statist position on 9/11, as in he bought into the official government propaganda line.

    So this means that Bob Barr is:

    a) A statist who believes what his government tells him to believe.

    b) A coward. He’s too chicken to question authority.

    c) A delusional fucktard. Only a moron would believe the official government story about 9/11.

    Nader, McKinney, and Baldwin were all more libertarian than Barr on this very important issue about state sponsored false flag terrorism.

  116. Root: Tanned, Rested, and Ready to Say Whatever Works

    I’m sure that Wayne Allyn “Bob Barr is a master politician!” Root, aka Wayne Allyn “Ron Paul on steroids!” Root, is already wracking his brains for a way to ride the coattails of the 2012 Ron Paul Revolution.

    Will LP delegates want a Purist or a Moderate? A Radical Outsider or an Established Media Figure?

    Whatever works, Wayne Allyn “I don’t have any guilt. I think zero about why things are. I just accept what they are and find a way to take advantage of them.” Root is ready to tell YOU what YOU want to hear!

  117. Robert Capozzi

    146 Andy: Barr didn’t “try” to get Ron Paul’s endorsement. His campaign was very arrogant. Barr jumped in the race at the last minute and made a bunch of big promises which fell flat.

    Me: Then perhaps my friend on RP’s congressional staff was hallucinating, because my friend reports that Barr was frequently lobbying Paul in Paul’s congressional office in that timeframe, according to my friend. Or, perhaps, you have a very different definition of “try” than is commonly understood. And, yes, Barr entered late, as he was hoping Paul would come back to the LP, as did the rest of the LNC at the time. I find it odd that you seem to criticize Barr for this. “Arrogance” might be a fair criticism. Barr team seemed to want to position Barr as a real contender, given that he is as qualified as McCain or Obama. That may well have been a miscalculation, but I can’t say that was an obviously poor decision. They probably hoped he might “catch on” like, say, Perot. I don’t blame them for that strategy, even though it didn’t work…it was a reasonable one.

    Do you expect perfection from our candidates? If so, I suggest you’re setting yourself up for failure. Why do that?

    Andy: I think that it is quite possible that Chuck Baldwin was more libertarian than Bob Barr. For instance, I know that Bob Barr came out against Fully Informed Juries, and that Chuck Baldwin said that he favored Fully Informed Juries.

    Me: Yes, if one is going to use FIJA as a single-issue litmus test, I see your point. L attorneys sometimes come down against FIJA, as their guild does not allow them to suggest jury nullification in court. As Chuck and I discussed with you some months back, doing so risks disbarment. Barr is a member of the bar. The 06 Platcomm had a Rothbardian attorney on it, and HE was very uncomfortable with FIJA. I recall he voted against retaining that plank.

    FIJA is a procedural sideshow, IMO. It’s not IMO the path to liberty, though it could be mildly helpful. If we were experiencing a substantially smaller State but jury nullification was still not common practice, I’d be OK with that.

    If a jury nullified a law against murder, I would NOT be OK with that.

    Hence, my ambivalence on the issue.

  118. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Ron Paul is trying to move the Republican Party in a libertarian direction”

    Except, of course, on those issues where he’s busy trying to move America in an anti-libertarian direction.

  119. Robert Capozzi

    149 “Root”: Root to the NYT: “I don’t have any guilt. I think zero about why things are. I just accept what they are and find a way to take advantage of them.”

    me: Healthy attitude on Root’s part! Reminds me of the line from Hey Jude…L politics should be about making a “sad song and make it better.”

    Or, we can wallow in conspiracy theories and deep-seated anxiety, writing alternative histories about how the world would be SO much better if X, Y or Z had not happened…no Fed, no WWI, no Civil War.

    Luxuriating in our grievances does nothing to fix the here and now.

    It is what it is.

  120. JT

    LG: “so JT , your saying that when we get shut out and dissed from the two major parties its one thing , when we tell people they arent wasting their votes, to vote their conscience and consider a 3rd party you mean that only applies to us ….”

    I don’t say that people should vote for any alternative candidates–I say that people should vote for Libertarian candidates. I’m not a member of the Alternative Candidate Alliance Party–I’m a a member of the Libertarian Party. Working with Greens, Constitutionalists, etc. for greater ballot access or on issues where we both agree is a good thing. But Libertarians shouldn’t think votes for Greens or Constitutionalists are a good thing. Why would we? Those parties want GREATER government control in some areas that Libertarians don’t, which would be both wasteful and harmful.

    LG: “when it comes to other parties/candidates its ok to employ the same nose snubbing and arrogance , cause they arent really a valid choice”

    Excuse me, but I think any party that’s on the ballot in enough states to theoretically win the presidency should be allowed in the presidential debates. I think any party that’s organized in a state, with a real structure and officers–should have automatic ballot access. I think Greens and Constitutionalists should be part of the electoral process. I think someone who favors liberty should endorse the candidate who’s overall most libertarian–based on the stances they’re taking in their campaign. They shouldn’t lump all the alternative candidates together as if a vote for any of them is a good thing. I DON’T think it is.

    LG: “and for gods sake Bob Barr was not the most Libertarian at the time, altho he has made good strides lately… and im quite certain noone else has been a cia operative nor spent years denying people their rights and putting them in cages”

    Oh? Who was?

    His being a former CIA man and federal prosecutor wasn’t what he campaigned on.

    Andy: “Also, I thought that it was cool that Ron Paul offered a forum for the minor party and independent candidates who were on the ballot in enough states to theoretically win the election.”

    A good forum would have been to sponsor a televised debate, IMO. Not to imply that a vote for Ralph Nader is cool.

    Andy: “I think that it is quite possible that Chuck Baldwin was more libertarian than Bob Barr. For instance, I know that Bob Barr came out against Fully Informed Juries, and that Chuck Baldwin said that he favored Fully Informed Juries.”

    From a New American interview in 2008:

    TNA: Do you find that philosophically, you differ a great deal from the Libertarian Party?

    Baldwin: “Yes, I do. That’s why I’m not a libertarian. Historically, libertarians believe in open borders. Historically, the Libertarian Party believes in free access to drugs of all sorts, and I don’t subscribe to that. They take no position on abortion. They take no position on “gay” marriage. And I believe marriage is between a man and a woman.”

    Check this out:
    http://libertymaven.com/2008/11/04/presidential-candidates-graphed-on-the-nolan-chart/2990/

    I don’t think the quiz is 100% accurate–but it’s pretty indicative.

    Andy: “Barr didn’t “try” to get Ron Paul’s endorsement. His campaign was very arrogant.”

    I guess it depends on your definition of “try.” Before that press conference, Barr had only kind, respectful words to say about Ron Paul, and his camp did reach out to Paul’s camp. If you mean he should have groveled, then I guess he didn’t try. Otherwise, I don’t know what you mean.

    Andy: “Barr did a poor job of promoting the Libertarian Party during the campaign.”

    I agree. That was never a point of debate.

    Knapp: “Except, of course, on those issues where [Paul’s] busy trying to move America in an anti-libertarian direction.”

    Which are what exactly, other than immigration?

  121. Darryl W. Perry

    Here’s a link to an interview I did with Chuck Baldwin. The only other candidates to give me n interview were Charles Jay & Gene Amondson.

    http://www.nolanchart.com/article4515_quotMinor_Partyquot_Presidential_interview_Part_3.html

    excerpt:

    Q – Do you support the right of self-determination?
    C.B. – Sure, I absolutely believe in that, it’s self-government; and this nation was built upon the foundation of self-government.

    Q – What are your views on taxation?
    C.B. – The less the better, I want to get rid of the 16th Amendment, I want to get rid of the personal income tax, I want to get rid of the Internal Revenue Service.

  122. George Phillies

    “Knapp: “Except, of course, on those issues where [Paul’s] busy trying to move America in an anti-libertarian direction.”

    Which are what exactly, other than immigration?”

    Abortion.

    GLBT rights.

    “States Rights”

    Bigotry. — take a look at his NH immigration TV ad.

    America as a non-religious form of government.

