November 2015 Open Thread

Our monthly open thread. Post news tips about alt parties and independent candidates, discuss any story that should be posted here but has not yet been posted, or even delve into completely off-topic stuff…just avoid quarantined thread subject matter and things that could get us and/or you into legal trouble such as threats, libel, and copyright infringement.

News tips can also be sent to the IPR writers who have chosen to make their contact info available at https://independentpoliticalreport.com/about/.

It’s also become an IPR tradition to post videos in the open threads.

Here’s the latest from Juice Rap News:

A little something from the Geto Boys for Halloween:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJtHdkyo0hc

And, how about a little Samhain… why not?

Want more? Post it in the comments.

318 thoughts on “November 2015 Open Thread

  1. Nicholas Hensley

    Donald Zeigler, the Mayor of Horsehead New York will be running for re-election on the Reform Party line after being first elected as a Republican mayor. He will be facing off against Republican challenger Louise McIntosh.

  2. Andy

    The video below shows a middle to upper middle class black woman being harassed by the police for simply talking a walk in the neighborhood where she lives and is a home owner.

    The police were in the wrong here, but the woman who was harassed, and the person narrating the video, as well as a lot of other people, may think that this kind of thing only happens to people who are black.

    I do not doubt that there are plenty of incidents where black people have been unfairly harassed by the police, but reality is that this country is turning into more and more of a police state, and the police regularly harass all kinds of people. I am white and I have been randomly harassed by the police on more than one occasion myself, and I know of plenty of incidents where white people have been harassed by the police.

    So the bigger issue here is not harassment due to race, but rather the police state itself.

    Dorothy Bland: Caught “Walking While Black” by White Texas Police Dashcam (Redsilverj)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyl5a14b3sA

  3. Andy

    Correction: The narrator of the video above (who is black) actually says at the end of the video that he does not think that the woman above was harassed by the police because she is black, but rather because she was walking down the street waving her arms around (she was exercising).

    Whatever the case may be, I consider the above incident to be an example of police harassment.

  4. paulie Post author

    Anyone going to state conventions this weekend and be willing to cover them for us? ND/SD, SC, HI all this weekend. Those are the last ones on the calendar for 2015.

  5. Jed Ziggler

    This Tuesday night, the TruTV show “Adam Ruins Everything” will be about elections in America. It’s basically a show where a comedian (Adam Conover) tears down some of America’s sacred cows with facts, and has somewhat of a libertarian slant, though not completely. It is possible the show will discuss the injurious laws facing alternative parties. I’ll be working that night, but our readers might want to have a look, see if there’s anything interesting mentioned.

  6. Andy Craig

    Speaking of marijuana, big news out of Mexico today. The collapse of prohibition is starting to dramatically pick up steam, the Issue 3 fiasco in Ohio aside. It’s quite possible now that both Mexico and Canada will legalize within the next year or two, and there are at least another 5 MPP initiatives that will be on state ballots in 2016.

    http://www.drugpolicy.org/news/2015/11/mexicos-supreme-court-declares-individuals-have-right-consume-and-cultivate-marijuana

  7. paulie Post author

    That makes sense. Many countries passed laws against cannabis at the behest of the US (driven mostly by segregationists) and the Apartheid government of South Africa. It’s likely that other countries and parts of the US will end prohibition first and the former US Jim Crow states (especially those that have had relatively minor demographic shifts) will be lagging behind.

  8. Andy Craig

    Not just the U.S., also the U.N. They have an “Office on Drugs and Crime” whose job is to threaten states considering liberalization with thereby violating their treaty obligations. That was the treaty the U.S. pushed (another Anslinger brainchild), but the U.N. side of it has taken on a life of its own, to the point where they’re even applauding Iran for its penchant of hanging people for drug offenses.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/18/iran-drug-executions_n_7269908.html

    Uruguay proved what an empty threat it was, and Colorado et al proved that United States didn’t have a leg to stand on in attacking other countries for legalization. But it wasn’t always an empty threat. Remember, the U.S. actually invaded a nation, deposed its President, and brought him back to the U.S. to face drug trafficking charges in 1989.

  9. paulie Post author

    Not just the U.S., also the U.N. They have an “Office on Drugs and Crime” whose job is to threaten states considering liberalization with thereby violating their treaty obligations. That was the treaty the U.S. pushed (another Anslinger brainchild), but the U.N. side of it has taken on a life of its own, to the point where they’re even applauding Iran for its penchant of hanging people for drug offenses.

    That’s what I meant – US segregationists and Afrikaner apatheiders pushed to get that set up, and in turn the UN office pushed prohibition worldwide.

    Remember, the U.S. actually invaded a nation, deposed its President, and brought him back to the U.S. to face drug trafficking charges in 1989.

    As I thought when I first heard about it at the time, the real issue there was not that drugs were being brought in (that was the cover story) but who controlled that traffic. The successors to Noriega in Panamanian government continued to make lots of money as a transhipment point for “illegal” drugs headed mostly to the US.

  10. Thane Eichenauer

    “.vote seeks to create a political safe space, by reserving FirstnameLastname.vote for every prominent presidential prospect.”
    http://domainnamewire.com/2015/07/16/tld-profile-vote/

    I recently had occasion to visit “arizona dot vote” and read up on this new TLD.
    “get dot vote” (the official registrar web site) looks like it may be worthy of bookmarking

  11. trying again

    In the Louisiana elections week before last, an independent legislator was re-elected. Another was re-elected without an opponent. There is also an independent candidate who will be in a top-two runoff election against a Democrat for an open seat in the legislature on Nov 21.

  12. Deran

    Yes, it is good. But she raised and spent over $441k to do so. And with the turn out so low I think that’ll end up being abt $36 a vote. Quite a lot for Seattle. She spent most of her money on material for an army of door to door volunteers, yard/window signs and mailers. Not very good mailers in my opinion. Too busy and cramped. I mostly look at endorsements and key phrases on mailers. She had too many long paragraphs. I realize she is trying to make complicated points, but in the flurry of mailers I get, long winded expositions don’t seem that useful?

  13. Andy Craig

    “And with the turn out so low I think that’ll end up being abt $36 a vote.”

    Which I’m sure had nothing to do with her support for giving everybody in the city $100 (in four $25 vouchers) to spend on supporting election campaigns. Because nothing says “getting money out of politics” quite like quadrupling the amount of money spent on local elections.

  14. Thane Eichenauer

    Modestly desirable? I do wonder how quickly the folks at Ted Cruz ran to TedCruz.vote and how quickly Carly Fiorina’s people ran to setup CarlyFiorina dot vote. I remember when I first learned that there was a TLD of “.nato” (since discontinued).

  15. NewFederalist

    Well, that IS Mr. Kubby’s signature issue but there are so many other areas of disagreement that I just can’t imagine him overlooking. Oh well, politics and bedfellows and all that!

  16. paulie Post author

    When I was trying to help him run for president, Kubby said he was a one issue voter and that issue was liberty. Now he says he’s a one issue voter and that issue is pot. Go figure.

  17. Thane Eichenauer

    “Steve Kubby endorses Bernie Sanders on Facebook.”
    I agree. The discussion is well worth reading.
    I am intrigued as to Steve Kubby finding the bill to end federal marijuana prohibition to be so very persuasive. I might find it more persuasive if Sanders had legalize marijuana as one of his four main points but as an also ran issue I think Kubby is being snookered.

  18. George Phillies

    …endorses Bernie… Once again a Libertarian Presidential candidate stabs our party in the back.

    Now, I have my preferences for the Democrats and Republicans, but not because I mean them well. For the Republicans, Carson and Santorum seem about the most likely to blow their party up. The Democrats are letting America down in not having any really crazy candidates.

  19. Losty

    George,

    The Democrats Don’t have any Crazy candidates because (Except Webb who ran for the wrong Party’s Nomination, and Chaffee who has done a lot but is done) is because they are the better candidates with the better plan if you are considering the top 2 only. [Any Larouchites and the candidate who “ran” for MS-Gov Excepted, we’re talking POTUS].

    Now, If Gary doesn’t run, or people say once is enough for him, then out of the crop left, is there anyone who you feel is “presidential”?

  20. George Phillies

    We had a debate at our state convention.

    Present were Kerbel, Perry, Feldman, and Reid.

    Perry will only take donations in cryptocurrencies and metallic coins. A campaign run on this basis will be a failure. OUT

    Feldman will not take donations larger than $5. A campaign run on this basis will be a failure. OUT

    I was not taken by Reid’s presentation and proposals, but to each their own. You should look at him yourself.

    Petersen who was not there has supported Rand Paul and is an antiabortionist. UNACCEPTABLE

    Johnson’s 2012 campaign organization (he was not at out convention) was amazing, but not in a good way. If he did somewhat well in 2012, it was that the other parties ran people who some of their own partisans found to be unacceptable, not that his campaign had effective outreach. UNACCEPTABLE.

    The last time the party’s senior losership went out to recruit another candidate, the winning side recruited Barr.

    Parties that have chosen NOTA have not done well as a result. The word “implosion” comes to mind.

    Kerbel is starting to set up a campaign organization. He had plausible opinions on most issues. He is taking real donations. IN MY OPINION at this time he is the only plausible choice.

  21. paulie Post author

    @9:31 pm The article is from 2013. Phone internet usage is just now spreading and a lot more people are using that now than 2 years ago, and it does not require buying a computer and separate internet service. Also, the article says 15-20%, not 25% as you said in the other thread, and contrary to what you said on the other thread the racial disparities don’t control for income. In other words, just as Knapp said on the other thread, the people who are not online are largely people who will not realistically travel cross country to a political convention that lasts several days at their own expense. If you do a survey of the people who actually will in fact go to Orlando and come up with a double digit, or even high single digit, number of people who are not online at all, I will be very surprised.

  22. Andy

    “William Saturn

    November 6, 2015 at 2:56 pm

    Steve Kubby endorses Bernie Sanders on Facebook. An interesting discussion ensues. https://www.facebook.com/steve.kubby.3/posts/10153646402461955?pnref=story

    I disagree with Steve Kubby here. Although Sanders is good on that particular issue, he is also bad on a lot of issues from libertarian perspective. I could see saying something along the lines of, “Bernie Sanders is less toxic than the other Democrats or who are in the race.” but I would not go so far as endorsing him.

  23. jim

    George Phillies: You said, “Real libertarians reject racist LINOs.”

    Generally, the epithet “racist” is hurled against people who simply don’t like some racial minority or another. (PC theory says that racial minorities are incapable of being ‘racist”). However, most libertarians I know don’t think that merely ‘hating’ some individual or group for racial reasons would itself rise to the level of violation the NIOFP.
    So, what if a person fully believes in NIOFP, yet still hates the behavior of various racial minorities? Such a person would, of course, be called “racist” yet it looks like he satisfies the criteria for Libertarianism. How does he become (in your terms) a “LINO” if that’s all he does?

  24. paulie Post author

    Although Sanders is good on that particular issue, he is also bad on a lot of issues from libertarian perspective.

    Kubby acknowledges that, he just thinks the marijuana issue is more important than all those other issues. I don’t see it that way, but then marijuana hasn’t saved my life, landed me in jail or caused me to flee or be forced back to a country, so I don’t have his personal perspective.

  25. paulie Post author

    However, most libertarians I know don’t think that merely ‘hating’ some individual or group for racial reasons would itself rise to the level of violation the NIOFP.
    So, what if a person fully believes in NIOFP, yet still hates the behavior of various racial minorities? Such a person would, of course, be called “racist” yet it looks like he satisfies the criteria for Libertarianism. How does he become (in your terms) a “LINO” if that’s all he does?

    Your question seems to presume that Phillies accepts the non-initiation of force principle. You seem to have forgotten that he does not. His definition of libertarian is different than yours.

  26. jim

    Paulile: If Phillies doesn’t “accept” the NIOFP principle, he isn’t a libertarian. Period.

  27. Andy

    “paulie Post author

    November 7, 2015 at 1:46 am

    ‘Although Sanders is good on that particular issue, he is also bad on a lot of issues from libertarian perspective.’

    Kubby acknowledges that, he just thinks the marijuana issue is more important than all those other issues. I don’t see it that way, but then marijuana hasn’t saved my life, landed me in jail or caused me to flee or be forced back to a country, so I don’t have his personal perspective.”

    I still disagree with the endorsement. I look at where a candidate stands, both in record and rhetoric, and do an analysis from there. Issues can be weighted, so being good in one area may count for more points, and being weak in an area that is weighted lower may not take away as many points as being weak on an issue that is weighted heavier.

    Having said this, I think that overall, Bernie Sanders does not rank high enough on the liberty scale to merit receiving an endorsement from somebody who calls themselves a libertarian.

    Like I said above, I could see an argument for saying that Sanders is less bad than the other Democrats in the race, but I would not outright endorse him.

    I could actually see an argument that Bernie Sanders is dangerous, in that he makes socialism sound like it is some kind of “happy good thing,”

  28. George Phillies

    Libertarian Platform 3.5 …We condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant…

    Thus, I am happy to condemn racist bigots as people who are not Libertarian.

    With respect to internet usage, toward the bottom of that link is the graph showing use by race and nationality. For Hispanics and Blacks, the usage is shown to be under 60%.

  29. paulie Post author

    See above – that was before internet on the phone became much more widely adopted, and does not account for income, so Knapp’s original point on the other thread is correct and not at all racist. I’m also standing by my prediction of the results you would get if you surveyed actual as opposed to theoretical national convention delegates.

  30. paulie Post author

    Libertarian Platform 3.5 …We condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant…

    Thus, I am happy to condemn racist bigots as people who are not Libertarian.

    George and Jim will not get anywhere with this discussion. George defines libertarianism in exclusively partisan terms and Jim defines it as the non-initiation of force principle, which George explicitly rejected in a different thread.

  31. Nicholas Sarwark

    The South Carolina Libertarian Party convention is today. Earlier, Stewart Flood was elected as Chairman. Executive Committee meeting going on at present. Carla Howell will be doing Who’s Driving training in about 30 minutes. I’ll be speaking at dinner this evening.

  32. paulie Post author

    SC, ND, HI LP conventions this weekend. Stewart Flood elected new chair of SC.

    Any other news from these convention? Video, blogging, pictures, news coverage of any sort? Please let us know in the comments here and/or by contacting the IPR writers/editors whose contact info is available on the IPR about page ( https://independentpoliticalreport.com/about/ ).

  33. paulie Post author

    nd

    ———- Forwarded message ———-
    From: riemers@juno.com
    Date: Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 9:48 AM

    Convention Update;

    While not really out of sight, we have been getting some media coverage for this weekend’s convention, and I expect we will have at least 100 attendees. If we do get to the point where the room is over-flowing, and the hotel is unable to expand the room, then we will give preference to members over the general public.

    DOOR PRIZES:

    We would like to have a drawing for some door prizes, so if you have anything you could donate we would appreciate it. What I would like to do is everyone who registers and puts some donation towards the convention costs, will get to enter the drawing.