    Fraud — telling some people you are a libertarian, and telling other people you are a conservative.

    I could go on.

  123. David Colborne

    Regarding Ron Paul, yes, I think it would be fantastic if we could tap into his fundraising and activist network and build something special. I wholeheartedly agree that we need to do something, and the only way we’re going to build the LP into something resembling relevance is if we have boots on the ground to make phone calls, knock on doors, and otherwise perform proper electioneering and if we have the funding to back them. At this point, we don’t have enough boots on the ground to fill a ballot in most jurisdictions, much less support said ballot. Unfortunately, I’ve yet to see anyone come up with a plan to tap Paul’s network that doesn’t look like this:

    1. Get close and cuddly with the R3volution.
    2. ???
    3. Profit!

    I can see why C4L likes step 1 – it means they get a bump in activists and funding. Unfortunately, I don’t see how that helps the LP, beyond diverting precious time and resources away from supporting LP candidates and instead sending it to the support of a cranky septuagenarian Republican congressman.

    Having said that, there’s no reason for the LP to be openly rude to Ron Paul supporters. We have a fair number of Ron Paul supporters that show up to our LP events here in Reno and they’re always welcome. We even agree on most issues. However, there are limits to our cooperation – for example, we’re not going to encourage our members to switch voter affiliation to GOP to tilt a primary because doing so would be counterproductive to the LP. We can still hang out, help out with each other’s events, and keep each other abreast of what we’re doing, though, without compromising each other’s goals.

    Regarding jury nullification, my views on it line up fairly similarly with my views on states rights, and for many similar reasons. Yes, jury nullification is great when an unjust law (or, at least, a law that I think is unjust) is being overturned. It’s less great when bigots use it to let people murder and rape minorities without legal consequence. Like Capozzi, I view it as a procedural tool that can do as much harm as good since it has historically done as much harm as good. Personally, I’d prefer the laws responsible for governing my life to get decided at the ballot box, where I can vote for or against them, than to see them routinely decided among a jury of unelected anonymous peers.

  124. JT

    Phillies: “Abortion.

    GLBT rights.

    …America as a non-religious form of government.”

    He’s not working for or against those things, George. He just has different views on them than most libertarians do.

    Your other things aren’t political issues; they’re personal opinions. I already mentioned immigration.

  125. JT

    David: “I can see why C4L likes step 1 – it means they get a bump in activists and funding. Unfortunately, I don’t see how that helps the LP, beyond diverting precious time and resources away from supporting LP candidates and instead sending it to the support of a cranky septuagenarian Republican congressman.”

    This is a fallacy. Just because RP gets those resources from Libertarians DOESN’T mean that otherwise those resources would go to Libertarian candidates. Many LP members may simply want to contribute a lot to him because of his overall record and profile.

    Also, I don’t know why you think he’s “cranky.” Because he’s in his 70s? He usually seems very genial, albeit concerned about the direction the country is headed in.

    David: “However, there are limits to our cooperation – for example, we’re not going to encourage our members to switch voter affiliation to GOP to tilt a primary because doing so would be counterproductive to the LP.”

    I’m not sure about this. Our goal is to advance liberty in America, right? I think the LP is necessary to do that because virtually all Democratic and Republican politicians oppose any serious reduction in government authority. IMO, there have to be Libertarian candidates who publicly point out their policy blunders, clearly advocate pro-freedom alternatives, and are at least competitive with D & R candidates.

    That said, if you have an R candidate who consistently votes as an L would vote in Congress and who constantly criticizes both D & R colleagues for not dramatically reducing state power, then is it worse for liberty if Libertarians vote for him in an R primary election? Even if he doesn’t win the state primary, a strong showing can really send a message–OUR message.

    The LP is just an electoral vehicle for achieving a much freer, more prosperous society given the present alternatives. But if there’s an exception–and as far as I can see there’s only ONE–I don’t think it’s inimical to liberty itself to go outside the party and publicly register one’s support.

  126. LibertarianGirl

    JT_”So you think it would be better to hold a press conference with Bob Barr, Cynthia McKinney, Ralph Nader, and Chuck Baldwin to say vote for one of these people?

    Whatever his shortcomings (and he definitely had some), Bob Barr was the most libertarian of those people. And he didn’t run a campaign that was more “inept” than any of them. At the very least, RP shouldn’t have held a press conference at all–certainly not one that implies all alternative candidates are good choices.

    Again, if I’m the Libertarian candidate for President and I’ve been trying to get his endorsement, I’m not cool with that either.”

    me_ again your saying not to do an event with other 3rd party candidates because what? someone might vote for them or take them seriously?

    I ecsp. like this line—

    ***RP shouldn’t have held a press conference at all–certainly not one that implies all alternative candidates are good choices.****

    i did not misunderstand , that statement says it all… in your mind we are the only alternative candidate , and thats just beyond strange to me given the political arena we deal with all the time that DISHES OUT THE SAME PROTOCOL!!

  127. JT

    LG: “me_ again your saying not to do an event with other 3rd party candidates because what? someone might vote for them or take them seriously?”

    I’m wasn’t talking about doing an event. I was talking about RP holding a press conference in which the message is simply “vote for an alternative candidate.” I don’t think that should his the message. I think the message if he loses the Republican nomination should be “Vote Libertarian.” If you don’t think so, I don’t know why.

    LG: “I [esp.] like this line—

    ***RP shouldn’t have held a press conference at all–certainly not one that implies all alternative candidates are good choices.****”

    I said at the “very least,” which you happened to leave out. It’s preferable to hold a press conference in which he endorses the Libertarian candidate.

    LG: “i did not misunderstand , that statement says it all… in your mind we are the only alternative candidate , and thats just beyond strange to me given the political arena we deal with all the time that DISHES OUT THE SAME PROTOCOL!!”

    First, just relax. Second, it’s beyond strange to me that you’d think I’m saying the Libertarian candidate in the race is the ONLY alternative candidate. That would be absurd.

    What I think is that Libertarians shouldn’t act like a vote for any alternative candidate is a good thing. People who want to decrease government across the board should support other people who want to do that–NOT imply that voting for alternative candidates who want to increase government in some areas is good.

    Tell me, LG, should Ron Paul have had the Nazi candidate for President onstage with him too? I’m not saying that those other candidates are the same as Nazis. But if you’re saying that it’s incumbent that any candidate should be included in a press conference, implying that voting for any of them is okay, then I guess the answer is yes, right?

  128. JT

    Oh, and I’m still waiting for you to tell me whose campaign was more libertarian than Barr’s was, LG. Baldwin? How so?

  129. JT

    “I’m wasn’t talking about doing an event” should be “I wasn’t talking about doing an event.” Damn typos.

  130. JT

    “I don’t think that should his the message” should be “I don’t think that should be his message.”

  131. LibertarianGirl

    um Ralph Nader is an icon in his circles , McKinney was a congresswoman and Chuck Baldwin was the Constitution Party nominee., who are doing pretty well for themselves. All 3 of them we’re worthy of being on the same stage as Bob Barr . Its not like they were an Imperato or Milnes…

    perhaps RP was thinking , well knowing the LP didnt stand a chance but that the disillusioned were ripe for a hallmark lesson: your not wasting your vote , you have choices , let a competition of ideas and values influence who you choose to vote for , its not only fair , and gracious , its Libertarian

  132. JT

    LG: “um Ralph Nader is an icon in his circles , McKinney was a congresswoman and Chuck Baldwin was the Constitution Party nominee., who are doing pretty well for themselves. All 3 of them we’re worthy of being on the same stage as Bob Barr.”

    I didn’t say anything about their credentials to be on the same stage as Bob Barr. I said they weren’t as libertarian as Bob Barr. The message from a pro-liberty Congressman who didn’t win the Republican nomination should be “Vote Libertarian,” not “Vote for Anyone Besides A Democrat Or Republican.”

    LG: “perhaps RP was thinking , well knowing the LP didnt stand a chance but that the disillusioned were ripe for a hallmark lesson: your not wasting your vote , you have choices , let a competition of ideas and values influence who you choose to vote for , its not only fair , and gracious , its Libertarian.”