    I will donate one troy ounce of .999 silver as one of the prizes (worth about $16). So, anything you could contribute to make life interesting, please do so.

    AGENDA:

    Following various requests, I have made some minor time adjustments to the agenda, and the updated one will be available at the convention registration table.

    Speaking of tables, we will have some available for any literature you would like to put out. No charge. If you have a display you want to set up, again no charge, and just work out the location details with me Saturday morning. Also, if you would like 2-3 minutes to address the convention, please let me know and I will try to fit you in at some place.

    CONVENTION CHAIRMAN:

    Normally when you have an election the new chairman then takes over the meeting. I feel this is a bit of a burden on a new chair, so my plan, is to chair the meeting till we close. But if the new chair wants to immediately take over, so be it. Or the convention could decide to just have the convention chairman be someone other then the state chair person. I have no problem with any direction we decide to go.

    Speaking of your current chair (Roland Riemers). I am not running for any state Libertarian office, or for any certain statewide political office. If the convention wants to nominate me for something, I will serve at their request. I leave it up to the members. The only exception is I would enjoy being either a delegate or alternate to the National Convention in Orlando next year.

    FREE BILLBOARD;

    I am in the process of negotiating a the use of a free billboard from Neuman Signs. It seems they have a large and very profitable sign on one of my properties, to which they are not paying me for. So, instead of cash, it is possible they will give us some free billboard space for the Libertarian Party from time to time. My intent, is just to have a recruitment sign for the party.

    POST CARDS;

    To encourage people to sign up for the party, I have had 1,000 cards printed up (my cost) which promotes joining the party. These will be available at the convention. The idea is we can place these cards on various boards about the state (stores, gas stations, etc.). So if each person at the convention puts out 10 cards in the coming months, we should attract some new members at no costs to the party.

    Roland Riemers, State Chm

  34. paulie Post author

    For non FB folks, Petersen claimed to be the new frontrunner and new leader of the LP. Nick told him he (Nick) is the leader of the LP until the convention. I asked Petersen what metrics he is using to determine whether he is the frontrunner. Petersen is claiming credit for bringing people to the convention both to oppose him and to support him. Petersen claims that Johnson is waiting on the outcome of the fair debates lawsuit to decide whether to run, which as far as I know is not true. Fair debates lawsuit could drag on later than the convention unless it is dismissed first. The likelihood of a favorable outcome that soon is extremely low, I think. As of the last I heard from Nielson, Johnson is almost certainly running, but will not announce in 2015 and is waiting on the R herd to thin out. Petersen said Johnson’s business is tanking. I don’t know anything about that.

    Should we move this to the Petersen thread?

  35. jim

    George Phillies: You said:
    “Libertarian Platform 3.5 …We condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant…
    Thus, I am happy to condemn racist bigots as people who are not Libertarian.”

    Except that that’s irrational. Evidently the PC nuts have taken over the Libertarian party. Firstly, someone else’s opinions (even hateful and irrational ones) do not, in themselves, violate my rights. So, for me to condemn a person _as_non-libertarian_ merely because he held these opinions is illogical. (We remain free to condemn him as a generalized “bad person”, or something like that.)

    I am reminded of the saying, “When the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to treat all problems as if they are nails”. Evidently, some people got into a position of control over the Libertarian Party Platform, and decided to use that power as a “hammer” to hit the “nail” of people who disagreed with them.

    Secondly, that is a statement which presumes its own correctness. “Bigotry” can be defined thus: “bigotry noun Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion:
    intolerance, prejudice. (See http://www.thefreedictionary.com/bigotry)

    The key word is “irrational”. As it is currently employed, particularly by PC’s, “Bigotry” is ANY suspicion or hatred of a particular group, regardless of how well-justified it may actually be. (“Irrational” has become irrelevant.)

    “With respect to internet usage, toward the bottom of that link is the graph showing use by race and nationality. For Hispanics and Blacks, the usage is shown to be under 60%.”

    Could you clarify what you mean by this? I see no link in your message.

  36. jim

    Paulie: You quoted and said:
    “”Libertarian Platform 3.5 …We condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant…
    Thus, I am happy to condemn racist bigots as people who are not Libertarian.””

    “George and Jim will not get anywhere with this discussion. George defines libertarianism in exclusively partisan terms

    I don’t know what you mean by “exclusively partisan terms”. Are you implying that libertarianism is simply arbitrary, “It means whatever we say it means”” THAT would amount to a great step backwards.

    One major problem with Democrats and Republicans is that there is no standard by which a person can be tested to determine if he is actually Democrat or Republican. Libertarianism has, or at least HAD, no such problem.

    ” and Jim defines it as the non-initiation of force principle, which George explicitly rejected in a different thread.”

  37. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Paulie,

    Wow, that is quite an ego on that guy. To be a leader, requires that the rank and file “follow” and he is not good at leading anything other than “fans.” Fans are great. But political parties are not fan clubs.

  38. paulie Post author

    Firstly, someone else’s opinions (even hateful and irrational ones) do not, in themselves, violate my rights. So, for me to condemn a person _as_non-libertarian_ merely because he held these opinions is illogical.

    Apparently you missed the memo. George defines libertarian positions by whether or not they appear in the LP platform, not by any adherence to the non-initiation of force principle, which he has explicitly rejected.

    “Bigotry” is ANY suspicion or hatred of a particular group, regardless of how well-justified it may actually be.

    Hating or suspecting people based by their accident of birth in an arbitrarily designed, scientifically suspect (to say the very least) “race” classification is inherently irrational.

    Could you clarify what you mean by this? I see no link in your message.

    It was in a prior message. Try scrolling up.

  39. paulie Post author

    I don’t know what you mean by “exclusively partisan terms”

    As in Libertarian political party.

    Are you implying that libertarianism is simply arbitrary, “It means whatever we say it means””

    I’m not the one that is implying this. I am just telling you what George has said he believes. I disagree with him.

    One major problem with Democrats and Republicans is that there is no standard by which a person can be tested to determine if he is actually Democrat or Republican.

    They each have a political party platform, and in some cases membership dues and/or voter registration and/or ballot labels. George believes the LP should use a similar standard. He does not believe there is any such thing as a libertarian movement outside the LP and he rejects the non-initiation of force principle.

  40. paulie Post author

    Wow, that is quite an ego on that guy.

    I see he has copied the Trump methods of gauging and discussing who is or is not the frontrunner while simultaneously offering himself as a candidate. However, even Trump has not claimed to be “the” leader of the Republican Party, as far as I know.

  41. paulie Post author

    If I misinterpreted anything George said he can correct me. I can find the thread where he said this but I won’t do it right now.

  42. jim

    Paulie, you quoted and said:
    “”Firstly, someone else’s opinions (even hateful and irrational ones) do not, in themselves, violate my rights. So, for me to condemn a person _as_non-libertarian_ merely because he held these opinions is illogical.””
    “Apparently you missed the memo. George defines libertarian positions by whether or not they appear in the LP platform, not by any adherence to the non-initiation of force principle, which he has explicitly rejected.”

    So, on what principle or principles does he believe the LP should stand? On whatever ideas people dream up? To put it another way, what advantages do libertarians have over the D’s and R’s, other than being “The Party of Principle”. (Maybe that motto is out of date, )/

    “”“Bigotry” is ANY suspicion or hatred of a particular group, regardless of how well-justified it may actually be.””

    “Hating or suspecting people based by their accident of birth in an arbitrarily designed, scientifically suspect (to say the very least) “race” classification is inherently irrational.”

    I think you know that’s NOT the way things are. The issue is often (even usually) the way people are brought up to behave, but ways that in the real world happen to correlate strongly with (for example) race.

  43. paulie Post author

    So, on what principle or principles does he believe the LP should stand?

    Those embodied in the platform.

    The issue is often (even usually) the way people are brought up to behave, but ways that in the real world happen to correlate strongly with (for example) race.

    I treat individuals as individuals. For example, lots of people in other countries believe all US Americans are ignorant and arrogant. Yet in my many years in this country, I have found many exceptions to this rule, and I don’t assume anyone is that way until they have shown themselves to be.

  44. George Phillies

    Once upon a time, I had a nice conversation with David Nolan, who write the thing. He viewed it as meaning we were here to do peaceful politics not to use violence to overthrow the Government. period. I agree with him. I realize that other people have other opinions.

    Also, there is the notion that form the other interpretations of the nonaggression statement one can “derive” things” That’s Modern-day Neoplatonism. I do not at all believe in Modern-Day Neoplatonism.

    In addition, I am a partisan Libertarian. I believe in advancing the Libertarian Political Party That’s why I will emphatically say that the Free State Project has been a catastrophic failure, under which the LPNH has gone downhill. However, if you read my book Stand Up for Liberty! you will find me saying the we need >Libertarian Party affinity groups, Libertarian-Party-supporting PACs and SUPERPACs, and Libertarian-Party-supporting think tanks.

    I believe the above is what Pauli is talking about.

  45. jim

    George Phillies: I decided to look up the 2014 Libertarian Party platform. Section 3.5 proudly (and cluelessly) said “We condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant.”. The problem? The very definition of bigotry usually includes being “irrational”, so the statement “We condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant.” is utterly redundant.

    Perhaps by implication it is using the street definition of “bigotry” which probably ignores the entire concept of “irrational”. But I think that most people who rail against “bigotry” are those who deny the idea that the dislike (“hate”) normally associated with bigotry can be rational, rather than irrational.

    Take out the “irrational”, and you merely get something like “We condemn hate as being repugnant”. Except that without the “irrational” portion, it purports to condemn RATIONAL hate. That’s WAY too much for me to agree with!

    I would remove this foolish reference, “”We condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant.” as it is clearly redundant, and if it were freed of that redundancy, it becomes vague and easily misapplied, just as you are misapplying it now.

    Please note that you also deliberately misrepresented the Platform. You said,
    ““Libertarian Platform 3.5 …We condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant…
    Thus, I am happy to condemn racist bigots as people who are not Libertarian.”

    But the Platform DOESN’T say that “racist bigots…are not Libertarian”.
    The platform merely condemns it; doesn’t say they are “not Libertarian”.

  46. George Phillies

    Not to mention illiteracy. I said that *I* am happy to condemn racist bigots as people who are not Libertarian.”No, ship the islamophobes, the antisemites, the anti-blacks, and the civil war historical reconstructionists off to the party in which they belong, the Republican Party.

  47. jim

    George Phillies: You said:
    “Once upon a time, I had a nice conversation with David Nolan, who write the thing. He viewed it as meaning we were here to do peaceful politics not to use violence to overthrow the Government. period. I agree with him. I realize that other people have other opinions.”

    I assume you are referring to the NAP, or NIOFP. Nolan’s statement might have meant that it was intended to signal to the powers-that-be that we would do “peaceful politics”. But I see no libertarian limitation to the use of force IN RESPONSE TO others’ initiation of force. Some people seem to misunderstand, and claim that NAP is akin to a pacificism pledge. Fortunately, most people seem to understand that it is not.

    “Also, there is the notion that form the other interpretations of the nonaggression statement one can “derive” things” That’s Modern-day Neoplatonism. I do not at all believe in Modern-Day Neoplatonism.”

    I skimmed the entire Wikipedia article, “Neoplatonism” and I am no closer to understanding what you meant than before. Was that your intent?

  48. Stewart Flood

    The South Carolina convention and the first state executive committee meeting of the term were streamed. It went quite well.

    It was a really good event, and everyone I talked to said they really liked it and came away better motivated and with information they didn’t have. Didn’t see a single disappointed face in the room, and you almost always see at least one or two!

    Nick and Carla were there, and both gave great presentations. I know that some people say that the who’s driving game seems a bit silly, but it went over really well with our group and got them thinking. Quite a few people who had run for office last cycle got up front to participate and they all liked it. Nick closed the convention this evening with a really motivating presentation. I came into the day slightly dreading being elected, but I’m also feeling much more motivated this evening.

    Michael Carmany (outgoing chair) did a great job of setting up the convention, so now I’ve just got to keep everyone going and working to find candidates to put on the ballot as we start the new election cycle. No “holidays vacation” this year, we’re going to meet in December and a dozen people have tasks they’ve agreed to do before the next meeting.

  49. Jed Ziggler

    Kelly Gneiting posted on IPR’s Facebook group that IAP has nominated Farley Anderson for president. No official announcement and no word on a running mate though.

  50. jim

    George Phillies: You said,
    “Not to mention illiteracy. I said that *I* am happy to condemn racist bigots as people who are not Libertarian.”No, ship the islamophobes, the antisemites, the anti-blacks, and the civil war historical reconstructionists off to the party in which they belong, the Republican Party”

    I just found the perfect riposte to this, on the Cypherpunks list: [Quote follows.]

    “Sometimes lack of terminology is disempowering – that which is
    unspoken (“un-named”) dominating a conversation online or offline.

    For anyone appreciative of succinct terminology, perhaps “cry-bully”
    might be useful in certain conversations you have. Courtesy Daniel
    Greenfield.

    SJW = social justice warrior

    Z

    http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/260687/islam-social-justice-warriors-and-cry-bully-daniel-greenfield

    Islam, Social Justice Warriors and the Cry-Bully
    I don’t know if Cry-Bullies is the perfect word, but it captures the
    dynamic perfectly.
    November 7, 2015
    Daniel Greenfield

    This phenomenon of the abuser-victim is ridiculously widespread these
    days. Every Social Justice Warrior that organizes a hate campaign
    quickly rushes to friendly media outlets to whine about harassment and
    their heroic stand against people doing to them what they do to
    others. I’m not sure if Cry-Bully is the best name for it, but I
    haven’t come up with anything better for it.

    That’s Julie Burchill’s label at the Spectator. I’ve stripped out most
    of the UK pop culture references to focus on the point.

    This is the age of the Cry-Bully, a hideous hybrid of victim and
    victor, weeper and walloper. They are everywhere, these duplicit
    Pushmi-Pullyus of the personal and the political…

    In the 1970s, there was a big difference between bullies and cry-babies.

    Islamism is the ultimate Cry-Bully cause; on one hand stamping
    around murdering anyone who doesn’t agree with you, on the other hand
    yelling ‘ISLAMOPHOBIA’ in lieu of having a real adult debate about the
    merits of your case. Their ‘helpline’ is even called Tell Mama –
    bless. The British-born Islamist recently sentenced to twelve years
    had no problem posing with severed heads (‘Heads, kaffirs,
    disgusting’) and asking friends back home to send him condoms which he
    planned to use raping women captured as ‘war booty’ but then claimed
    to be having nightmares and suffering from depression in order to
    escape jail.

    I would argue that the same brand of selfishness and dehumanization
    that leads to abusive behavior also leads to victimhood.

    We’ve known this about criminals for some time now. They’re all
    victims. No matter what horrible things they did, someone else always
    drove them to it. They’re self-centered enough not to care about
    anyone else while being exquisitely attuned to their own feelings. As
    I wrote a few weeks ago…

    The one thing that Muslim murderers excel at is playing the
    victim. Someone always “made” Mohammed do it. Someone got him so
    frustrated and upset that he had no choice but to rape and kill.

    There’s a term for the kind of people who think like this;
    criminals. There’s a term for the kind of people who defend them;
    leftists.

    The Muslim case for justice can be found in the books of a million
    police departments where all the stories begin with the criminal
    feeling sorry for himself and end in hospitals and morgues. The story
    always begins with, “I wanted what was coming to me” or “She shouldn’t
    have made me angry.”

    But this isn’t limited to Muslims. You can see it in the Black Lives
    Matter tantrums. Or the anti-Gamergate crowd. They’re the victims and
    it’s always someone else’s fault.

    The entire passive aggressive narrative of safe spaces (if you don’t
    censor people who disagree with us, we’re the victims) turns abusers
    into victims, censors into heroes defending their mental health from
    dissenting views and the victim-victor paradigm is constantly flipping
    from one to the other.

    One moment the SJW hero is doing an end zone dance over having
    defeated the latest cultural enemy. The next moment they’re crying
    over mean stuff said to them on Twitter. They’re narcissistic and
    insecure. They want to be treated as helpless heroes, victims of some
    terrible social disease (not that kind) that leaves them always out of
    power and yet always winning. Their sensitivities have to be
    accommodated and censorship is their trophy. They’re all about
    inclusiveness for special people like them, while driving out and
    shutting up anyone who disagrees with them.

    I don’t know if Cry-Bullies is the perfect word, but it captures the
    dynamic perfectly.

    [end quote]

  51. jim

    George Phillies: here’s another good example: [quote begins]

    Not to be confused with “failure to exercise public duty of care and
    hiding of known contraindicating data.”
    Z

    http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/260713/new-yorks-radical-left-wing-attorney-general-plots-daniel-greenfield

    New York’s Radical Left-Wing Attorney General Plots to Criminalize
    Opposing the Left
    November 8, 2015
    Daniel Greenfield

    Here’s a little reminder for anyone who doesn’t believe that what the
    left really wants is a totalitarian state in which opposition to its
    agenda is a crime.

    New York’s Attorney General Eric Schneiderman is extreme even by
    left-wing standards. He’s a radical who ran by promising that violent
    racist thug Al Sharpton would have an “annex” in Albany if he won.

    Now Schneiderman and a few left-wing congressmembers have come up with
    a great idea. Charge Exxon with securities fraud for not “disclosing”
    the risks of Global Warming.

    Whether on not any charges happen, this is a foot in the door for an
    agenda list that goes well beyond Global Warming.

    After energy companies that aren’t paying protection money to Al Gore,
    gun manufacturers can be hit with charges for not “disclosing the
    risks” of gun violence. Private prisons can be hit for not disclosing
    the risks of failing to back sentencing reforms. Educational companies
    can be hit with charges for not disclosing the risks of not adopting
    Common Core.

    Basically any company that disagrees with a left-wing policy can be
    hit with civil and criminal charges. It helps if the company, like
    Exxon, at one point employed kooks who claimed the sky was falling.
    But that just makes the case easier. If the executives disagree with a
    left-wing policy, it’s securities fraud.

    Under this standard, it becomes child’s play to cut off conservative
    organization from any corporate funding. Furthermore, conservative
    organizations would be muzzled by extension. Funding organizations and
    people that dissent from the left would be “fraud”. Because that is
    what this is really about.

    Global Warming is the testbed for making leftist ideology mandatory.
    Manufacture a fake consensus, then use the law to make it mandatory.

    Then there can be a pseudo-scientific consensus on a variety of
    issues, such as the need for higher taxes, and a crackdown on anyone
    who disagrees.

    Since there’s money in pursuing charges like this, and since the best
    way to get the left off your back is to give their political allies
    money, this is robbery for tyranny. And that’s how the left does
    business.

    This is where the left has always been headed. This is a totalitarian movement

    [end of quote]

  52. Jill Pyeatt

    Stewart, I’m pleased to hear that you’re the new chair, and I’m glad the day went well yesterday! I’m looking forward to a good year for the Libertarian Party of South Carolina.

  53. jim

    Jill Pyeatt:
    The term “islamophobia” contains “phobia”, meaning an IRRATIONAL fear. Presumably, you don’t think that placing a bomb on a Russian airliner, murdering over 200 innocent people, is an act that if opposed, would constitutes “Islamophobia”?

    Better yet, read that Pew poll on Islam from about May 2013: http://www.pewforum.org/2012/08/09/the-worlds-muslims-unity-and-diversity-executive-summary/ This is just the “executive summary”. There is plenty more disgusting data where that comes from.

    In short, it is totally unnecessary to have any “irrational fear” of Islam and Muslims, when there is such a huge reason to be RATIONALLY AFRAID of them.

  54. Jill Pyeatt

    Jim said: “Presumably, you don’t think that placing a bomb on a Russian airliner, murdering over 200 innocent people, is an act that if opposed, would constitutes “Islamophobia”?”

    You’re just assuming this was an Islamic act. I don’t assume anything of the sort.

  55. jim

    Jill Pyeatt: You said and quoted:
    “Jim said: “Presumably, you don’t think that placing a bomb on a Russian airliner, murdering over 200 innocent people, is an act that if opposed, would constitutes “Islamophobia”?””

    “You’re just assuming this was an Islamic act. I don’t assume anything of the sort.”

    Strictly speaking, I’m not “assuming” it. ISIS claimed to have done so. And nobody else claimed it.
    And I wonder what you mean, “Islamic act”? Do you mean an act which complies with the dictates of Islam? Or an act by an Islamic person? Or both?

    As far as I am concerned, the facts of massive violence by people who call themselves “muslims”, combined with the results of the Pew Poll I cited, means that it is almost impossible for there to be any IRRATIONAL fear of Muslims: There is plenty of reason to fear them for very rational reasons.

    That a few nuts on the left defend Islam shows that these people aren’t really “liberal”, they are simply “anti-conservative”: Islam is just about as backward, fascistic, medieval a religion as you can possible get in today’s world.

    Probably you are simply ignoring the “irrational” component within the definition of “phobia”.

  56. Stewart Flood

    “Stewart, I’m pleased to hear that you’re the new chair, and I’m glad the day went well yesterday! I’m looking forward to a good year for the Libertarian Party of South Carolina.”

    Appreciate it. We’re going to make a really big push to get candidates this cycle. The change in the statehouse following the fall of Bobby Harrell leaves a bit of a power vacuum in the R’s back room, which the Ds don’t really understand how to deal with. This is the year that we can go after both at the same time if we can get some good candidates on the ballot.

    We usually field 12-15, but my goal is 50. Recruiting candidates and getting them the back room support they need to manage their campaigns is our top priority right now.

  57. paulie Post author

    Strictly speaking, I’m not “assuming” it. ISIS claimed to have done so. And nobody else claimed it.

    So what? They have motive to claim they did it even if it’s not true and if they didn’t do it, it was likely mechanical failure, in which case there would be no one else to make any claims. But even if they did do it again so what? Yes, it’s a fact that there people who commit terrorist acts in the name of Islam, but they are a tiny number of people. Fear and hatred of all Muslims is still irrational. Likewise, there are a tiny number of people who carry out brutal and sadistic acts on behalf of the US regime, like attacking wedding parties with drones. There are also large numbers of Americans who see nothing wrong with such actions. But that doesn’t make it a valid reason to hate and fear all Americans (or US citizens if you prefer).

  58. Jill Pyeatt

    Thanks for your well-spoken response, Paulie.

    I simply think it’s too soon to know what happened to the Russian plane, or why it was done, if it wasn’t a true accident. I don’t believe the mainstream media (and am surprised anyone here does), Also, a high-level Russian was found dead in his hotel room in Washington DC within the last couple days. Was that “ISIS” also? Was it a natural death for a fairly young, very rich man? Does it have anything to do with the downed plane?

    It’s just too soon to tell, in my opinion. But, to blame an enormous group of people for the possible actions of a few extremists is wrong.

  59. jim

    Paulie: You said:
    “So what? They have motive to claim they did it even if it’s not true and if they didn’t do it, it was likely mechanical failure, in which case there would be no one else to make any claims.”

    That’s illogical. Most accidents which are caused by truly accidental causes AREN’T claimed to be terrorist actions.

    “But even if they did do it again so what?”

    ‘What difference at this point does it make?’ 5 points for telling us where that came from.

    “Yes, it’s a fact that there people who commit terrorist acts in the name of Islam, but they are a tiny number of people.”

    There are VASTLY more people who commit terrorist acts in the name of Islam than any other religion. And you ignore the Pew poll I cited: In many Islamic nations, well over 50% of the Muslims have extremist positions.

    “Fear and hatred of all Muslims is still irrational.”

    Strawman, Paulie, Strawman. Did anyone claim we should fear or hate “ALL Muslims”? Then you should apologize for trying to misrepresent what other people said.

    ” Likewise, there are a tiny number of people who carry out brutal and sadistic acts on behalf of the US regime, like attacking wedding parties with drones.”

    I don’t support that either.

  60. paulie Post author

    That’s illogical. Most accidents which are caused by truly accidental causes AREN’T claimed to be terrorist actions.

    I think you’re smarter than you are pretending to be. Islamic State gains money, credibility and recruits when they claim to have successfully carried out terrorist operations. So, if they can jump on an accident and claimed they did it, it helps them grow as an organization. Why would they hesitate to claim “credit” regardless of whether it is due or not?

  61. paulie Post author

    There are VASTLY more people who commit terrorist acts in the name of Islam than any other religion.

    It’s still not a rational basis for hating or fearing Muslims as a whole, and you have to remember when you say this that actions by regime gangs are technically not terrorism even though they are functionally the same thing, and that while Western regimes may not carry out their acts of war/terror in the name of religion, they do represent people predominantly of some religions and also have the approval of many of their citizens.

    And you ignore the Pew poll I cited: In many Islamic nations, well over 50% of the Muslims have extremist positions.

    I didn’t ignore anything. Those numbers have risen in response to increased Western intervention in what they consider to be their part of the world. And state regime gang acts of terror such as the aforementioned drone strikes have a lot of supporters as well.

  62. paulie Post author

    Strawman, Paulie, Strawman. Did anyone claim we should fear or hate “ALL Muslims”?

    Yes, you did. Here’s what you said:

    In short, it is totally unnecessary to have any “irrational fear” of Islam and Muslims, when there is such a huge reason to be RATIONALLY AFRAID of them.

    I didn’t see where you qualified that as some Muslims. You explicitly said Islam and Muslims. Since Islamophobia refers to hate and fear of Muslims as a group, the context is all Muslims.

    ” Likewise, there are a tiny number of people who carry out brutal and sadistic acts on behalf of the US regime, like attacking wedding parties with drones.”

    I don’t support that either.

    You may not, but lots of Americans do. Does that justify bigotry against Americans?

  63. jim

    Paulie, you quoted and said: “There are VASTLY more people who commit terrorist acts in the name of Islam than any other religion.”
    “It’s still not a rational basis for hating or fearing Muslims as a whole,”

    Again, you put up a strawman to say “Muslims as a whole”. When we are subject to attack “as a whole”, we tend to react “as a whole”. If well over 50% of Muslims in majority-Muslim states hold positions which are clearly extremist, tThat indicates that even the rest typically tolerate those beliefs. I will react accordingly.
    How many Christians think it’s okay if people who leave the faith are killed? Far less than 1%, maybe far less than 0.01%. Compare this with about 50% in various majority-Muslim nations. Statistically, that makes them extremely dangerous.

    “d you have to remember when you say this that actions by regime gangs”

    What is a “regime gang”?

    “are technically not terrorism even though they are functionally the same thing,

    If they are “functionally the same thing” I will treat them as if they are “the same thing”.

    ” and that while Western regimes may not carry out their acts of war/terror in the name of religion, they do represent people predominantly of some religions and also have the approval of many of their citizens.”

    After 9/11/2001, I think we had full justification to go in and attack Afghanistan, including anyone there would would fight us. I DON’T share that opinion in regard to Iraq, however.

    “”And you ignore the Pew poll I cited: In many Islamic nations, well over 50% of the Muslims have extremist positions.””
    “I didn’t ignore anything. Those numbers have risen in response to increased Western intervention in what they consider to be their part of the world. ”

    How do you know this? I don’t care if “these numbers have risen” AT ALL. They are NUTS, they are mostly truly very dangerous people who, mostly, understand nothing but violence.

    “And state regime gang”

    That’s the second time you used the term, “regime gang”. I googled that term, and found nothing directly applicable.

    “acts of terror such as the aforementioned drone strikes have a lot of supporters as well.”

    They are engaging in a war against us. War is frequently, indeed usually, ugly.

  64. jim

    George Phillies said: “Not to mention illiteracy. I said that *I* am happy to condemn racist bigots as people who are not Libertarian.”No, ship the islamophobes, the antisemites, the anti-blacks, and the civil war historical reconstructionists off to the party in which they belong, the Republican Party.”

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/video-allegedly-shows-isis-murdering-200-syrian-children-article-1.2428322

    “If true, it is an ISIS slaughter of children on an epic scale.
    Footage of Islamic State militants mass murdering what appear to be 200 Syrian kids was posted online Monday by anti-ISIS group based in Yemen.
    Believed to have been filmed in August 2014 when ISIS captured the Tabqa airbase from Syrian government forces, it shows the militants executing the helpless victims as they lay on the ground with their faces in the dirt.
    “Allahu akbar! (God is great!)” one shooter is heard yelling amid the rat-tat-tat of machine gun fire.
    As the gunmen fire at point blank range, dust rises around them like apparitions during the 30-seconds of slaughter.
    ISIS apparently recorded the massacre to be used for propaganda purposes — and it was not the first time the Muslim fanatics mimicked the Nazis, who used similar tactics to wipe out thousands of Jews, Poles and others they deemed undesirable during World War II.”

    Feeling proud, George? Your peaceful Muslims are showing their true colors.

  65. bruuno

    So did the Libertarian Party of Arkansas put up a name for their president slot on the ballot or are they leaving it blank (until the lawsuit is resolved)? If not why wouldn’t they at least have a placeholder or would that effect the lawsuit in some fashion?

  66. Thane Eichenauer

    Paulie, Thank you for the open thread video/music selections. I don’t know if I will ever play Samhain III: November-Coming-Fire again but I don’t regret listening to it once.

  67. paulie Post author

    Feeling proud, George? Your peaceful Muslims are showing their true colors.

    Jim can’t have it both ways. Either he is talking about all or most Muslims or he’s not. If he is not, the statement about racist bigots stands, because it refers to those who generalize about all or most (whichever large group such as a “race” or widespread religion). If he does believe that his statements are true about all or most Muslims, he should justify that position. Responses to a survey don’t count; lots of Americans answer surveys saying they approve of reprehensible actions such as drone strikes as well.