    Then he left the Communist candidate, the Nazi candidate, and a lot of other people off the guest list.

    Btw, I think I should reiterate that I’m a fan of Ron Paul and not Bob Barr (though I don’t hate Barr either). I just don’t agree with Paul’s decision in this instance.

  133. Robert Capozzi

    156 dc, ya know, the more I think about it, the more my ambivalence about FIJA turns to non-support. Yes, it could be used to overturn an injustice, but it could also be used to overturn justice. Why support that?

  134. Darryl W. Perry

    @JT “Then he left the Communist candidate, the Nazi candidate, and a lot of other people off the guest list.”

    Ron Paul invited all of the “minor party” candidates that were on the ballot in enough States to theoretically win a majority of votes in the Electoral College.

  135. Michael H. Wilson

    re 167: Yes, it could be used to overturn an injustice, but it could also be used to overturn justice. Why support that?

    Because one should not be led around by the nose. People need to think for themselves and that includes those in the jury box.

  136. JT

    Darryl: “Ron Paul invited all of the “minor party” candidates that were on the ballot in enough States to theoretically win a majority of votes in the Electoral College.”

    Well but that’s not fair, according to LG. We need to showcase more values than that. Showcasing more candidates is good.

  137. Robert Milnes

    Even Tom tippie-toes around the issue. Nolan too. His Resolution was aimed at Root & rightists.
    Come out loud & clear & strong against RP, Root, Barr et al.
    Rinse, lather, repeat.

  138. David Colborne

    @JT (158):

    David: “I can see why C4L likes step 1 – it means they get a bump in activists and funding. Unfortunately, I don’t see how that helps the LP, beyond diverting precious time and resources away from supporting LP candidates and instead sending it to the support of a cranky septuagenarian Republican congressman.”

    This is a fallacy. Just because RP gets those resources from Libertarians DOESN’T mean that otherwise those resources would go to Libertarian candidates. Many LP members may simply want to contribute a lot to him because of his overall record and profile.

    That’s kind of my point, actually. People that support Ron Paul aren’t necessarily people that would support a Libertarian candidate. There are more than a few similarities, ideologically speaking, but strategically the differences are almost insurmountable. So, why should I encourage people who have already established a willingness to support LP candidates to support someone else?

    Also, I don’t know why you think he’s “cranky.” Because he’s in his 70s? He usually seems very genial, albeit concerned about the direction the country is headed in.

    His voting record resembles a “principled but unwilling to work with others” ethos that is fairly popular among LP circles, but is usually toxic outside of it. Don’t get me wrong, I appreciate his consistency, and he does a better job of voting “libertarian” than the vast majority of Washington, but I have to wonder if he couldn’t have reached some of his goals faster if he was willing to work with others and judiciously picked his battles instead of screaming from the electoral wilderness. Unfortunately, screaming from the electoral wilderness appears to be his default mode.

    David: “However, there are limits to our cooperation – for example, we’re not going to encourage our members to switch voter affiliation to GOP to tilt a primary because doing so would be counterproductive to the LP.”

    I’m not sure about this. Our goal is to advance liberty in America, right? I think the LP is necessary to do that because virtually all Democratic and Republican politicians oppose any serious reduction in government authority. IMO, there have to be Libertarian candidates who publicly point out their policy blunders, clearly advocate pro-freedom alternatives, and are at least competitive with D & R candidates.

    Part of the problem is that co-opting the GOP is an inefficient means of achieving the voter coalition that we’re seeking to build. You’ll get plenty of fiscally responsible conservatives in the GOP. What you won’t get is an abundance of socially tolerant liberals in the GOP – there’s just too much bad blood, too much control in the hands of the “Moral Majority”, and so on to allow that to really happen. Consequently, any attempt by Libertarians to influence the GOP will be met with frustration, disintegration, and ultimately defeat. If you’re lucky, you split the GOP. If you’re unlucky, you inspire enough ire to prevent any libertarian-leaning planks from making it into their party platform.

    When Libertarians work within the LP, however, they’re not working to break an established institution in half – they’re working to build up a new institution, one that respects all personal freedoms and, just as importantly, will actually follow through to see them protected.

    That said, if you have an R candidate who consistently votes as an L would vote in Congress and who constantly criticizes both D & R colleagues for not dramatically reducing state power, then is it worse for liberty if Libertarians vote for him in an R primary election? Even if he doesn’t win the state primary, a strong showing can really send a message–OUR message.

    Is it worse for liberty? Yes, I believe it is. It tells Ds that libertarian issues are “fringe R” issues, instead of issues that affect some R’s and some D’s equally. That strikes me as a rather serious problem, in no small part because I see far more disgruntled Republicans at my local events than I see disgruntled Blue Dog Democrats. I’m happy to see disgruntled Republicans, don’t get me wrong – we’re not going to get to 50%+1 or 33%+1 if we don’t pick up a few. But, I’d like to see our ideals and our movement appeal to a much wider base than Ron Paul’s movement has thus far.

  139. Darryl W. Perry

    We need to showcase more values than that. Showcasing more candidates is good.

    I agree – too bad you were being sarcastic when you said it…

    Free & Equal hosted a debate where EVERY Presidential candidate was invited to participate – I believe only 2 or 3 showed up…

  140. David Colborne

    @171:

    re 167: Yes, it could be used to overturn an injustice, but it could also be used to overturn justice. Why support that?

    Because one should not be led around by the nose. People need to think for themselves and that includes those in the jury box.

    Thinking for yourself is taking responsibility for your own actions. When you’re on a jury, you’re taking responsibility for someone else’s actions – namely, the actions of both parties in the suit. Your decision has a material effect on both of those parties. Consequently, if I was one of those parties, I’d prefer your decision to be based on the rule of law instead of your personal whims. That alone is enough to lead me to be personally wary of jury nullification. That it was also a tool successfully used by segregationists to let lynchers off the hook seals the deal for me.

    If you don’t like the law, change the law. Everything else is just petty rules lawyering.

  141. Robert Milnes

    I WANTED to go to all the debates. However, the only one I actually made it to-30 miles away.
    I did several intervviews over the phone/voip/interweb.

  142. Robert Capozzi

    171 mhw: Because one should not be led around by the nose. People need to think for themselves and that includes those in the jury box.

    me: What 178 DC said. Plus, jurisprudence and a “justice system” is a CONTRIVED process. The idea is that the contrivance is a format that (most of the time, in theory) “justice” will be served. But there is no “proof” that a judge, prosecutor, defendant and jury is necessarily the optimal means to achieve justice over time. There are a host of rules governing a trial, such as the rules of evidence. The “sides” can say this, but not that, in making their case. Is that the “right” way to go? Hard to say.

    Maybe courtrooms could just be free-for-alls, shouting matches, scenes from Idiocracy! Do we want that? I don’t.

    The rules themselves, then, are a form of being “led by the nose.”

    Any juror can fake his/her way onto a jury with the intention of nullifying now. Getting behind the idea, and formalizing FIJA, is simply not compelling to me.

  143. Robert Milnes

    Maybe Free & Equal should conduct interweb debates. A/V, maybe split screen showing host & present talker.
    I’m dirt poor & only fair to midlin with this newfangled interweb stuff. But even I have a laptop, interwebcam/mic, voip, & wireless 4G.

  144. Darryl W. Perry

    @179 – none were “like you”… they all had ballot access in at least one State

    aside from Obama & McCain – the following were on the bllot in at least 1 State…
    Ralph Nader (Independent)
    Bob Barr (Libertarian)
    Charles O. Baldwin (Constitution)
    Cynthia A. McKinney (Green)
    Alan Keyes (Independent)
    Ron Paul (LA Taxpayers)
    Róger Calero (Socialist Workers)
    Gloria LaRiva (Socialism and Liberation)
    Brian Moore (Socialist)
    None of these Candidates
    Richard Duncan (Independent)
    Charles Jay (Boston Tea Party)
    John Joseph Polachek (New)
    Frank E. McEnulty (New American Indpendent)
    Jeffrey J. Wamboldt (We, the People)
    Thomas R. Stevens (Objectivist)
    Gene C. Amondson (Prohibition)
    Jeffrey Boss (Vote Here)
    George D. J. Phillies (Libertarian)
    Jonathan E. Allen (Independent)
    Ted C. Weill (Reform)
    Bradford Lyttle (US Pacifist)

  145. Darryl W. Perry

    I’ve heard the statist argument that “if you allow a jury to nullify the law; then they could say murder is legal!”