  68. paulie Post author

    Paulie, Thank you for the open thread video/music selections. I don’t know if I will ever play Samhain III: November-Coming-Fire again but I don’t regret listening to it once.

    Thanks! I was wondering if anyone even notices them anymore.

  69. paulie Post author

    Again, you put up a strawman to say “Muslims as a whole”. When we are subject to attack “as a whole”, we tend to react “as a whole”.

    Has it occurred to you that many Muslims have the same reaction? Duh!

    Keep in mind they have been attacked several orders of magnitude more than Americans have.

  70. paulie Post author

    After 9/11/2001, I think we had full justification to go in and attack Afghanistan,

    Because of what… some gang that claims to be their government, whether they like it or not, demanded evidence against a guest under their protection, as their religion demands, before handing him over? The US regime gang would have done no different if some other regime gang demanded someone living here be handed over to them. And even if the attack against the Afghani regime gang had been justified, the attack against lots of Afghanis who had nothing to do with that regime gang was not, nor was carrying out with money extracted under the threat of force from hundreds of millions of Americans or doing it in all of our names.

  71. paulie Post author

    They are NUTS, they are mostly truly very dangerous people who, mostly, understand nothing but violence.

    You have to explain who exactly you mean by “they”. Unless you mean all or the vast majority of Muslims you have not refuted Phillies’ statement which you challenged.

  72. paulie Post author

    That’s the second time you used the term, “regime gang”. I googled that term, and found nothing directly applicable.

    See, I don’t believe for a second that you are that stupid. It’s just not possible, given your biography. No way.

  73. paulie Post author

    They are engaging in a war against us. War is frequently, indeed usually, ugly.

    And it hasn’t occurred to you that many on both sides of this idiotic war justify the actions of their extremists and sociopaths in this exact same way?

  74. paulie Post author

    I don’t know if I will ever play Samhain III: November-Coming-Fire again but I don’t regret listening to it once.

    Did you like the other two?

  75. bruuno

    Paulie-
    1) thanks for the quick reply regarding Arkansas
    2) thanks for the replies regarding Muslims. One of the things I really respect about the LP is the active rejection of bigotry by so many in the Party

  76. jim

    Bruuno: You said, 2) thanks for the replies regarding Muslims. One of the things I really respect about the LP is the active rejection of bigotry by so many in the Party”

    Since the word “bigotry” generally has in its definition the world “irrational”, then what you said is like saying:
    “I really like LP’s rejection of irrationality”.

    Duh.

    How about being courageous and cut the truisms? Clarify the difference between “irrational” and “rational” dislike of Muslims.

  77. paulie Post author

    How about being courageous and cut the truisms? Clarify the difference between “irrational” and “rational” dislike of Muslims.

    How about being courageous and cut the truisms? Clarify the difference between “irrational” and “rational” dislike of guys named Jim.

    Or:

    How about being courageous and cut the truisms? Clarify the difference between “irrational” and “rational” dislike of (US)Americans.

    Does that make you grasp what’s wrong with your question?

  78. Thane Eichenauer

    Paulie, thank you for the Geto Boys selection. The story is bitter but I thank you even so.

  79. paulie Post author

    Yes Jim, because all Muslims are part of a collective borg-like creature. Just like when the US regime drops bombs on people many of whom have never hurt anyone that’s actually you and me and everyone else in this country doing it, right?

  80. Jill Pyeatt

    Jim said: “Looks like the Peaceful Muslims are demonstrating their love of non-violence in Paris, France!”

    Do you believe everything the mainstream media tells you? I don’t believe anything I hear from any of the large news sites until I’ve verified what’s going on with at least two alternate sites. There are lots of good ones. Their reports usually don’t come out right away, because they need to research what’s going on. Really, more than half of what you hear on the mainstream media is not completely true, IMHO.

  81. georgephillies

    “After 9/11/2001, I think we had full justification to go in and attack Afghanistan, ”

    At the time we attacked, the state of affairs was that the Afghan government had asked on what chargehe had been indicted. There was an extradition treaty, but it had rules built in, notably that an extradition request has to specify the crime.

    This was somewhat embarrassing, and even in the end he was never indicted for anything.

  82. paulie Post author

    Do you believe everything the mainstream media tells you? I don’t believe anything I hear from any of the large news sites until I’ve verified what’s going on with at least two alternate sites. There are lots of good ones. Their reports usually don’t come out right away, because they need to research what’s going on. Really, more than half of what you hear on the mainstream media is not completely true, IMHO.

    And that goes double for Faux News. Pure brainwashing toxicity and mind rot.

  83. paulie Post author

    At the time we attacked, the state of affairs was that the Afghan government had asked on what chargehe had been indicted. There was an extradition treaty, but it had rules built in, notably that an extradition request has to specify the crime.

    This was somewhat embarrassing, and even in the end he was never indicted for anything.

    My point further above exactly.

  84. Andy Craig

    ” There was an extradition treaty, but it had rules built in, notably that an extradition request has to specify the crime.”

    Not exactly. There were no diplomatic recognition, and thus no treaties of any sort, between the Taliban government and the United States.

    However, extradition doesn’t strictly require a treaty, and they did make an offer to hand him over through a regular extradition request. How sincere that offer was, is debatable, but it is what they said at the time.

    However, OBL was already a wanted indicted felon before 9/11, for various previous al-Qaeda attacks, both by the U.S. and other nations. So, such as any legal condition needed to be satisfied, it already had been. From just about any other nation, treaty or no, he would have been extradited long before 9/11.

    You have the gist of the story correct, but it isn’t quite as simple as the Taliban offered regular extradition pursuant to a treaty and we refused to comply with the formalities of that.

  85. paulie Post author

    He was considered a guest under their protection. Their religion commands them to protect their guests and demand evidence before they are handed over. Suppose China demanded that the US hand over some of their dissidents who sought refuge in the US and accused them of terrorism….the US regime would demand evidence. The same was true of the Afghani regime at the time.

  86. Andy Craig

    For what it’s worth, I think launching a manhunt against, at best, a few hundred people with one particular criminal leader, is a preposterous reason to overthrow a government and occupy the country and engage on a decade-plus nation-building democratization mission. Particularly as shown by the fact that he was just as easily able to hide in the nation next door. But, the Taliban were hardly blameless or without fault. They did in fact harbor al-Qaeda, knowing full well they had in the past and would in the future launch attacks on the United States. Their offer to hand over bin Laden, rightly seemed more like a desperate and probably disingenuous effort to save their own asses, than a sincere attempt to make an acceptable peace.

    In the grand scheme of things, going into Afghanistan was the lesser mistake, *staying* in Afghanistan was the bigger mistake. Even the initial overthrow of the Taliban wasn’t done with the tens of thousands of regular forces on the ground; that all came later with the occupation and the NATO efforts to prop up the weak, corrupt, and inept Karzai government.

  87. Andy Craig

    “”He was considered a guest under their protection. Their religion commands them to protect their guests and demand evidence before they are handed over. Suppose China demanded that the US hand over some of their dissidents who sought refuge in the US and accused them of terrorism….the US regime would demand evidence. The same was true of the Afghani regime at the time.””

    Correct, so far as that goes. But there was already and outstanding request, submitted with evidence and a criminal indictment, against bin Laden. We’d even bombed them over it once before, in 1998. He didn’t just pop out of nowhere on 9/11, there was already a known history of him launching terrorist attacks.

  88. paulie Post author

    Having anything to do with invading or occupying Afghanistan was absolute folly. Only people with no sense of history of Afghanistan as the graveyard of empires and of the time-proven folly of getting into land wars in Asia would contemplate such foolishness. And the idea that more “infidels” occupying and bombing yet another Muslim nation would crush Islamic terrorism, rather than inspire a lot more of it, goes well beyond idiocy into the realm of the intentionally suicidal.

  89. paulie Post author

    For what it’s worth, I think launching a manhunt against, at best, a few hundred people with one particular criminal leader, is a preposterous reason to overthrow a government and occupy the country and engage on a decade-plus nation-building democratization mission. Particularly as shown by the fact that he was just as easily able to hide in the nation next door.

    Bingo!

  90. jim

    Jill Pyeatt: You said, “Do you believe everything the mainstream media tells you? I don’t believe anything I hear from any of the large news sites until I’ve verified what’s going on with at least two alternate sites.”

    Does your waiting a day or two to verify the source and motivation for the attack mean that the victims are any less dead?!?

  91. Wang Tang-Fu

    WS @ 7:48 pm

    Thank you for the link. AH, whom I have never heard of before, makes a good point:

    “Thank you for quickly making it easy for me to discard you as a possible candidate to support for the Libertarian nomination for President. There is no place for racism in our party. […] Judging people in groups rather than as individuals is precisely what the anti-libertarians of all stripes do. Asserting that the United Nations has any valid or legitimate function in this world shows how much you lack understanding of liberty.”

  92. Wang Tang-Fu

    “victims are any less dead?!?”

    No less dead than the victims of US drone attacks, the thousands of US troops killed in Afghanistan and Iraq, or the hundreds of thousands to millions of Iraqis, Afghanis, Sudanese, Libyans, etc., in the last quarter-century of US government bombing, occupations, invasions, and blockades of the Middle East, Central Asia, and North Africa.

  93. paulie Post author

    Well, yes, during a state of emergency. I doubt they will be stupid enough to make that permanent, although who knows.

  94. Jill Pyeatt

    Seriously, we don’t know what happened. Every event like this has a lot of incorrect reporting at the beginning. We need to sit tight and found out who did it, and why.

  95. Cody Quirk

    It was another fundamentalist Islamic attack alright; eyewitness reports of AK-47 wielding gunmen shouting “Allah Akbar” at multiple scenes across France.

    I might be Libertarian here in my country, yet were I French, then I would be even more encouraged to support the Front National more then ever; Marine Le Pen and other nationalist ‘Eurosceptics’ have been warning about this stuff happening for years, and especially when the refugee crises hit.

    Now look at the carnage playing out tonight.

  96. Cody Quirk

    Oh I forgot, some of them also blew themselves up too.

    Yeah, what the nationalist & populist right in Europe have been warning about for quite some time is happening right before our very eyes; political correctness and government incompetence in Europe is the main reasons why this happened, and likely will happen again.

  97. georgephillies

    jed, Not really. Their immigration stand is not that far from Daniel Trump’s, modulated by some differences in the facts on the ground. However, for historical reasons that apparently trace back to Nazi Germany and the evil odor around that place, being against open borders is a position far further to the right there than it is here. I do not recall a good reference discussing the detailed history of how Nazism turned into this position. I do not see much discussion of their other positions.

  98. Andy Craig

    NF used to be more extremist, under Le Pen the elder who founded it and led it for many years. His daughter Marine has taken over the party a few years back, and very publicly kicked him out of it in a nasty fight, mostly over his tendency to say overtly racist things and his flirting with Holocaust denialism. Marine has taken them in a direction that would place them as roughly equivalent to someone like a Trump or a Tom Tancredo in the US. Still a right-wing populist-nationalist party, and anti-immigration, but with their increased electoral success has come a large degree of moderation and effort to be an acceptable mainstream party. I wouldn’t put them quite on par with a virulently white supremacist micro-party like AFP.

  99. jim

    Paulie: Did you just erase a message from another person, who was complaining that you have been spending a lot of time censoring people you disagree with?

  100. Jill Pyeatt

    No, Jim, I did. I’ve deleted several of his comments today.

    You have not been around for years, and you’re not aware of this person, so I’ll tell you why I did this. This troll keeps coming around, and has done so for a couple years. He obsessively talks about groups of people who are not white and attributes terrible behavior to them. He contributes nothing besides that. If we let him get away with a few comments, he starts in with very nasty and untrue personal attacks on several of the contributors here. This troll could even be described as stalking a couple of us because he knows things said in personal phone calls, and knows what rooms we stay in in hotels, and similar things. We spent a lot of time as writers deciding how to handle him, and we also got input from our readers. The decision was to delete the comments as soon as we know it’s him.

    I’m not the only writer who deletes the comments, but I’m done it several times this week.

    So, Mr. Troll, it’s been me doing it this week.

    Jim, you’ll just have to trust us that we made the decision not to tolerate him in order to maintain some decorum in this site.

  101. paulie Post author

    Paulie: Did you just erase a message from another person, who was complaining that you have been spending a lot of time censoring people you disagree with?

    I went to sleep for the night right after my last comment in this thread. I did zap a bunch of troll comments before that and I guess Jill and maybe some others did as well after that. These are long term trolls who have attacked this site for many years and they have been told in no uncertain terms that they are not welcome here. That is based on their behavior, not their opinions. Their long term pattern shows as Jill said, that if you allow them to participate here in any way that the bad behavior becomes increasingly bad the longer they are allowed to stay. It has happened over and over and at this point they are not going to get any new chances. We will continue to zap each and every comment of theirs that we identify as being them regardless of whether that particular comment is in itself innocuous. And by we I do not just mean me. I’m not sure why you would assume it was me. In any case, that is our policy, it’s been debated to death many times in the past, and it will continue to be our policy. I’m not interested in debating it yet again.

  102. Jose C

    What should the response be of the Libertarian Party of France? If I was a member and French (of course) I would support a call and statement from the French government that there exists a state of war between France and ISIS. I would then urge the French government to engage in the war by mobilizing the French military and attacking ISIS in the countries in the Middle East where ISIS is located. I would not stop the military actions until ISIS was destroyed and they had signed terms of surrender similar to what occurred when the Empire of Japan surrendered to the Allied nations and World War 2 ended.

    I would also call on all French Muslim religious leaders to condemn the acts of terrorism as in violation of the tenets of Islam. I would urge the religious leaders to continue to condemn acts of terrorism committed anywhere in the world by Muslims, Arabs, etc. soon after they occurred as in violation of the tenets of Islam. I would urge this to be done without equivocation or evasion. They must do this so the religion of Islam can be considered a religion of peace, fellowship, and humanity with the peoples of the world instead of war, hatred, distrust, killing, ugliness, and terror.

  103. paulie Post author

    What should the response be of the Libertarian Party of France? If I was a member and French (of course) I would support a call and statement from the French government that there exists a state of war between France and ISIS.

    Which is exactly what Islamic State wants. Helps their recruiting tremendously.

  104. paulie Post author

    I would not stop the military actions until ISIS was destroyed and they had signed terms of surrender similar to what occurred when the Empire of Japan surrendered to the Allied nations and World War 2 ended.

    Equally stupid. They would just spring up again under a different name. These are terrorists we are talking about here. There’s no main head on this hydra.

  105. paulie Post author

    I would also call on all French Muslim religious leaders to condemn the acts of terrorism as in violation of the tenets of Islam.

    Many already have.