    @184 – do you have examples of “misuse” of jury nullification?

  146. Robert Capozzi

    184 mhw, we can’t know the extent to which nullification has led to a better outcome than no nullification. The question is: Should the process of jurisprudence stipulate that juries should be INFORMED that they can overlook the law? As a L, I at the moment say No. I’m open to a counter, though.

    186 dwp, some say OJ.

  147. Robert Milnes

    Used HP laptop dv6000, centrino duo, win. vista-$450.
    Webcam-new $20.
    Mic-new $10.
    Wireless Clear 4g wimax-$40/mo.
    Voip-magicjack-$20/year.usb>standard household Emerson phone w/caller ID-$10.
    I also have Vonage Vphone-uses 2 earphones.
    Also ATT wireless backup.

  148. Robert Capozzi

    186 dwp: …statist argument …

    me: Please expand. Why is it “statist” to question the utility of FIJA? Non-nihilist I can see…

  149. Robert Milnes

    DWP, I could have gotten on at leastone state-NJ. But why hand NJ $800 when I desperately needed it?
    & where is Charles now? I haven’t heard his ongoing advocacy of BTP. I doubt if he did much to get BTP ballot access. & I doubt if he spent his own $ for campaigning.
    Like I said, give me Nader’s ballot access, RP’s $35 million & a woman libertarian vp & I’ll win your godforsaken election.

  150. Darryl W. Perry

    I say “statist” as it is normally people that advocate for government control that oppose jury nullification.

    The OJ acquittal was NOT an act of “jury nullification” rather it was a result of good lawyering providing the needed “reasonable doubt”…

    As for the Emmit Till murder & trial – I don’t know enough specifics to know if it was a case of “jury nullification” or simply “jury corruption”…

  151. Andy

    “But Libertarians shouldn’t think votes for Greens or Constitutionalists are a good thing.”

    I’m a Libertarian Party member and I consider votes for Green Party candidates and Constitution Party candidates to be better than votes for most Democrats and Republicans.

  152. David Colborne

    @186: What Michael said in 193, and that’s not the only one. Heck, it was the main plot behind “To Kill a Mockingbird”.

    Like I said earlier, I largely view jury nullification as a procedural loophole, not a “fundamental right”, and for many of the reasons Capozzi already laid out. Granted, it’s a loophole that I’ll cheer for if it’s ever used to my benefit, but I know enough about its history to know that it’s a blade that cuts both ways. Ideally, I’d prefer the law itself to be just; if I’m relying on a jury to overturn or ignore an unjust law, that means there’s more work to be done.

  153. David Colborne

    @195: In fairness to the issue, I will note that most of the examples of racists using jury nullification for their own ends were the result of the practice of using all-white juries to try minorities in the Deep South. Obviously, this flies in the face of the whole “jury of your peers” concept. Even so, that’s a pretty serious exploit inherent to the practice.

    Again, I’m in favor of it as long as it advances liberty and against it when it’s used to impose the prejudices of the jury on the members of the court. Consequently, I view it in the same category of tools available to liberty-minded activists as states rights and other, similar legislative constructions.

  154. Andy

    “I’d prefer your decision to be based on the rule of law instead of your personal whims.”

    Laws are merely the whims of politicians written on paper. Many of these whims are anti-liberty. This is why it is imparative that we have Fully Informed Juries ( http://www.FIJA.org ), because we shouldn’t blindly trust the whims of politicians.

  155. Andy

    “Michael H. Wilson // Apr 25, 2011 at 5:45 pm

    I’ll grant the jury nullification has been misused but it has also been a benefit in many cases.”

    People who bring up misuses of jury nullification as an arguement that we should not have Fully Informed Juries are like people who bring up examples of people misusing guns as an arguement for gun control laws.

    While a few people may misuse jury nullification and guns, a society is far better off when jurors have the right to nullify laws in the jury box and to own and carry guns than it is without these rights. Governments are the greatest threats to liberty and jury nullification and the right to keep and bear arms are two of the strongest checks on government power.

  156. Thomas L. Knapp

    Milnes @ 189,

    Why would rightists dominating the LP be an “issue” for me? I’m not affiliated with the LP. For all I care, they can be dominated by Jesuit weasels from outer space. And maybe they are.

  157. Andy

    “Thomas L. Knapp // Apr 25, 2011 at 8:45 pm

    Milnes @ 189,

    Why would rightists dominating the LP be an “issue” for me? I’m not affiliated with the LP. For all I care, they can be dominated by Jesuit weasels from outer space. And maybe they are.”

    This once again begs the question, why are you still here? You are supposedly a non-voting anarchist now, so why do you continue to post at a website which is about minor party and independent candidates? Don’t you have anything better to do?

  158. Don Lake, FYI, not necessarily a unilateral endorsement

    Our country is in sad shape today because our two major political parties have not been doing their job.

    Our federal debt has been caused by a combination of too many tax cuts and too much spending, although there are times when one or both are needed.

    Our dependency on foreign oil could have been resolved 30 years ago if there had been some compromise.

    The solution for Social Security is simple, but also will take compromise.

    The answer to all of our challenges is a new, strong political party to represent the moderate or centrist view.

    A new moderate party would challenge the extreme conservatives and liberals to try and get the moderate vote instead of being critical of the opposing party and having gridlock.

    The negatives could be taken out of politics and more positive selling done by each of the three. There are moderates in both existing parties, but it isn’t the same as if they were combined in a new moderate party that wanted to unite America.

    I predict some multibillionaire with a moderate view who loves America will step up and unite us. It can’t happen soon enough.

    Alan Mohr
    Overland Park [Kansas]

    Posted by Letters Editor on April 26, 2011 at 12:18 AM |

    Read more: http://blogs.kansascity.com/unfettered_letters/2011/04/fix-broken-politics.html#ixzz1KcVt9YeK

  159. Robert Capozzi

    195 dwp: I say “statist” as it is normally people that advocate for government control that oppose jury nullification.

    Me: OK. Let’s stipulate that I was a few days ago mildly for FIJA, and now I’m mildly unsupportive of FIJA. I’ve changed my mind on the matter. In my case, I strongly prefer as little “government control” as possible. The question in my mind is, Is FIJA a case of “government control”? It doesn’t appear to be so on its face, any more than the procedural “right” to a jury is a case of “government control.”

    Let’s test your theory with a similar fact set that is currently prohibited in the jurisprudential system. Look at the rules that prohibit jury tampering. Say a defendant paid a juror to “nullify” the charges against him or her. To make the example rich, let’s say the defendant was in fact innocent, but the case against him or her looked like he or she was guilty. Hoping to avoid a guilty sentence, the defendant pays a juror to vote not-guilty no matter what, leading, say, to a hung jury.

    Another: Let’s say there’s no State. The justice system continues, however. The rules are the same as now. In anarcho paradise, they retain the tradition of the judge instructing the jury to vote guilty if the prosecutor makes his or her case beyond a reasonable doubt.

    IYO, are these examples “statist, too? If not, please defend your charge of “statist.”

    I see you make a distinction between “nullification” and “corruption.” However, “corruption” has to be proven. Nullification opens the door to corruption in a legal system that is based on adjudicating each person as fairly as possible.

    I would suggest that just because some L theorists suggest that FIJA is a good way to go does not make their opinions true. Be open to untethering from bad ideas…it doesn’t make you any less a L, actually! Think for yourself!

    199 Andy: Laws are merely the whims of politicians written on paper. Many of these whims are anti-liberty. This is why it is imparative that we have Fully Informed Juries ( http://www.FIJA.org ), because we shouldn’t blindly trust the whims of politicians.

    Me: Yes, many laws are anti-liberty. I could also make the case that law enforcement and the justice system are anti-liberty, but that not ALL laws and ALL procedures are anti-liberty. Therefore, I don’t agree that it’s “imperative” to support FIJA as a L.

    If it actually IS “imperative,” you should make a far more compelling case for it. Seeing none, I maintain my shift from mildly supportive to mildly unsupportive of FIJA. In your mind, this decision of mine alone may cause you to label me as not L. You are entitled to your opinion. If so, thanks for the feedback, but I will continue to call myself L with a clear conscience.

    OTOH, I support the so-called Miranda rights. It was a procedural change that – all things considered – I think is a good idea.

  160. Thomas L. Knapp

    Andy @ 204,

    “This once again begs the question, why are you still here?”

    I don’t think “begging the question” means what you seem to think it means.

    I commented on another site the other day, on a posted review of a band’s new album, even though I am not a member of that band, or for that matter a member of a band at all.

  161. Robert Capozzi

    210 tk, actually, no question is “begged” at all. I like that you still share your ideas here, even if you are not involved in 3rd-party politics.

    I make it a practice to read your posts, as they are often interesting and insightful.

  162. Robert Capozzi

    more on 209…does anyone know if Rothbard or Rand took a position on jury tampering? A pay off to a juror might be OK with them, I’d think.

  163. Michael H. Wilson

    re Andy @ 200 “People who bring up misuses of jury nullification as an arguement that we should not have Fully Informed Juries are like people who bring up examples of people misusing guns as an arguement for gun control laws. “

    Andy I have to disagree with you. I think it is important that we be honest about the issue. Yes it has been beneficial starting with the Peter Zinger case of 1735 and including the drug war trials that have been found for the defendant, but there are times that nullification has been misused. A full and complete discussion of the issue will not do the libertarian movement any harm. In fact it probably would be beneficial.

  164. JT

    I appreciate your thoughtful post 175, David.

    David: “That’s kind of my point, actually. People that support Ron Paul aren’t necessarily people that would support a Libertarian candidate. There are more than a few similarities, ideologically speaking, but strategically the differences are almost insurmountable. So, why should I encourage people who have already established a willingness to support LP candidates to support someone else?”

    I wasn’t talking about other members of RP’s coalition–I was talking about Libertarians. You said Libertarians helping Ron Paul’s C4L is “diverting precious time and resources away from supporting LP candidates and instead sending it to the support of a cranky septuagenarian Republican congressman.” Did you not say that? (I’ll drop my question as to why you think he’s “cranky” because that’s not important).

    I replied that it doesn’t necessarily divert anything away from the LP. One can’t assume that if not for him, the LP would be the beneficiary of those resources–even if the donors and volunteers for RP are members of the Libertarian Party. I suspect much of those resources wouldn’t go to the LP at all.

    David: “Don’t get me wrong, I appreciate his consistency, and he does a better job of voting “libertarian” than the vast majority of Washington, but I have to wonder if he couldn’t have reached some of his goals faster if he was willing to work with others and judiciously picked his battles instead of screaming from the electoral wilderness.”

    First, he doesn’t do “a better job of voting “libertarian” than the vast majority in Washington”–he does a better job than ALL of Washington, now or at any point of his tenure in Congress. Nobody else is even close.

    Second, I don’t know what you mean when you criticize his willingness “to work with others” or how he picks his battles “instead of screaming from the electoral wilderness.” RP often seeks to work with other members of Congress–both liberals and conservatives–on issues where they agree. Unfortunately, they can’t change policy because his coalitions are always outnumbered by the opposition.

    And he doesn’t pick his battles. He addresses issues as they arise and, other than on one issue of immigration, pushes for a libertarian alternative to what’s being proposed.

    I said: “That said, if you have an R candidate who consistently votes as an L would vote in Congress and who constantly criticizes both D & R colleagues for not dramatically reducing state power, then is it worse for liberty if Libertarians vote for him in an R primary election? Even if he doesn’t win the state primary, a strong showing can really send a message–OUR message.”

    David: “Is it worse for liberty? Yes, I believe it is. It tells Ds that libertarian issues are “fringe R” issues, instead of issues that affect some R’s and some D’s equally.”

    Not in this case. The whole point is that Ron Paul is the exception to the Republican rule. Supporting a guy who’s steadfastly against foreign militarism, censorship, spying, the drug war, and corporate welfare doesn’t tell Democrats that libertarian issues are just fringe Republican issues. It tells them that Ron Paul is fundamentally different from other Republicans because of his libertarian ideas. This is even more so because the media constantly refer to him as libertarian.

    Andy: “I’m a Libertarian Party member and I consider votes for Green Party candidates and Constitution Party candidates to be better than votes for most Democrats and Republicans.’

    “Better” doesn’t equal “good.”

    From post 153, Tom:

    Knapp: “Except, of course, on those issues where [Paul’s] busy trying to move America in an anti-libertarian direction.”

    Me: “Which are what exactly, other than immigration?”

  165. Robert Capozzi

    213 mhw: A full and complete discussion of the issue will not do the libertarian movement any harm. In fact it probably would be beneficial.

    me: I salute you, Mr. Wilson. There are a few “full and complete” discussions we need to have, rather than just accepting an alleged L orthodoxy that may or may not be beneficial to the cause of liberty.

    Parroting party lines based on certain theorists’s opinions seems counterproductive to me. I would THINK Ls would embrace free thinking. I am often disappointed in my assumption.

  166. Thomas L. Knapp

    JT @214,

    Sorry I missed this the first time around:

    —–
    From post 153, Tom:

    Knapp: “Except, of course, on those issues where [Paul’s] busy trying to move America in an anti-libertarian direction.”

    Me: “Which are what exactly, other than immigration?”
    —–

    Well, immigration is a big one, especially given Paul’s purported devotion to “constitutionalism” (the US Constitution does not enumerate a federal power to regulate immigration, and the ratification debates make it clear that that omission was intentional).

    Also on the “constitutionalism” front, Paul has attempted to modify the Constitution legislatively rather than through Amendment, introducing the “Marriage Protection [sic] Act,” which would repeal the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause as applied to Full Faith and Credit.

  167. Thomas L. Knapp

    Milnes @ 216,

    There’s nothing to spin. I may find the LP’s internal affairs, presidential nomination contest, etc. interesting, but I don’t consider myself to have any stake in them.

    If the LP ever decides to unfuck itself, I suppose it might become a valuable player in the freedom movement. If that ever happens, I’ll reconsider my position.

    Until and unless the LP does decide to unfuck itself, it’s at best an amusement to, and and worst a very slight drag on, the freedom movement.

    Unfucking itself would, of course, include discarding the bizarre notion that it shouldn’t run a presidential candidate if one of of its opponent parties happens to nominate a career pork-barrel politician who’s been very adept at extracting money and support from LP members by being nice to them out of one side of his mouth while being nice to neo-Nazis, racists, fundamentalist whackjobs, etc., out of other sides of his mouth.

  168. David Colborne

    @JT (214):

    I appreciate your thoughtful post 175, David.

    Thank you, and right back at you.

    David: “That’s kind of my point, actually. People that support Ron Paul aren’t necessarily people that would support a Libertarian candidate. There are more than a few similarities, ideologically speaking, but strategically the differences are almost insurmountable. So, why should I encourage people who have already established a willingness to support LP candidates to support someone else?”

    I wasn’t talking about other members of RP’s coalition–I was talking about Libertarians. You said Libertarians helping Ron Paul’s C4L is “diverting precious time and resources away from supporting LP candidates and instead sending it to the support of a cranky septuagenarian Republican congressman.” Did you not say that? (I’ll drop my question as to why you think he’s “cranky” because that’s not important).