  106. Andy Craig

    Calling this a “war,” and Deash a “state” is legitimizing them in exactly the way the want to (and don’t deserve to be) legitimatized.

    This was big, and horrific, but it was a *crime* conducted by a *criminal organization*. This was not one nation-state attacking another, it’s not like Germany torpedoed our ship or Japan attacked our naval base. This was something done by, at best, a few dozen people, including eight actual attackers. That this can be confused for “war” or “invasion” speaks volumes about how little experience those in the West (thankfully) have with such things.

    In the immediate aftermath of a terrorist attack it’s easy to lose all sense of proportion and demand the government wage “war” because that’s the biggest meanest response you can think of. That doesn’t make it the correct response. By all means, France should hunt down and capture or kill those responsible. But that’s not a war, it’s a manhunt. Just like when we eventually found and executed bin Laden in Pakistan, and our decade-long occupation of Afghanistan did bupkis to get us any closer to that goal.

  107. jim

    Jose C said:
    “I would also call on all French Muslim religious leaders to condemn the acts of terrorism as in violation of the tenets of Islam. I would urge the religious leaders to continue to condemn acts of terrorism committed anywhere in the world by Muslims, Arabs, etc. soon after they occurred as in violation of the tenets of Islam. I would urge this to be done without equivocation or evasion. They must do this so the religion of Islam can be considered a religion of peace, fellowship, and humanity with the peoples of the world instead of war, hatred, distrust, killing, ugliness, and terror.”

    This is precisely what you WON’T see out of the large majority of Muslims around the world. Many will applaud the Paris attacks, a very few will condemn them. The large majority will say nothing.

  108. paulie Post author

    a very few will condemn them

    That’s demonstrably false

    http://thinkprogress.org/world/2015/11/14/3722277/muslims-condemn-paris-attacks-pope-francis/

    Muslims Around The World Condemn Paris Attacks Claimed By ISIS

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/11/14/muslims-strongly-condemn-paris-attacks/75772102/

    http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/commonwordcommonlord/2014/08/think-muslims-havent-condemned-isis-think-again.html

    http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/national-international/US-Council-of-Muslim-Organizations-Condemn-Paris-Attacks-348797481.html

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/muslim-leaders-worldwide-condemn-isis/5397364

  109. paulie Post author

    Now how about all the Christian and Jewish organizations condemn all the Western regime attacks against Muslim civilians that have killed way, way more people than terrorists have?

    Yes, I know some have.

  110. paulie Post author

    Now how about all the Christian and Jewish organizations condemn all the Western regime attacks against Muslim civilians that have killed way, way more people than terrorists have?

    I should clarify the second part: way more people than terrorists have. After all, the western regime actions against Muslims are also meant to inspire terror, the only difference in principle being that the regimes are held up as something more legitimate than smaller and/or less organized terror gangs. Well, that, and the scale on which they carry out their killing.

  111. Robert Capozzi

    ac: This was big, and horrific, but it was a *crime* conducted by a *criminal organization*. This was not one nation-state attacking another, it’s not like Germany torpedoed our ship or Japan attacked our naval base.

    me: Is this true? I thought ISIS claims to be a state.

  112. paulie Post author

    Claims =/= worthy of recognition. That said, yes, they are blurring the lines between nation-states and stateless terrorists, exposing the fiction that they are entirely separate and unrelated phenomena.

  113. Robert Capozzi

    pf, I would think that no state is “worthy of recognition,” whether it’s a “blurry” state or a widely recognized one, since all states are just gangs, anyway, from the Frankel perspective.

    If the ISIS gang the pokes the France gang, it’s not surprising to see the France gang is poking back. All are just gangs, after all, but can we blame them for responding?

    The US gang is allied with the France gang, but I’m not sure how I feel about backing up the France gang. Attacking the Iraq and Afghanistan gangs didn’t work too well, so I’m disinclined to continue to play in this sand box. Still, slaughtering innocents for no reason at all seems like it needs some sort of response…

    Would President Frankel respond by closing all ME bases and embassies in response? Exit NATO.

    If so, do you think this can be sold widely?

  114. paulie Post author

    Robert,

    Basically correct, but these gangs work on different levels of organization. Basically, when one of the bigger ones declares war, they tend to kill hundreds of thousands or millions of people, most of whom have nothing to do with the opposing gang. As for the “Islamic State” gang, they are a hybrid between a neighborhood gang and a nonterritorial criminal crew that pops up all over the place, does its dirt and is gone until it pops up in any other place in the world etc.; so, leveling, say, the city where its current main HQ neighborhood is one of several in said city, and many of whose residents don’t support the gang, is both far too broad (the vast majority of those killed will be bystanders) and too narrow (they will still pop up in plenty of other places even if you do).

    It’s also questionable whether they are really Islamic, in addition to whether they are a state. I saw something today about one of their freed hostages saying he did not see any Qurans. Maybe they are just a bunch of thugs using a distorted version of religion as an excuse of convenience?

    If the ISIS gang the pokes the France gang, it’s not surprising to see the France gang is poking back.

    And vice versa. You do know France has been attacking them before this, right?

    All are just gangs, after all, but can we blame them for responding?

    It’s what they do.

    The US gang is allied with the France gang, but I’m not sure how I feel about backing up the France gang. Attacking the Iraq and Afghanistan gangs didn’t work too well, so I’m disinclined to continue to play in this sand box.

    The US gang should mind its own business.

    Still, slaughtering innocents for no reason at all seems like it needs some sort of response…

    If you feel strongly enough about it, you should be free to respond in any way that does not involve conscripting anyone’s money or person to join your fight.

  115. paulie Post author

    Would President Frankel respond by closing all ME bases and embassies in response? Exit NATO.

    Closing bases, yes. Closing embassies, no. Exit NATO, yes. President Frankel, no.

    If so, do you think this can be sold widely?

    It needs to be sold however widely we can. I believe it will eventually take over the market, but I don’t know exactly when. My estimate is single to low double digit number of years. I realize that is more optimistic than most people.

  116. Robert Capozzi

    PF: The US gang should mind its own business.

    ME: My default position.

    As Chief of Staff in the Long Administration, would your counsel be that this be a good time to exit NATO? If so, I’m not sure, but does ending a treaty also require Senate approval?

  117. paulie Post author

    Yes it would be a great time to exit NATO. I don’t know the answer to your other question off the top of my head.

  118. paulie Post author

    According to gang rules, of course….

    Of course. Phailure to phollow proper posse procedure promotes piss poor paisans.

  119. Robert Capozzi

    pf: Yes it would be a great time to exit NATO.

    me: I suspect that the US disentangling from NATO tomorrow on the heels of the Paris Terror attack might be the single most unpopular move that President Long could make. Do you recognize that strong possibility?

    I say this as someone who advocates NATO disentanglement. Now, however, would be colossally poor timing, IMO.

  120. paulie Post author

    Well, if so, President Long would have to decide whether short term popularity trumps principle. He will either have been early in his term, with plenty of time to recover his popularity, or late in his term, and already long out of NATO (hah!). But it seems rather unlikely that the same electorate that would pick Professor Long over Governor Short would turn against him in such a dramatic fashion at the first major sign of terrorism in Europe. I know voters are fickle, but somehow I think an electorate that would react in such a manner would have voted for Gov. Short in overwhelming numbers.

  121. Thane Eichenauer

    As far as Asra Nomani it seemed to me that she and Bill Maher were talking about issues that are nearly non-issues in the West. They are certainly important issues elsewhere but I am unsure if there is much viewership of Real Time with Bill Maher in the lands where most of her issues are issues.

  122. Andy Craig

    “”Claims =/= worthy of recognition. That said, yes, they are blurring the lines between nation-states and stateless terrorists, exposing the fiction that they are entirely separate and unrelated phenomena.””

    Exactly. Liberland claims to be a “state,” too.

    Daesh does control territory, that much is true. So do drug cartels in Mexico, FARC in Colombia, and the Bloods and Crips in LA.

    The usual criteria for qualifying as a “state,” independent of any formal recognition as such by other nations, is:

    1) a defined territory;
    2) a permanent population;
    3) a government and
    4) a capacity to enter into relations with other states.

    The so-called Islamic State does not have 1 (they claim no borders or limits to their territory), arguably doesn’t have 2 (there are people who live in IS-controlled areas, but they’re still Iraqis or Syrians, closer to living under occupation than constituting some kind of IS citizenry), might have their best claim on 3 in that they are loosely exercising a sort of government with defined hierarchy, leaders, and tentative institutions, but on 4… well, not even close. They have neither the capacity nor the desire to enter into relations with any other state.

    Daesh might blur the line, but really not that much. If they actually took control of state institutions in Baghdad and Damascus and started sending ambassadors to other nations…. maybe. Or if they set themselves up with some kind of defined border around their current territory and actually set about governing it as opposed to merely occupying it. But neither of those things are on their agenda.

    The closest precedent, would maybe be some like the piratical psuedo-states that would sometimes set themselves up in control of distant islands or on stretches of isolated coast. I do appreciate the point about “governments are just a gang of thieves writ large,” and how one ship makes a pirate and a fleet an emperor…. but, there are still some important distinctions, and scale is legitimately one of those distinctions. And the reason it matters, is because people think and react very differently to a criminal justice and domestic security problem, than they do an alleged military threat demanding the waging of “war.”

  123. Robert Capozzi

    pf: Well, if so, President Long would have to decide whether short term popularity trumps principle.

    me: Not buying this either/or. Timing — at least in politics — is vitally important. If Obama tomorrow said, The US is exiting NATO, effective immediately, on the heels of this Paris Terror, I’d say I personally support the move, BUT the politics and timing are absolutely ill-advised.

    Timing may well not factor into your decision matrix, but I’m more interested in progress vs. holding high “principle” on all things right now.

    Now, if President Long’d campaigned on NATO exit, and he won, then an event such as this MIGHT be good timing. Personally, my assessment that Long is unelectable, so my advice to him is to stick to philosophizing. His philosophy is, I dare say, way ahead of its time, and many things would need to happen before he’d be electable, given his generally fringe positioning.

  124. Robert Capozzi

    ac: 1) a defined territory;
    2) a permanent population;
    3) a government and
    4) a capacity to enter into relations with other states.

    me: I hear you. It seems that the lines can get kinda murky. The colonies of 1775 had had skirmishes IIRC with the Brits in 1775, but I’m guessing you think it was a “war” until mid-1776. Before that, I’m guessing you’d say they were just “criminals,” yes? I don’t believe 4) was satisfied until later.

    Any revolution I think would be, in your view, a criminal enterprise, for that matter.

  125. Andy Craig

    “”I hear you. It seems that the lines can get kinda murky. The colonies of 1775 had had skirmishes IIRC with the Brits in 1775, but I’m guessing you think it was a “war” until mid-1776. Before that, I’m guessing you’d say they were just “criminals,” yes? I don’t believe 4) was satisfied until later.””

    4 was satisfied pretty much immediately after the Declaration in 76 (Morroco became the first nation to recognize us in early 1777, not much longer than it took the news to travel that far). In 1775, the colonies made no claim to being independent states. They were, at least ostensibly, still holding out for some sort of peaceful settlement within the empire.

    “”Any revolution I think would be, in your view, a criminal enterprise, for that matter.””

    That’s pretty much true by definition, whether they are justified or not they certainly aren’t legal.

  126. Robert Capozzi

    ac, to me, I guess I don’t really care what’s “legal” or not. I’m interested in what’s justified, at least in context, which can involve a rule of law.

    To characterize ALL revolutions as “criminal” seems harsh to me. ymmv…

    Interestingly, I would think all revolutions are criminals to our unqualified anarchist colleagues, as they all (that I can think of) look to replace the state with something vs. nothing.

  127. Thane Eichenauer

    Paulie,
    Can’t you promote a The Moon is a Harsh Mistress meme instead? Ugh plus too wordy plus ugh.

  128. Robert Capozzi

    pf: Before anyone was afraid of ISIS terrorists disguised as Syrian refugees….

    me: Who pays for the transit of refugees? Are “stolen” tax dollars used to bring them here? If so, I’d think that’s all you’d need to know to label refugee relocation as “evil,” yes?

    I thought I saw that ISIS members have been embedded in Syrian refugees in Europe. If so, is there not a reasonable concern about additional waves of refugees? Is it just paranoia?

  129. Starchild

    Trying to quarantine all the criminals in the world’s “bad neighborhoods” is not a moral strategy for fighting global crime (e.g. terrorism), because good people also live in those neighborhoods. They are just as worthy of protection as the people living in the “good neighborhoods”.

    In other words, 129 people (or whatever the current death toll is) dying in Paris, or in the United States, is no worse than the same number of people dying in Syria or Iraq. Or, more realistically, 10x, 100x, or 1000x as many dying in Syria and Iraq.

    So no, I don’t think it’s “reasonable” to fret over the arrival large numbers of additional refugees, not when turning them away carries a more likely threat of worse consequences. The people most worthy of concern are not those taken in, but those left behind. It is not just paranoia to worry that those refused entry may be at much higher risk of becoming victims of war, terrorism, or democide.

  130. Jill Pyeatt

    I’ll accept this risk of the occasional “terrorist” if we’re able to extend the lives of thousands of innocent people.

  131. paulie Post author

    Who pays for the transit of refugees? Are “stolen” tax dollars used to bring them here?

    Not necessarily. It could be done through voluntary means or they may bear the costs of transit themselves. When we got here we were considered refugees legally, although I have seen lots of other people who deserved the term a lot more than we did and were not legally considered refugees. We received aid from something called the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society which I don’t believe is a government agency although I could be wrong, family who were already here, and various Jewish community organizations. We started out living with relatives and when we moved out we lived in cramped apartments in bad neighborhoods and found our furniture and appliances thrown out by other people on the curb, etc.

    Are “stolen” tax dollars used to bring them here? If so, I’d think that’s all you’d need to know to label refugee relocation as “evil,” yes?

    There are degrees of evil all around. The funding is evil to the extent that it comes from governments but that doesn’t make relocation itself evil. On the global scale of evil I would count bombing Syria – the estimates I have seen are 90% are “collateral damage,” ie innocent people – as far, far worse.

    I thought I saw that ISIS members have been embedded in Syrian refugees in Europe. If so, is there not a reasonable concern about additional waves of refugees? Is it just paranoia?

    It’s just paranoia, and perpetrating the narrative the Islamic State is trying to plant to keep its victims from escaping. Actual Islamic State terrorists don’t have to embed themselves as refugees, which hasn’t been an issue anyway, they come from Muslim families that have already been living in Europe for decades – most European born – and in some cases from European ethnicities, went to fight with Islamic State, and then returned to Europe, as well as others they recruit in Europe (and to a much lesser extent in the US).

    And, see above, regarding equally baseless speculation about Nazis embedded among Jewish refugees from Hitler. Many Jews were turned away and sent back to die in death camps, in large part on this manufactured pretext. Are we going to allow that to happen again?