    Correct – I did say that. The reason I said that is because Ron Paul supporters do not reliably support the LP or its ideals. It’s basically a one-way relationship – libertarians like Ron Paul because he makes a fair amount of noise in the House, so they give him money. In return, he helps perpetuate the assertion that the GOP is the only vehicle capable of supporting candidates that advocate a small government agenda. What the GOP gets in return is a fig leaf they can point to when they need to claim they’re serious about “small government”, along with a handy “island of misfit toys” that they can use to expend pro-liberty energy and money in the primaries when nobody outside of the establishment cares.

    First, he doesn’t do “a better job of voting “libertarian” than the vast majority in Washington”–he does a better job than ALL of Washington, now or at any point of his tenure in Congress. Nobody else is even close.

    Second, I don’t know what you mean when you criticize his willingness “to work with others” or how he picks his battles “instead of screaming from the electoral wilderness.” RP often seeks to work with other members of Congress–both liberals and conservatives–on issues where they agree. Unfortunately, they can’t change policy because his coalitions are always outnumbered by the opposition.

    And he doesn’t pick his battles. He addresses issues as they arise and, other than on one issue of immigration, pushes for a libertarian alternative to what’s being proposed.

    One of the best examples of the sort of behavior that turns me off of Ron Paul was when Iran was experiencing a series of rolling protests after a hotly contested election there. Our Congress came together to issue a non-binding resolution supporting the protesters. There was no interference suggested or offered beyond a few words of support – just a blanket statement that, hey, we’re in favor of the causes advocated for by the protesters. It was a simple statement of fact.

    Ron Paul voted against it. Why? Because it’s “none of our business”.

    From a purely dogmatic standpoint, he might be right. It’s also possible that, by expressing support for the rebels, we played into the Iranian leadership’s hands, though I think we give ourselves a little too much credit there. However, I fail to see why being a “non-interventionist” should suddenly mean that Americans don’t have the right to express an opinion on key events occurring in other countries, nor the right to express support when the people of a country express a willingness to adopt values similar to ours.

    Unfortunately, Ron Paul frequently engages in this sort of attention whoring “flash libertarianism”, and it’s really frustrating. Heck, it’s frustrating when I see it at nondescript LP events when, after a few drinks, everybody decides to hold a “liberty-off” and tries to outdo each other with how much they support “liberty”, with the conversation ultimately culminating in the decision that everyone should live in an anarchist/minarchist utopia, and anyone who disagrees is a statist heathen that should be burned at the stake. Seeing it from elected politicians who should really know better is just obnoxious.

    Also, the cynic in me has noted that, whenever Ron Paul plays the libertarian attention whore card, his fundraising efforts improve. I feel sorry for anybody in his district that wants to run against him – like any good incumbent, he has a nationwide fundraising and activist network explicitly built to guarantee that he will keep his seat, whether the people of East Texas like him or not. Come to think of it, I wonder how they feel about their representative in Congress spending so much of his time on windmill-tilting presidential campaigns?

    Ugh.

    Not in this case. The whole point is that Ron Paul is the exception to the Republican rule. Supporting a guy who’s steadfastly against foreign militarism, censorship, spying, the drug war, and corporate welfare doesn’t tell Democrats that libertarian issues are just fringe Republican issues. It tells them that Ron Paul is fundamentally different from other Republicans because of his libertarian ideas. This is even more so because the media constantly refer to him as libertarian.

    If I saw a similar libertarian-leaning movement percolating out of the Democratic Party, I’d agree with you. Instead, I’m seeing them basically treating Ron Paul as the GOP version of Kucinich – someone in a safe seat who’s so far “out there” that most of his ideas can be safely ignored. Speaking of Kucinich, I’ll note that he and Paul are on roughly the same plane when it comes to foreign militarism, censorship, spying, the drug war, and corporate welfare. Does that make him a libertarian?

  169. JT

    Thanks for addressing my question, Tom. I figured you simply didn’t see it before.

    I’ve already conceded immigration. While I think Paul is wrong and what he advocates would be harmful, I’m not going to condemn him for that because of his overall voting record and public statements.

    As for the MPA, this is sticky. Paul went by phrase in the full faith and credit clause that Congress may pass by general laws the effects that such records have on other states. He makes a constitutional argument there, though it may be flawed. He also makes a libertarian argument regarding the centralization of power in the hands of federal judges, though that may be flawed as well.

    So I’d give him a -1.5 on those issues. I’d give him +1 on virtually everything else.

    Tom: “who’s been very adept at extracting money and support from LP members…”

    Why do you keep using phrases like extracting money, getting between Libertarians and their wallets, etc.? Whether you like it or not–and you obviously don’t–a great many libertarians would be RP donors and volunteers even if his campaign team didn’t solicit them.

    Whatever his faults, RP is a U.S. Representative –not a soil & water commissioner or town marshall–who has actually bucked the political establishment and walked the walk in his legislative career. He has voted against anti-liberty bills with great consistency regardless of whether there was a Democratic or Republican President. He has spoken truth to power over and over and over again, even if he’s all alone among his colleagues. It’s no wonder why he’s beloved by many libertarians and Libertarians.

    When Aaron Russo or Steve Kubby or whoever does that, then he’ll be as admired and earn that level of support, too.

  170. Thomas L. Knapp

    JT @ 220,

    “Why do you keep using phrases like extracting money, getting between Libertarians and their wallets, etc.?”

    Because I am cynical. For many years, I defended Paul when people accused him of pandering to racists, etc. “Look,” I’d say “he can’t stop David Duke from running his free-for-all Straight Talk newsletter on a racist web site. That doesn’t mean he LIKES it.”

    Then I saw the newsletters, and they made it very clear that he actively solicited the positive opinion of — and the money of — the slimiest underside of the body politic.

    And then I watched hem and haw and lie about it in public.

    And then I stopped being a Ron Paul fan.

    And then I started wondering how much of Paul’s reputation is based on bankable fact, and how much is just carefully crafted hype.

    And so I started looking at him a little more skeptically.

    For example, you say he’s “steadfastly against … corporate welfare.” True or false?

    Hint: You might want to look at the “earmarks” he puts on budget bills before voting against those bills — knowing they’ll pass easily and that he’ll get his pork AND still get to make feisty speeches about his commitment to “fiscal conservatism” at fundraisers.

    He’s against corporate welfare when he thinks being against corporate welfare will play with the audience he’s addressing. When it’s time to cut the checks, though, he’s all for it.

  171. George Phillies

    Ron Paul:

    He gave us the Ron Paul Survival Report and his anti-immigration ad in New Hampshire, the one designed by people unaware that New Hampshire has a land not a water border with Canada.

    He’s an antiabortionist.

    He’s against legal gay marriage.

    He was for DADT before he was against it.

    He’s a Christian Dominionist who apparently does not believe in evolution.

    I could go on, but except for his having signed a document and paid the LP money, his Libertarian credentials are dubious.

    He also has associated with far right wing radio talk show hosts, though less so than some LNC members.

    On the other hand, to the best of my knowledge he is not prominent as a birtherite.

  172. Andy

    “Correct – I did say that. The reason I said that is because Ron Paul supporters do not reliably support the LP or its ideals.”

    I’ve been to numerous Ron Paul Meet Ups and Campaign for Liberty meetings in several states. The vast majority of people that I’ve spoken to at these meetings are open to supporting the Libertarian Party.

    ‘George Phillies // Apr 26, 2011 at 5:09 pm

    Ron Paul:

    He gave us the Ron Paul Survival Report and his anti-immigration ad in New Hampshire, the one designed by people unaware that New Hampshire has a land not a water border with Canada.’

    Odd that you say this. I remember the George Phillies for President campaign website said something to the effect of, “The huddled masses in Europe breathe free now, so we no longer need to support open immigration.” You also said that you can’t have open borders at the same time as having a welfare state, so until the welfare state is ended we can’t have open borders. Your stance was basically the same as Ron Paul’s.

    “He’s against legal gay marriage.”

    This is a false statement. Ron Paul said that he doesn’t believe that the government should be involved in the marriage license business at all. He thinks that people should be able to get married without a government license whether they are straight or gay. He also correctly points out that this is not a federal issue.

    “He’s a Christian Dominionist who apparently does not believe in evolution.”

    I’ve been following Ron Paul since 1996 and I’ve rarely seen or heard him mention anything about his own religious views. I’ve heard that he’s a Christian but he sure doesn’t wear it on his sleeve.

    Also, who cares whether he believes in evolution or not? How is this relavent to anything? He’s not trying to get any legislation passed that pushes any view about evolution so this is not relavent to anything.

    “I could go on, but except for his having signed a document and paid the LP money, his Libertarian credentials are dubious.”

    This is a ridiculous statement. Ron Paul is a hero in the libertarian movement.

    Also, at least he takes the correct libertarian position on the Federal Reserve System (as in that it should be abolished).

    “He also has associated with far right wing radio talk show hosts, though less so than some LNC members.”

    Ron Paul has been a guest on numerous radio and TV shows. The hosts of these shows have had views which span the political spectrum.

  173. Andy

    Thomas Knapp said: “Because I am cynical.”

    So the truth comes out! Since you are such a cynic, and since you’ve quit the Libertarian Party and given up on electoral politics in general, why don’t you stop posting here?

  174. Andy

    “I commented on another site the other day, on a posted review of a band’s new album, even though I am not a member of that band, or for that matter a member of a band at all.”

    I don’t consider this to be a valid comparison. Not being in a band is not the same as disavowing listening to music, and you said that you have disavowed electoral politics.

    I think that the truth of the matter is that you are a political junkie that throws tantrums and likes to act like you are cooler than everyone else.

  175. Andy

    Check out this review of Ron Paul’s new book, “Liberty Defined”:

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig12/gibson-g2.1.1.html

    Check out these exerts:

    Liberty Defined is certain to make people on both sides of the left-right political debate uncomfortable. Dr. Paul decries the welfare state beloved by those on the left, but repeatedly shows that such a state is just the other side of the coin of the interventionist foreign policies of those on the right. Dr. Paul himself is a man of religious and spiritual conviction, but he also doesn’t shy away from analyzing how the neoconservatives of the modern right use adulterate religion and patriotism to garner support for their imperialist adventures.

    “Instead of religious beliefs being the cause of war, it is more likely that those who want war co-opt religion and falsely claim the enemy is attacking their religious values. How many times have we heard neoconservatives repeat the mantra that religious fanatics attack us for our freedoms and prosperity? Neoconservatives use religion to stir up hatred toward the enemy.”

    Dr. Paul also isn’t given to idealism. He admits, for example, that a truly libertarian position would have porous borders, but he points out that that just isn’t possible right now. He notes that even in a stateless society, all property would be privately owned and those property-owners at the borders would have the right to decide who cross their land. Dr. Paul handles the issue deftly and his proposals of work permits and conditional green cards as opposed to deportation, among other things, struck even this anarcho-capitalist leaning reader as reasonable.

    And Dr. Paul is certainly no anarchist, but he is close enough for government work. He is the kind of politician even an anarcho-capitalist could love. Dr. Paul is well versed in the dangers of governments and their tendencies to grow; yet he thinks there is room in the world for a minimal amount of government. It’s a delicate balance. He pulls it off with aplomb. In the chapter on prohibition he says:

    “Government should not compel or prohibit any personal activity when that activity poses danger to that individual alone. Drinking and smoking marijuana is one thing, but driving recklessly under the influence is quite another. When an individual threatens the lives of others, there is a role for government to restrain that violence.

    “The government today is involved in compulsion or prohibition of just about everything in our daily activities. Many times these efforts are well intentioned. Other times they result from a philosophic belief that average people need smart humanitarian politicians and bureaucrats to take care of them. The people, they claim, are not smart enough to make their own decisions. And unfortunately, many citizens go along, believing the government will provide perfect safety for them in everything they do. Since governments can’t deliver, this assumption provides a grand moral hazard of complacency and will only be reversed with either a dictatorship or a national bankruptcy that awakens people and forces positive change.”

  176. Andy

    “Granted, it’s a loophole that I’ll cheer for if it’s ever used to my benefit, but I know enough about its history to know that it’s a blade that cuts both ways.”

    You could say the same thing about the right to keep and bear arms. Sometimes people misuse guns, but overall, society is better off when every individual has the right to own and carry firearms.

  177. Robert Capozzi

    228 Andy, yes, both jury nullification and 2A’s interpretation are subject to some clarification and scrutiny. The difference is that jury nullification is a procedural matter; 2A is an operative right.

    You seem to rest your entire position on JN on the notion that laws are whims, often anti-liberty whims. I agree to an extent, but I support SOME laws. I also have many areas where I don’t approve of the legal procedures, but some I do, at least in context. I support rules against jury tampering, for ex.

    In the case of 2A, the idea is “keep and bear” arms, not “own and carry,” actually. Regardless of the language, what that means in a modern context is open IMO to some interpretation. Carrying machine guns in a subway train seems like a real bad idea to me. I don’t think society would be better off if that were legal. You may.

    IOW, you are applying a false analogy, I suggest.

  178. Robert Capozzi

    218 tk: Unfucking itself would, of course, include discarding the bizarre notion that it shouldn’t run a presidential candidate if one of of its opponent parties happens to nominate…[RP].

    me: The LP has not taken this position, near as I can tell. Some Ls may.

    Were this to happen (a VERY long shot), I’m not sure what I’d do. I certainly share your concerns about RP’s dark side, but I’d probably vote for him even if the LP had a candidate on the ballot.

    You can be sure that if RP got the nomination, we’d be seeing NewsletterGate entries on the news daily. “I don’t know who wrote that stuff” would be held up to the light, exposing its lack of credibility. Indeed, I don’t for the life of me why RP is running again with this mammoth skeleton in his closet. If he starts to do well in the early primaries (also unlikely), the rest of the field and the media will have a field day taking him down.

  179. Carol Moore

    Poor Wayne. Not only did Trump get Obama to release his birth certificate but he BOASTED about his big accomplishment. How can one little Root TRUMP that??

  180. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob @ 226,

    You write:

    “‘I don’t know who wrote that stuff’ would be held up to the light, exposing its lack of credibility.”

    I don’t think Ron Paul ever claimed not to know who wrote that stuff.

    When it was published, he claimed to have written and/or endorsed it (that’s what the “by Ron Paul” at the top of the articles and on the front page of the newsletter means).

    In 1996 when the Austin newspaper brought it up, he claimed to have written it, but said it was misunderstood.

    In 2007, he blamed it all on an unnamed ghost writer, but didn’t say he didn’t know who the ghost writer was. He didn’t name the ghost writer (probably because that ghost writer was still an associate).

    So the real question that will probably be raised is “was Ron Paul lying about it in 1996, or was he not lying about it until 2007?”

  181. Robert Capozzi

    228 tk, I was referring to the 08 (not 07) events. That the explanation has changed over time is also deeply disappointing.

    I saw the Blitzer interview, where Blitzer was incredulous about the entire affair. My recollection is that Blitzer followed up with the question, who did write those passages?, and my recollection is that Paul said he didn’t know.

    While the MSM don’t bring this up much since then, the pass he has been getting will be retracted. If he does well in early primaries, this thing won’t go away. If he doesn’t have a REALLY good answer, he will be skewered, I suspect. Chiron’s with quotes from the newsletters will be read over and over again.

    If he doesn’t know this, he is definitely reading his own press clips WAY too much. If his staff doesn’t know this, they are unfit.

    This sort of denial cannot withstand the glare they’ll be subjected to. Since Paul is almost always introduced as a “L” R, one would think plumb liners would be squawking loudly about now, as they seem most interested in maintaining the L brand. By and large, they remain silent. I cannot fathom how they remain silent on the matter.

  182. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob @ 229,

    “I cannot fathom how they remain silent on the matter.”

    I’m pretty sure it’s related to religious hysteria and the fundamentalist tendency. “Ron Paul said it, I believe it, that settles it (and if you try to tell me he said the opposite last week, I’ll plug my ears and yell LAHLAHLAHLAHLAH).”