  132. Robert Capozzi

    s: So no, I don’t think it’s “reasonable” to fret over the arrival large numbers of additional refugees, not when turning them away carries a more likely threat of worse consequences.

    me: Fretting is never reasonable. My question is narrower: Given that some terrorists were embedded with refugees, and given the tactics ISIS has been employing in recent weeks, should careful scrutiny be given to refugees from that area? I don’t see this as a right or wrong situation (although none really are so).

    pf: Not necessarily. It could be done through voluntary means or they may bear the costs of transit themselves.

    me: I’m simply asking a question about facts. I now have the impression that refugee transit is being done in a NAP-violating manner.

    pf: There are degrees of evil all around. The funding is evil to the extent that it comes from governments but that doesn’t make relocation itself evil. On the global scale of evil I would count bombing Syria – the estimates I have seen are 90% are “collateral damage,” ie innocent people – as far, far worse.

    me: Yes, I agree.

    Are refugees any different than immigrants generally? I don’t know, and I don’t have a position. Unlike you, I don’t think anyone can go anywhere without any sort of check.

    From a sentimental perspective, I can see how refugees are different than other immigrants. I’m not terribly concerned with NAP-violating refugee admissions, though I do question why they should come to the US on the taxpayer’s dime when there are many places far closer to Syria where it seems more appropriate for them to relocate to. Who is making the allocation-of-refugee decisions?

    jp: I’ll accept this risk of the occasional “terrorist” if we’re able to extend the lives of thousands of innocent people.

    me: Sounds noble. Still, I’m not sure that domiciling Syrian refugees en masse in the US makes tons of sense. Why not Turkey or Saudi Arabia, with provisions from the Red Crescent/Cross?

  133. georgephillies

    Johnson waves his islamophobic bigot flag:

    Let us be clear: Gary Johnson is an Islamophobic bigot, whose knowledge of what Islam commands to believers is Republican extremist. You would think that a decade and a half after the World Trade Tower attack, the actual objectives of the Al Qaeda people would finally have been noticed (please take your troops out of the Holy Land; Please stop propping up corrupt dictators) bu no such luck.

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
    Contact: Joe Hunter
    Media@OurAmericaInitiative.com
    (801) 303-7924

    GOV. GARY JOHNSON CALLS ISIS, SHARIA “ANTITHETICAL TO EVERYTHING FOR WHICH AMERICA STANDS”

    November 19, 2015, Salt Lake City, UT — Former New Mexico Governor and 2012 presidential candidate Gary Johnson issued the following statement today regarding ISIS and violent extremism:

    “It is time that we have an open, honest dialogue about the politics of Sharia law. It is time that we face the reality that, while Islam is a faith that must be granted the same freedoms of religion as all others, Sharia is a political ideology that cannot coexist with the constitutional and basic human rights on which the United States is founded.

    We must face the fact that ISIS is a murderous, violent movement driven by Sharia ideology, not by the religion of Islam. We need not and should not be Islamophobic, but all who are free and wish to be free should be Shariaphobic. In its determination to impose a “law” upon us and to kill, maim and terrorize in the process — as seen most recently in Paris, ISIS must be stopped.

    I opposed the Iraq War. I supported going after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan after 9/11, but opposed — and continue to oppose — our failed attempt at Afghan nation building. And I opposed our involvement in overthrowing the government in Libya.

    The list goes on and on. Our ill-advised attempts to shape the outcomes of civil wars and replace bad guys with slightly less bad guys have not only failed, but have created vacuums that are today being filled by the politics of Sharia.

    The cost of those interventions has been tremendous, with too many of our young men and women of the military killed and wounded…and trillions of dollars spent ineffectively.

    Libertarians believe freedom and opportunity require limited government. Government costs too much because it does too much — and a government that does too much erodes liberty. But one responsibility of government is clear: To protect us from those who would do us harm and who would take away our fundamental freedoms. We believe liberty is the true American value, and that our government has a solemn obligation to preserve it.

    We cannot dance around the fact that destroying human liberty and doing us harm are what Sharia law dictates. Whether it be mass murder in Paris, downing a Russian airliner in the Sinai, gunning down innocents in a Kenyan shopping mall, beheading Christians, or flying airplanes into the World Trade Center towers, ISIS and other like-minded Shariaists are engaged in a decades-long campaign to eradicate freedom and replace it with a Sharia political system that is antithetical to everything for which America stands.

    In World War II, too many, including the U.S., stood by for too long as Hitler’s Nazi fascism spread across Europe, with horrendous consequences. Sharia and its ISIS fanatics are today’s Nazi fascism.

    Let’s be clear. Stopping ISIS and Sharia have nothing to do with religious freedom or the rights of Muslims — here or abroad. It has everything to do with protecting people who are free or wish to be free from murderous fanatics who will stop at nothing to establish a global caliphate under which no one would be free.

    Dealing with this threat is the most American thing we can do.

    Putting tens of thousands of American troops on the ground in Iraq or, especially, Syria, won’t work. We have learned that the hard way. Those realities, however, do not mean that we do nothing.

    First, even barbarians and fanatics need money. ISIS is collecting an estimated $1 million per day in profits from oil sales. That buys a lot of terror. Reducing or stopping that flow of money will do more to stop ISIS than bombing a training camp here or there, and the United States — along with our allies — must get serious about turning off the ISIS oil spigot. While ISIS is receiving support from sympathic individuals and organizations in the region, even the governments of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are taking concrete steps to cut off ISIS’s daily oil windfall. The U.S. must do the same. The finances and transactions of ISIS and their brethren must be disrupted.

    ISIS’s recruitment and attacks are being executed largely via cyberspace. There will be no invasion that can be repelled with missiles or warships. Rather, they will enlist, plan, finance and coordinate with believers who are already here to conduct their murderous campaign. Paris was just the latest example. We must deploy our formidable technological might to join the battle in cyberspace — and win.

    And while invasions and doomed-to-fail attempts at imposing Western democratic values on unwilling peoples will not work, reviving and supporting strategic partnerships with those who are fighting ISIS in Syria and elsewhere just makes sense. The U.S. must assume a stronger, more committed role to galvanize and lead an alliance based on those partnerships that will first contain and ultimately neuter ISIS.

    Fighting and defeating ISIS wherever they are is not “intervention”. It is stopping violent jihadists whose stated objectives are to kill Americans, wipe Israel off the map and destroy the very freedoms — including religious ones — upon which our nation is founded. It is protecting us from those who would and are doing us harm.”

    Governor Johnson is the Honorary Chairman of the Our America Initiative, a nonprofit advocacy organization supporting individual liberty, free markets and limited government.

  134. Robert Capozzi

    GJ press release A-/B+.

    I wonder if he has the terminology right re Sharia. I’m not sure.

    I don’t agree the US should take a stronger role. Like GJ, the US has done too much already. However, if there was ever a reason for the UN, this is one of them. Strikes me that terrorist proto-states that export terror to obviously innocent people in cities far away from the battlefield is unacceptable. It’s way beyond collateral damage.

    Concerned here about the cyber ‘graph.

  135. jim

    Jill Pyeatt: You said, “jp: I’ll accept this risk of the occasional “terrorist” if we’re able to extend the lives of thousands of innocent people.”

    What you DIDN’T say, but you are trying to imply, is that we cannot “extend the lives of thousands of innocent people” while keeping them somewhere in Syria, in a “safe zone” as has been discussed repeatedly in the media (but NOT in the biased “mainstream media) in the last couple of days.

    If anything, we will save more people if we arm them and keep them in areas that are sufficiently fenced so as to keep out the ISIS.

  136. Robert Capozzi

    from the CB essay: These sand people are NOT that sophisticated.

    me: “Sand” people? As contrasted in his mind slightly from “mud” people?

    Hoo boy!

    CB’s essay makes some helpful points, and some real head scratchers, like: “CIA-backed, Saudi-backed, Mossad-backed, Turkey-backed, MI6-backed ISIS terrorists.”

    Zero evidence provided.

  137. Robert Capozzi

    sr: The upshot is that war on Mideast populations will not prevent terrorism against western societies. On the contrary, it will make terrorism more likely because “the action is in the reaction.” Indeed, the U.S.-led coalition commits terrorism in the eyes of its victims—so many of whom are noncombatants. Who can blame them when, for example, the Obama administration has no idea whom it kills with its “signature strikes” by drone?

    me: It’s this sort of talk that damages the prospects of lessarchism and less intervention, tainting it with Rothbardian extremism. “Who can blame them….”, REALLY?

    This all but says If the US and French governments kill non-combatant Syrians, then it’s OK that they kill innocent Parisians in Paris. It’s an EXCELLENT way to stay far, far into the fringe. And, of course, it’s a false analogy.

  138. Robert Capozzi

    NF, yes, I did see Star Wars.

    No, I did not read CB’s essay as even VAGUELY alluding to that mythical place. He was referring to the ME.

  139. paulie Post author

    This all but says If the US and French governments kill non-combatant Syrians, then it’s OK that they kill innocent Parisians in Paris.

    No, it says who can blame them from perceiving the killing of their family, friends, neighbors and countrymen and women by drones as terrorism. It doesn’t say terrorism is a justified response…on either side.

    And, of course, it’s a false analogy.

    In what way?

  140. Robert Capozzi

    I dunno, PF, if I were living in a war zone, and a peaceful family member was wrongfully killed with a drone strike, I would not call that “terrorism.” Tragic? Yes. Unjustified? Yes.

    It sucks to live in a war zone, mos’ def’.

    If I were in Paris the other day chillin’ and some lunatic jihadist killed a equally peaceful family member, I would call that “terrorism,” because that’s what it is.

    Hope that clears things up for you.

  141. paulie Post author

    From the perspective of those around them, they are no more and no less than unjustified and senseless attacks and killings by foreigners of a different culture and religion. Both sides perceive them in much the same way from their own perspectives.

  142. paulie Post author

    It sucks to live in a war zone, mos’ def’.

    It’s not just living in a war zone. It is intervention by foreigners who are not a party to the war there. When they make themselves a party to the war some people will take the war to them. That doesn’t make it right, but it’s exactly the same impulse that leads people in the US, France, Russia and other countries support bombing Syria and killing a lot of innocent people after a terrorist attack in Paris or Egypt or anywhere else.

  143. Robert Capozzi

    pf, your ability to flip back and forth from relativism and absolutism impresses me. 😉

    If someone chooses to not pay attention, that’s on them.

    Syria has been in civil war for years. Paris has not. Syria is a risky place to be. For the most part, Paris is not. Ideological blinders won’t change that fact.

    It sucks to be in Syria. Generally, Paris is a pretty cool place to be. A couple of days ago, not so much.

  144. Robert Capozzi

    pf: It’s not just living in a war zone. It is intervention by foreigners who are not a party to the war there.

    me: Oh, I see. If Assad or the other Syrian rebels kill another Syrian, that’s bad, but when France bombs ISIS *THAT* should be responded to by bombing a Parisian theater….

    That’s sub 1% thinking in perpetuity….

  145. paulie Post author

    Syria has been in civil war for years. Paris has not. Syria is a risky place to be. For the most part, Paris is not. Ideological blinders won’t change that fact.

    It sucks to be in Syria. Generally, Paris is a pretty cool place to be.

    Right. So some people from Syria and its environs have decided to equalize that equation a bit more, in response to some people from Paris issuing orders that lead to bombs being dropped on people, mostly civilians, in Syria. That doesn’t justify it, but it explains it. Is this really that difficult to understand?

  146. paulie Post author

    Oh, I see. If Assad or the other Syrian rebels kill another Syrian, that’s bad,

    And they will continue to respond by killing each other. No, that doesn’t justify either side of that, either.

    but when France bombs ISIS *THAT* should be responded to by bombing a Parisian theater….

    I’ve already explicitly told you, just in case it was not clear, and before you posted that, that it should not be responded to by killing innocent civilians. However, what will happen is not what should happen. Daesh has now made it clear that they will attack whoever attacks them, whether it be Assad, Russia or France, and that they don’t mind killing civilians any more than the Assad, Russian or French regimes do. That doesn’t mean I think they are justified. If they blow themselves up with their own bombs and no one else gets hurt, I won’t be upset at all.

  147. paulie Post author

    I don’t know if this is posted anywhere outside of facebook. I’m sharing the full text rather than only a link because non-facebook users may otherwise not be able to see it depending on the user’s facebook settings.

    Scott Hicks

    Most of my friends know I practice Immigration law. As such, I have worked with the refugee community for over two decades. This post is long, but if you want actual information about the process, keep reading.

    I can not tell you how frustrating it is to see the misinformation and outright lies that are being perpetuated about the refugee process and the Syrian refugees. So, here is a bit of information from the real world of someone who actually works and deals with this issue.

    The refugee screening process is multi-layered and is very difficult to get through. Most people languish in temporary camps for months to years while their story is evaluated and checked.

    First, you do not get to choose what country you might be resettled into. If you already have family (legal) in a country, that makes it more likely that you will go there to be with family, but other than that it is random. So, you can not simply walk into a refugee camp, show a document, and say, I want to go to America. Instead, the UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees) works with the local authorities to try to take care of basic needs. Once the person/family is registered to receive basic necessities, they can be processed for resettlement. Many people are not interested in resettlement as they hope to return to their country and are hoping that the turmoil they fled will be resolved soon. In fact, most refugees in refugee events never resettle to a third country. Those that do want to resettle have to go through an extensive process.

    Resettlement in the U.S. is a long process and takes many steps. The Refugee Admissions Program is jointly administered by the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM) in the Department of State, the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and offices within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) within DHS conducts refugee interviews and determines individual eligibility for refugee status in the United States.

    We evaluate refugees on a tiered system with three levels of priority.

    First Priority are people who have suffered compelling persecution or for whom no other durable solution exists. These individuals are referred to the United States by UNHCR, or they are identified by the U.S. embassy or a non-governmental organization (NGO).

    Second priority are groups of “special concern” to the United States. The Department of State determines these groups, with input from USCIS, UNHCR, and designated NGOs. At present, we prioritize certain persons from the former Soviet Union, Cuba, Democratic Republic of Congo, Iraq, Iran, Burma, and Bhutan.

    Third priority are relatives of refugees (parents, spouses, and unmarried children under 21) who are already settled in the United States may be admitted as refugees. The U.S.-based relative must file an Affidavit of Relationship (AOR) and must be processed by DHS.

    Before being allowed to come to the United States, each refugee must undergo an extensive interviewing, screening, and security clearance process conducted by Regional Refugee Coordinators and overseas Resettlement Support Centers (RSCs). Individuals generally must not already be firmly resettled (a legal term of art that would be a separate article). Just because one falls into the three priorities above does not guarantee admission to the United States.