  183. Gene Berkman

    Just for the historical record:

    When the Ron Paul Survival Letters were published in 199o and 1991 with the racist material and the pandering to the populist Right, it was believed that either Murray Rothbard or Lew Rockwell wrote the offending pieces.

    If you look at Rothbard’s writing in the Rothbard-Rockwell Report, including praising David Duke, obsessing over “Black nationalism” etc, it is consistent with the offensive material from the RPSL.

    In 1987 and 1988 when Ron Paul ran as The Libertarian candidate for President, he focused on ending the War on Drugs and ending the income tax, and took a very libertarian view on immigration and free trade. The Ron Paul Survival Letter was very different from the campaign he ran.

    Paul does have responsibility because the RPSL was published in his name, and he failed to stop the racist articles from being included. But the evidence all points in the direction of the Rothbard-Rockwell partnership.

  184. Thomas L. Knapp

    Gene @ 231,

    A lot of fingers have pointed at Rockwell as the likely author.

    That would explain why Paul didn’t name the alleged errant ghost writer, since Rockwell is still an associate.

  185. Andy

    “which would repeal the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause as applied to Full Faith and Credit.”

    You mean the 14 amendment, which there’s strong evidence to suggest that it was never legally ratified, and may in fact be a fraud.

  186. Andy

    “You seem to rest your entire position on JN on the notion that laws are whims, often anti-liberty whims. I agree to an extent, but I support SOME laws.”

    The overwellming majority of people agree with laws against the initiation of force and fraud, as in laws against murder, theft, robbery, etc…

    A lot of people do not agree with victimless crimes. Maybe they are not consistent on what constitutes a victimless crime, but there are a lot of people who believe that marijuana should be legal, or that people should be able to won and carry guns, and etc….

    I don’t think that there would be very many murderers, rapists, robbers, extortionists, etc…, who’d be aquitted if we had fully informed juries. Sure, it might happen every once in a while, but I bet that it would be extremely rare.

    I think that we’d see a lot more aquittals in the realm of victimless “crimes” if we had fully informed juries. It would be far more difficult for the government to railroad people in court over made up victimless “crimes” if the ability of juries to nullify the law was common knowledge among the populace. This is why the Libertarian Party should push this issue.

  187. Andy

    “Thomas L. Knapp // Apr 26, 2011 at 7:48 pm

    Quoth Andy @ 225:

    ‘I think’

    Thanks for sharing that. Otherwise, I’d never have known.”

    Oh come on Tom, just admitt that even though you’ve claimed that you’ve disavowed electoral politics that you are still an electoral politics junkie and that IPR is your fix. Admitting that you are an addict is the first step to recovery.

  188. Andy

    “218 tk: Unfucking itself would, of course, include discarding the bizarre notion that it shouldn’t run a presidential candidate if one of of its opponent parties happens to nominate…[RP].”

    If the Libertarian Party were stupid enough to run a candidate for President in the unlikely situation where Ron Paul wins the Republican Presidential nomination, then it might actually destroy the Libertarian Party beyond the point of repair. I gaurentee you that the greater libertarian movement would be EXTREMELY PISSED OFF at the Libertarian Party if the party was STUPID enough to run a candidate for President against Ron Paul in the general election.

    I’d go the the LP convention as a delegate and vote for None of the Above or I’d vote for Ron Paul as a write in if Ron Paul were to somehow with the Republican nomination. So would every other LP member that has good sense.

    The vast majority of LP members like Ron Paul, so I don’t think that the party would be stupid enough to screw this up.

  189. Andy

    “In the case of 2A, the idea is ‘keep and bear’ arms, not ‘own and carry,’ actually.”

    There are plenty of quotes from the Founding Fathers that clearly indicate that they meant that people should be able to own and carry guns.

    “Regardless of the language, what that means in a modern context is open IMO to some interpretation.”

    The only interpretation that it is open to is that people have an unalienable right to own and carry guns.

    “Carrying machine guns in a subway train seems like a real bad idea to me. I don’t think society would be better off if that were legal. You may.”

    I’ve seen government agents carry machine guns in subways and airports. If they can do it so should everyone else. Keep in mind that criminal by their nature do not obey they law. If somebody wants to bring a machine gun on a subway and start blowing people away the law isn’t going to stop them. This is why an armed populace is the best defense against crime.

    You make it sound as though passing a law against carrying machine guns in subways is actally going to stop a criminal from doing it.

  190. Robert Capozzi

    237 Andy: You make it sound as though passing a law against carrying machine guns in subways is actally going to stop a criminal from doing it.

    me: Sorry you read my words that way. Not my intent. Laws are meant to dissuade, not be effective, 100% prohibitions.

    I support a law to dissuade carrying a machine gun in a subway train by private citizens. Apparently, you do not. I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on the matter.

    If I have your position scoped properly, I suspect your position would render an advocate unelectable in any jurisdiction. I further suspect that your position will not be persuasive with the general public.

    However, I am open to the possibility that I may be incorrect. You?

  191. Robert Capozzi

    234 Andy: I think that we’d see a lot more aquittals in the realm of victimless “crimes” if we had fully informed juries. It would be far more difficult for the government to railroad people in court over made up victimless “crimes” if the ability of juries to nullify the law was common knowledge among the populace. This is why the Libertarian Party should push this issue.

    me: Yes, I agree that FIJA would likely lead to more victimless crime nullifications. It may also lead to more real crime nullifications, too. Jury members can be fickle.

    I’m not willing to take the risk. I don’t find this issue one that is likely to generate a groundswell of support for liberty across the board, even if you are correct.

    I’d table this one for a later day. Too many cross-currents.

  192. Robert Capozzi

    230 tk, yes, although this terminology seems off to me: “religious hysteria and the fundamentalist tendency.”

    Perhaps “cult of personality”? “Blind loyalty”? “Sycophants”?

    If it’s not those, it could be this idea that Dr. Paul comes across as this amiable country doctor whose language skills are sometimes mangled. Perhaps they think his seeming sincerity will overcome the opposition’s impulse to use NewsletterGate against him.

    My guess is they are sorely mistaken.

    At least here on IPR, I note that when NewletterGate is brought up, the many Paul supporters here refuse to engage on the matter. My guess is they too are engaged in wishful thinking. I’d like to have a frank discussion about it, yet they seem reticent at best, in denial at worst.

    Right now, I anticipate major ugliness on the matter, and the word “L” will be set back far more than any plumb line violation that Barr or Root may have done.

    I really hope I am incorrect!

  193. Robert Capozzi

    237 Andy: There are plenty of quotes from the Founding Fathers that clearly indicate that they meant that people should be able to own and carry guns.

    me: So? Even if they thought that then, now is now. Now the population density is MUCH greater than it was then. Now people take subways. Now there are machine guns.

    Teleport Madison, Jefferson and whomever you like into the present day, and let’s see what they say. IOW, quotes outside the text of the Constitution may be somewhat helpful in understanding the Constitution, but such originalistic analysis that you posit is unpersuasive to me.

  194. Robert Capozzi

    236 Andy: I’d go the the LP convention as a delegate and vote for None of the Above or I’d vote for Ron Paul as a write in if Ron Paul were to somehow with the Republican nomination. So would every other LP member that has good sense.

    me: With NewsletterGate, I put RP’s chances at 1%. If he can clear it up in a satisfactory manner, I put his chances at perhaps 2%.

    Were he the likely R nominee come May 2012, I don’t think the LP can endorse him, according to the ByLaws. It would probably requires something like a Resolution.

    Whether NOTA or a placeholder candidate is appropriate, I cannot say.

    Not worth spending much time thinking about, since it ain’t gonna happen, especially with NewsletterGate hanging out there.

  195. LibertarianGirl

    any nice thing I ever said about wayne I take back , I was wrong and you all were right, I shoulda stuck with my first impression of him which was DISLIKE … anyways he just killed the LP in Nevada for his benefit , we know thats why Wayne and your not gonna get away with it. what you did is gonna come back to haunt you , that much I promise you.

Leave a Reply

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