    The Immigration laws require that the individuals prove that they have a “well-founded fear,” (another legal term which would be a book.) This fear must be proved regardless of the person’s country, circumstance, or classification in a priority category. There are multiple interviews and people are challenged on discrepancies. I had a client who was not telling the truth on her age and the agency challenged her on it. Refugees are not simply admitted because they have a well founded fear. They still must show that they are not subject to exclusion under Section 212(a) of the INA. These grounds include serious health matters, moral or criminal matters, as well as security issues. In addition, they can be excluded for such things as polygamy, misrepresentation of facts on visa applications, smuggling, or previous deportations. Under some circumstances, the person may be eligible to have the ground waived.

    At this point, a refugee can be conditionally accepted for resettlement. Then, the RSC sends a request for assurance of placement to the United States, and the Refugee Processing Center (RPC) works with private voluntary agencies (VOLAG) to determine where the refugee will live. If the refugee does have family in the U.S., efforts will be made to resettle close to that family.

    Every person accepted as a refugee for planned admission to the United States is conditional upon passing a medical examination and passing all security checks. Frankly, there is more screening of refugees than ever happens to get on an airplane. Of course, yes, no system can be 100% foolproof. But if that is your standard, then you better shut down the entire airline industry, close the borders, and stop all international commerce and shipping. Every one of those has been the source of entry of people and are much easier ways to gain access to the U.S. Only upon passing all of these checks (which involve basically every agency of the government involved in terrorist identification) can the person actually be approved to travel.

    Before departing, refugees sign a promissory note to repay the United States for their travel costs. This travel loan is an interest-free loan that refugees begin to pay back six months after arriving in the country.

    Once the VOLAG is notified of the travel plans, it must arrange for the reception of refugees at the airport and transportation to their housing at their final destination.
    This process from start to finish averages 18 to 24 months, but I have seen it take years.

    The reality is that about half of the refugees are children, another quarter are elderly. Almost all of the adults are either moms or couples coming with children. Each year the President, in consultation with Congress, determines the numerical ceiling for refugee admissions. For Fiscal Year (FY) 2016, the proposed ceiling is 85,000. We have been averaging about 70,000 a year for the last number of years. (Source: Refugee Processing Center)

    Over one-third of all refugee arrivals (35.1 percent, or 24,579) in FY 2015 came from the Near East/South Asia—a region that includes Iraq, Iran, Bhutan, and Afghanistan.
    Another third of all refugee arrivals (32.1 percent, or 22,472) in FY 2015 came from Africa.
    Over a quarter of all refugee arrivals (26.4 percent, or 18,469) in FY 2015 came from East Asia — a region that includes China, Vietnam, and Indonesia. (Source: Refugee Processing Center)

    Finally, the process in Europe is different. I would be much more concerned that terrorists are infiltrating the European system because they are not nearly so extensive and thorough in their process.

  148. Jill Pyeatt

    Thanks for posting the above release from Gary Johnson, Dr. Phillies. I am very disappointed in him.

    I’ll suggest yet again that everyone completely turn off mainstream media. Find half a dozen alterntive sites, including some from other countries, read what they report is happening, and then you’ll have a far better idea of what’s really going on.

    The greatest threat to the lives and people who live in this country are still residing in Washington DC.

  149. Starchild

    Robert Capozzi writes (in part), “Syria has been in civil war for years. Paris has not. Syria is a risky place to be. For the most part, Paris is not. Ideological blinders won’t change that fact. It sucks to be in Syria. Generally, Paris is a pretty cool place to be.” (November 19, 2015 at 17:50) And “Given that some terrorists were embedded with refugees, and given the tactics ISIS has been employing in recent weeks, should careful scrutiny be given to refugees from that area… Are refugees any different than immigrants generally? I don’t know… From a sentimental perspective, I can see how refugees are different than other immigrants. I’m not terribly concerned with NAP-violating refugee admissions, though I do question why they should come to the US on the taxpayer’s dime when there are many places far closer to Syria where it seems more appropriate for them to relocate to.” (November 19, 2015 at 14:12)

    Translation: If you get injured or killed living in a poor, rough neighborhood, well, what did you expect? Goes with the territory, not a big deal. But if you get killed or injured in a wealthy neighborhood, then well by gosh now this is a matter for concern! We’d better respond by further stereotyping, stigmatizing, and imposing new restrictions upon anyone coming from a poor neighborhood to our wealthy neighborhood! And don’t get me wrong, I have no theoretical problem with stolen money being used to pay for their relocation, but why does it have to be our money? As a rule, these immigrants, or refugees, or whatever they are (they all seem the same to me except as a matter of sentimentality) should stay close to the poor neighborhood they came from. Letting them rise too far above their natural station in life just wouldn’t be appropriate. Now doesn’t this cool Parisian café have any decent Grey Poupon!?

  150. Rod Stern

    Thanks for posting the above release from Gary Johnson, Dr. Phillies. I am very disappointed in him.

    His Reason magazine interview today, while not perfect, strikes a somewhat better tone than the Joe Hunter press release.

  151. Matt Cholko

    Capozzi, I think your playing of Devil’s Advocate (or is it just being disagreeable?) all the time is generally good for the discourse here. But, there are a couple of things that you do that annoy the hell out of me, and I’m sure many other IPR readers. They are; purposely missing the point, and purposely ignoring the context in which comments are made. Doing these things drags discussions on forever, as people repeat and rephrase their points over and over again. If it doesn’t outweigh it, this behavior comes very close to negating the value that you bring to IPR discussions. Please cut it out.

  152. Robert Capozzi

    s: Translation: If you get injured or killed living in a poor, rough neighborhood, well, what did you expect? Goes with the territory, not a big deal.

    me: Lost in translation, actually.

    Both are equally tragic. It’s shocking to me that you read it that way. But, as PF says: “So some people from Syria and its environs have to decided to equalize that equation a bit more, in response to some people from Paris issuing orders that lead to bombs being dropped on people, mostly civilians, in Syria. ”

    This overlooks some mighty big facts.

    1) Tiny proto-nation vs. NATO, Russia and Egypt…not good odds.

    2) Proto-nation’s rebels believe dying for the cause is a ticket to Paradise.

    It’s insane for ISIS to think that they will “equalize” things, and ADR it’s insane to take their thought process seriously. Review 1 and 2.

    If that doesn’t help shake it off, ponder the meaning of perennially sub 1%.

    Could it be that Ls have their own political death wish, and somehow relate to hopeless underdogs?

  153. Robert Capozzi

    mc: Doing these things drags discussions on forever, as people repeat and rephrase their points over and over again.

    me: Just being of service. The Randian/Rothbardian deontological approach misses the forest for the trees. As I recover from the thought system, I share ideas with those still under its spell.

  154. jim

    Illogic:
    This morning, I saw in the news that the MSM (Mainstream Media? Men who have Sex with Men?) are trying to bait Donald Trump into saying that he supports registering Muslims. (“Ooooh!! Bad!!”). He didn’t actually say that, but the various media repeatedly asked him a similar question.

    HOWEVER!!! In support of the idea that it is possible to safely import Syrians, the Obama regime claims that they can be “vetted”. “Vetted”, in that instance, means that data is taken so as to cross-check and verify the backgrounds of these people. By definition, vetting them would require that (this) government collect information on them. In all but the same term, this means that they would be “registered”.

    So, why is it wrong to collect information on Muslims in one context, but not in another?

  155. paulie Post author

    There is no moral equivalence between those who attack combatants and those who attack civilians. One side is clearly more justified than the other.

    Which side does not attack civilians?

  156. paulie Post author

    saying that he supports registering Muslims. (“Ooooh!! Bad!!”).

    Equally as bad as the Nazi yellow star of David for Jews.

    He didn’t actually say that,

    Yes, he absolutely did. I watched video where he clearly said that. The print interview was where he refused to rule it out. The second interview where he was asked on video about it, following up from the print interview, he said “absolutely.” That was NBC and it was played repeatedly last night.

    HOWEVER!!! In support of the idea that it is possible to safely import Syrians,

    “Import”? What kind of sick, twisted, dehumanizing language is that for human beings?

    the Obama regime claims that they can be “vetted”.

    Not only can be but are, very extensively. I have a long comment explaining the process that I copied above. Scroll up.

    So, why is it wrong to collect information on Muslims in one context, but not in another?

    This is a very, very stupid question. In the unlikely event that you were serious when you asked it, you should just go ahead and slap yourself right now for asking something so stupid.

    I don’t believe for a second you can’t see any possible difference between tens of thousands of refugees from a war torn area on the one hand and millions of people, most of whom were born in the US, on the other. To help you realize how ridiculous your question is:

    When my family and I (as a little kid) came over to the US, as previously mentioned, we were considered refugees. We were considered refugees, despite how little we deserved that consideration compared to lots of other people who ask for it and don’t get it, because we were Jews from the USSR. We were extensively questioned and made to jump through all sorts of bureaucratic hoops, although not nearly as many as that post above explains these Syrian refugees have to jump through. But in any case, just imagine the uproar if the US regime proposed a similar registration and vetting requirement for all the several million American Jews, as opposed to a few thousand “refugees” from the USSR.

    If you can’t see the difference – after all we were Jews and we got vetted so how can anyone object to registering all Jews … that would be the equivalent of the question Jim just asked. Hey, no difference between the regime registering/vetting a few thousand immigrant refugees and doing the same thing to a few million Americans, just because they are both from one of the world’s major religions, right?

    Of course, Jim couldn’t possibly be stupid or crazy enough to think something like that, or to think that we would be so stupid as to think that he is.

    Jim… you are clearly just trolling, and if it wasn’t already obvious before this you just gave it away.

  157. William Saturn

    I meant “target” instead of “attack” so it should read:

    There is no moral equivalence between those who target combatants and those who target civilians. One side is clearly more justified than the other.

  158. paulie Post author

    I meant “target” instead of “attack” so it should read:

    There is no moral equivalence between those who target combatants and those who target civilians. One side is clearly more justified than the other.

    90% or more of those killed in US drone strikes are civilians. And way more of them are being killed than the civilians being killed on the other side, even if they are not targeted.

    Suppose you take two street criminals. One of them just goes out by himself, shoots innocent family members and neighbors of his rivals on purpose, and kills 3 people. The other brings a car full of his gang armed with full automatics and goes looking for a rival gang. They find who they are looking for and spray a crowd with thousands of bullets, killing five rival gang members and fifty people who had nothing to do with either gang or any kind of criminal activity. Is the second gang any less reprehensible than the first guy?

  159. William Saturn

    I didn’t comment on whether it was reprehensible or not. In your example, the second gang is more justified (death of innocents) than the first (no justification at all).

  160. paulie Post author

    Illogic:

    Oops. My bad. I just noticed that Jim was actually saying that the following portion of his comment I previously responded to was an example of the illogical thinking exhibited by many anti-Muslim bigoted reich wing politically cracked crybullies. Please forgive me for making the mistake that Jim was actually presenting what was supposed to be a serious question, as opposed to the illustration by example of insane illogic that the ridiculous question that followed was meant to provide.

  161. paulie Post author

    the second gang is more justified

    I disagree. Negligent homicide of dozens of people with total blatant disregard is not less bad than intentional murder of a much smaller number of people.

  162. jim

    Paulie: You quoted and said,
    “I meant “target” instead of “attack” so it should read:
    There is no moral equivalence between those who target combatants and those who target civilians. One side is clearly more justified than the other.
    90% or more of those killed in US drone strikes are civilians. And way more of them are being killed than the civilians being killed on the other side, even if they are not targeted.”

    Where did this “90% or more” statistic come from? And in the context of ISIS, what is the meaning of “civilian”?

    I mention this, because the Russians recently embarrassed Obama (and that’s HARD to do!!!) by showing satellite pictures of hundreds of ISIS oil trucks lined up “to the horizon”. Apparently, Obama had been secretly protecting this sale of ISIS oil to the Turks by claiming that the truck drivers were “civilians”, AND having a ‘rule of engagement’ which said that “civilians” couldn’t be hurt. Well, is a truck driver for ISIS a “combatant” or a “civilian”? The answer is quite obvious, I think. But Obama wants to protect Muslims, and ISIS, so much that he will tie the hands of the US military behind its back, so much so that we cannot win.

    An oil truck is VERY easy to destroy, and once destroyed, leaves ISIS without a means of making money. Obama’s attempt to protect such activity exposes his true biases.
    Note: We are apparently NOW attacking the oil trucks. If that excuse (“civilians”) was genuine, it is just as genuine today as it was a month ago. Clearly, Obama was and is exposed.

    In little more than a year, Obama will do his world tour, collecting tens of millions of dollars from his Muslim buddies. Obama doesn’t want to offend them now!

  163. paulie Post author

    They both had excuses. Neither side had justifications. Suppose that the first guy was a relative of some of the 55 people that the carfull of gangsters killed and a neighbor of the others. He goes out and kills relatives and neighbors of that carfull of gangsters and his “justification” is that he wants them to feel the same pain of losing their relatives, friends and neighbors that they made him feel.

  164. paulie Post author

    Where did this “90% or more” statistic come from?

    US regime admitted it. I saw it an article this morning. Don’t have time to look it up again. If I come across it again without having to look I’ll post the link.

    And in the context of ISIS, what is the meaning of “civilian”?

    People who are not involved in that gang who happen to live in or near the areas they are occupying. Not even the US regime tries to claim that they are all or even close to most members or supporters of the Daesh/ISIS gang.

  165. Robert Capozzi

    what’s being overlooked here in PF’s hypo analogy is that one gang effectively wants to die. That takes things to a whole ‘nuther level, a profoundly dysfunctional one.

  166. paulie Post author

    I don’t believe they want to die. I believe that they want to provoke the US, France, Russia etc to be drawn into a global war against Islam, that will cause all of the world’s billion and a half or more Muslims to gradually rally behind Daesh, and that they will win this clash of civilizations in the end. There are people on the other side who want increased polarization and war for similar reasons – more money and power for themselves and their friends as they provoke escalating cycles of violence from both sides.

  167. William Saturn

    “his “justification” is that he wants them to feel the same pain of losing their relatives, friends and neighbors that they made him feel.”

    That’s not a legitimate justification. Targeting combatants who want to kill innocents is clearly a legitimate justification.

  168. Robert Capozzi

    pf, OK, then, delusions of grandeur, with the fallback position being a ticket to Paradise.

  169. Jill Pyeatt

    Paulie: “his “justification” is that he wants them to feel the same pain of losing their relatives, friends and neighbors that they made him feel.”

    William: “That’s not a legitimate justification.”

    Jill: Why is this not a legitimate justification? Seriously, now you’re trying to be ‘PC’.

  170. Robert Capozzi

    Revenge is NEVER justified, IMO. See the Sermon on the Mount for an excellent explanation as to why.

  171. paulie Post author

    Meanwhile, in other news, Augustus Invictus is now Secretary of the LP in Orange County, FL, site of the upcoming national convention.

  172. Wang Tang-Fu

    Mr. Eichenauer,

    Perhaps something got lost in translation. I agree with Mr. Knapp at your link completely. Who all did you mean by y’all and why was it addressed to me? Did you actually read the link I responded to and why do you think I consider Democrats to be gutless?

  173. Thane Eichenauer

    I use “y’all” as a personal dialect choice. It otherwise means you. I did go to that URL at Irregular Times and read it lightly (I have not read i thoroughly). The article makes a good case against those Democrats. I understand the reasoning the article uses and that you appear to concur with. I live near the Arizona CD 9 where Kyrsten Sinema (one of the 47 “Gutless Democrats in the article) prevailed over Wendy Rogers (R) in 2014. Powell Gammill the Libertarian candidate received 3.5% (more than the margin between the R and the D candidates). As a result (e.g. the National Republican Party believe we spoiled that election for them) the Republicans in the legislature and the governor have conspired to increase the ballot access requirements in Arizona for Libertarian candidates.
    Thank you for your comment. Have a good evening.

  174. Derrick Michael Reid

    From what I understand, at the Liberty on the Rocks, there is an anarchist contingent on the wings of the libertarian party. These Anarchist draw the distinction between “Voice” and “Exit”, that is, to reform government or to escape government. The speakers spoke to building ocean island communities, or foreign country land locations, or swamping a state, eg New Hampshire, to reform state government as a “Free State” seeking liberty from government. I believe that their objectives are inherently flawed. In the national anthem, is says, “STAND BESIDE HER and GUIDE HER”. I will not give up on the USA, and will “voice” to reform Government, to MINIMIZE GOVERNMENT and MAXIMIZE FREEDOM, the Libertarian Party slogan, which is the correct perspective. Getting out of dodge may be the selected option for those frustrated, but it solves nothing as to society as a whole.

    The anarchists to either abolish government or exit. I understand the frustration, very well, about totalitarianism extending from DC. Anarchists effectively coward from the challenge of reforming government to maximize liberty. If you eliminate Government, for achieving absolute Freedom from Government, anarchy results. If you eliminate Government, Economics and Culture, for absolute Liberty from external controls, anarchy results. If anarchy results, other forms of “Control” will surface, be it Mob Bosses, War Lords, or Tyrants. For any society to prosper, forms of “Control” must be in place. For any society to have maximum Liberty and Freedom, forms of “Control” must be in place. It is better, that elected government serve to the people, than Mob Bosses, War Lords or Tyrants. This is an undeniable conclusion. The best result, is to elect government that provides “Maximum Freedom”.

    The Anarchists are frustrated, and that is very well understood, but their frustration carries them into unworkable ideology, and there in lies their inherently flawed ideology, and they will remain, at best, on the fringe of power, having no affect, other than to dilute the political power necessary of obtaining Maximum Freedom within a necessary elected Government.

    http://www.totalitariandemocracy.com/lectures/public-articles/la-liberty-on-rocks

  175. paulie Post author

    Anarchists are at the core of the LP, not on the wings, and we’ve been here from the start. We are over-represented among the party’s hardest working activists and leaders, compared to our percentage of more casual party members. Most of us aren’t looking to flee the US or move to one state, city or commune somewhere in the immediate future, if at all; we generally see the road to anarchism running through minarchism first, or at least the possibility that it may, or find the alliance with minarchists through the LP and other cooperative efforts to be worthwhile as a way of getting more people started down the road that eventually leads to exploring anarchy as a serious alternative. Additionally, there are plenty of minarchists who also contemplate moving to some libertarian community overseas or trying to concentrate in NH, etc; that aspect of libertarianism is orthagonal to the anarchism/minarchism dichotomy. To get beyond the cartoon caricatures of what libertarian anarchists believe peruse the resources at http://praxeology.net/anarcres.htm

  176. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Derrick – marginalizing some of the hardest working activists makes you look completely unpalatable and silly.

    I am a Libertarian activist. I work my ass off for this Party. I am also an anarchist.

    And woot! Liberty on the Rocks! The Denver chapter is pretty hardcore anarchist.

  177. paulie Post author

    Derrick – marginalizing some of the hardest working activists makes you look completely unpalatable and silly.

    Exactly.

    I am a Libertarian activist. I work my ass off for this Party. I am also an anarchist.

    Same here. Nor are we the only ones here.

    And woot! Liberty on the Rocks! The Denver chapter is pretty hardcore anarchist.

    Wow, that’s quite a change from when I went to a few of their meetings a few years ago!

  178. William Saturn

    DMR: “In the national anthem, is says, “STAND BESIDE HER and GUIDE HER””

    No. That’s not the national anthem. “The Star-Spangled Banner” is the national anthem. You are quoting Irving Berlin’s “God Bless America.”

  179. Jill Pyeatt

    Derrick–I love the Liberty on the Rocks group, and was sorry I was unable to attend last night’s meeting. Anarchists are indeed an important part of the LP. My husband Alan and I both self-identify as anarchists. We know that the world we envision is quite far from where we are now, so we’re working within the LP toward that ultimate goal.

    I’ve had a feeling you weren’t aware of this part of libertarianism, and I urge you to learn about it.

  180. trying again

    James Barker, an independent who qualified for the top two runoff and a Louisiana legislative distrct, withdrew from the race before the election.

  181. Thane Eichenauer

    “I like Steve Kerbel.” – http://lionsofliberty.com/160 – Lions of Liberty podcast
    They then attempt to decipher just what political party Marvel and DC superheroes belong to, and try to answer the age old question: Is Professor X a libertarian?
    “Austin Peterson is a Libertarian Donald Trump.” (paraphrase at the 22 minute mark)

  182. Cody Quirk

    New piece by Grundmann’s spouse-

    http://us5.campaign-archive2.com/?u=73003895596e10218e5ef8b4a&id=39887209f7

    Here are some excepts-

    “Our incursions into Afghanistan and Iraq were playing around the edges. Mecca should be destroyed, and the Ka’aba stone blown apart, and film it. Mecca is the Capital of Islam. We are in a War of competing ideas. The Ka’aba is an embodiment of Allah. The Muslim needs to be shown there is no Allah. Allah is not God. We ought to make war on Islam; they have been making war on America before America was founded. They have been at war with the world since 632 AD.

    After Saudi is destroyed, then we should systematically destroy all Islamic nations, especially Iran. While Saudi is the heart of Islam, Iran is the muscle.

    As after any war, Muslims should lose their right to self-determination. Every Mosque should be closed down. Every Muslim official should be tried and punished for murder, rape, and brutality. They should be forced to confess that Allah is not God. We need to destroy the concept of Islam in the minds of these people.

    New governments should be instituted with Constitutions that embody the Christian Law System, as opposed to the fantasy of “Islamic Democracy.””

    Yep, truly constitutional & Christ-like

    NOT.

  183. paulie Post author

    “Austin Peterson is a Libertarian Donald Trump.” (paraphrase at the 22 minute mark)

    Yes, if Trump was about 6 orders of magnitude less rich and (in)famous.

  184. jim

    I REALLY have to share this! Pauley and Jed Ziggler are making fools of themselves on the subject, “Workers World Party Candidates Condemn Shooting of Minneapolis Black Lives Matter Activists”

    Seems like they actually believe the propaganda put out by the Worker’s World Party on the subject of the recent attack by BLM (Black Lives Matter) protestors on counter-protestors. The truth is found in a video made by BLM protestors themselves!

    But can they be blamed? The MSM (mainstream media) doesn’t explain about the self-defense aspect of that incident. Fits right in with PC culture, I suppose.

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/11/video-proof-5-black-lives-matter-protesters-shot-after-repeatedly-beating-white-videographers/

  185. paulie Post author

    As Scott Adams has mentioned in his column there are Trump hotels in many places. His Trump Hotel operation has two planned developments in Muslim majority Indonesia which would probably not continue to develop if he were to ally with Riley J. Hood.

    Trump has had lots of his casinos and developments that have fallen through, gone under or went bankrupt. That includes the one where he tried to use government to steal Vera Coking’s home so he could build additional limo parking, which he still goes out of his way to defend. What’s a few more?

    Besides, if he is elected, he comes to see the entire US regime as part of his business empire. Even if it’s economically irrational, his megalomaniacal, one-upmanship and competitive instincts would get the better of him and he would be drawn into ever escalating international conflicts. Trade wars would add fuel to the fire, and stirring up trouble abroad and cranking up the armaments industries are time-tested ways that demagogues give the economy and their popularity a boost when their economically ignorant policies fail to deliver prosperity. They also make a convenient excuse for the suspensions of civil liberties at home that their authoritarian fantasies demand. Trump is very much a part of this tradition and would follow the same script.

  186. jim

    It’s very funny that Jed Ziggler referred to it as a “propaganda video”, because it was made by BLM people, and it was apparently intended by THEM as being “propaganda”. Problem is, these fools have so little legal knowledge they were incriminating themselves in front of the camera! See the original video at http://livestream.com/unicornriot/events/4512162/videos/105412271 at 58:40.
    See, somebody actually WATCHED this video, and realized how much it DESTROYED the position of the BLM people, and defended the counter-protestors! And they posted a clip of it onto YouTube, and thence it wwas copied to thegatewaypundit[dotcom].

    Any attempted prosecution against the counter-protestors for defending themselves will break on the rocks of this video. In addition, if the typical expected number of other videos exist, there will be the scenes of BLM protestors attacking the counter-protestors, hitting them, chasing them, and further threatening them.

    VIDEO IS WONDERFUL!

  187. paulie Post author

    Are you planning on reproducing the whole thread twice? There’s no reason for posting the same thing you are already posting on an existing thread to the open thread. And selectively edited snippets of video is hardly anything new.

  188. jim

    Paulie: I didn’t “selectively edit snippets of video”. I first posted the site I found the video on, THEN I traced it back, posted the url of the YouTube version, and THEN I posted the url of the (so far) original video, all of it. I didn’t make these videos, I merely posted them and refer to them.

    Is this “selective”? Well, I can understand how EMBARRASSED you are, or at least should be! This entire story on the MSM (MainStream Media) is a crock of sh1t. BLM protestors are simply violent low-lifes who, when given an opportunity, will enthusiastically attack people they see as being unsympathetic to their warped cause. Generally, having white skin is all it takes, as is clearly seen in this incident. Or, at least, anything other than black skin, I suppose.

  189. paulie Post author

    Jim, you are the only one who should be embarrassed, and I have spent more than enough time on your games for tonight. I don’t have the time to watch the snippet that your source selected, and I certainly don’t have time to watch the longer video. In fact I should not even be wasting time to tell you this much. One thing I will say for sure is that continued thread jumping to talk about something that already has its own topic is not OK. Talk about it all you want on that article discussion. There is absolutely no reason to continue to discuss something that already has its own topic in the open thread as well. In case that was too subtle: take your racist bullshit to the appropriate thread. I have real work to do and my patience with your nonsense is quickly running out.

  190. Thane Eichenauer

    Paulie,
    As far as your first paragraph of Trump comments thank you for your passionate, pointed and on point words. As far as your second paragraph of Trump comments the article URL I posted above (and below) that is titled “Why Donald Trump will Ruin the World” has 7 bullet items that overlap your behavior concerns. If you or any other reader has an interest in reading how you and I both identify narcissism and a massive ego in Donald Trump yet come to different conclusions as to what would result from his election I certainly recommend the article to one and all.

    I’ll again mention that my one and only father has his storefront property stolen from him via eminent domain by the City of Phoenix. I have every sympathy with Vera Coking from both a personal shared experience and from a principled Libertarian vantage point. Scott Adams and I do not choose Donald Trump as the best choice for President. As far as Republicans for President go he is at best scored 2nd after Rand Paul in my personal report card.
    http://blog.dilbert.com/post/132408086396/why-donald-trump-will-ruin-the-world#ixzz3sXSJbTye

  191. paulie Post author

    I’d rank him as the worst.

    Anyway, I can’t even think right now, I just had a big box of signatures brought to my room to validate. They have been bathing in distilled cigarette smoke for the past two weeks, and I am allergic to cigarette smoke. I even touch one of these pages and my eyes burn and water, etc, etc. It makes me really sick, and I am not sure how I am going to do this. Even with the box sitting a few feet from me I am feeling the burn (no, not feeling the Bern, LOL).

  192. NewFederalist

    Happy Thanksgiving everyone! Despite our political differences this IS a good day. I hope you all enjoy it.

  193. Jill Pyeatt

    Happy Thanksgiving!

    And to those of us who have familiies who insist on talking politics at the dinner table…good luck!

  194. Jill Pyeatt

    Please don’t call him “our friend”, William.

    Do you REALLY want him back? If so, I question your motives, putting it mildly. Why not just make him comfortable at your site?

  195. Wang Tang-Fu

    Dr. Grundmann would certainly feel more at home there among articles such as https://thesaturnalian.wordpress.com/2015/11/26/porn-star-resurfaces-on-twitter/ , https://thesaturnalian.wordpress.com/2015/08/10/pastor-manning-complains-of-gay-semen-in-starbucks-coffee/ , https://thesaturnalian.wordpress.com/2015/06/26/u-s-lags-behind-isis-in-marriage-equality/ and https://thesaturnalian.wordpress.com/2015/06/23/dylann-roof-a-killers-manifesto/ and among comment regulars such as Nathan Norman and Robert LeMagne (aka Milnes).

  196. paulie Post author

    Steve Kerbel via facebook:

    Today has been a tragic day in Colorado Springs. My neighborhood shopping center has become the scene of national news. A man shot at least 9 people at or near the planned parenthood location around the corner from my home. Only a few moments ago, the perpetrator was captured. There are many questions surrounding the motive of the shooter, however it seems likely that the chosen location of the shootings was not an accident.

    It is never appropriate to use force for social or political goals. Today, my thoughts and prayers are with those hurt by the actions of this attacker. I hope that those injured have a full and quick recovery, and that the number of fatalities remain at zero.

  197. bruuno

    For some reason I decided to check out Wayne Allyn Root’s Twitter TL because I hadn’t heard anything about him in a long time. Oh boy. I mean wow, that guy is sinking lower and lower every day. Good thing the LP isn’t tainted by that piece of dirt any more.

  198. J.R.Myers for President

    The Florida Constitution Party hosts

    Scott Copeland, TX (www.scottcopelandusa.com)

    J.R. Myers, AK (www.jr4gov.com)

    ?

    Saturday, December 12, 9:00am – 2:00pm; lunch included

    ?

    AmericInn Hotel 5931 Fruitville Road, Sarasota (one mile off of I75)

    [941] 342.8778 • http://www.americinn.com/hotels/fl/sarasota

    ?

    LEARN HOW TO ORGANIZE A COUNTY AFFILIATE FOR THE

    CONSTITUTION PARTY OF FLORIDA, RUN A CAMPAIGN, AND MORE

    ?

    $25 registration fee.

    Mail check to: Constitution Party of Florida,

    16874 131st Way N, Jupiter, FL 33478

    or go to donate link at http://www.cpflorida.com, fill in info,

    and in comment section put FL State Meeting.

Leave a Reply

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