Interview with Darryl W. Perry, Candidate for the Libertarian Party’s Presidential Nomination

Darryl PERRY

Mr. Perry and I communicated through email for this interview.

Do you think that Bush and company should be charged for crimes related to the invasion of Iraq?

Absolutely, as should everyone involved in the commission of those war crimes or any of the war crimes committed under the Presidency of Barrack Obama, Bill Clinton, George HW Bush, Reagan, etc.

What are the three most serious problems in this country, and what would you do on your very first day in office?

1) The wars abroad (war on terror), the wars at home (war on terror, drug war, war on poverty, etc) and taxation are the most serious problems in the country.

2) The first thing I would do is issue a pardon to Private Chelsea Manning, Ross Ulbricht & drop all charges against Edward Snowden. That would be followed up with a blanket pardon to all non-violent federal inmates who are incarcerated for a victimless offense. I would then order a cessation of all combat operations, and begin the process of vacating the 900+ US military bases around the globe.

What kind of reading do you do in your free time? What’s the last book that you read?

I read a lot of news, though more so as a means of staying informed rather than for leisure. I don’t remember the last book I read that was not for a work-related purpose proofreading, editing, recording audiobook, etc).

Who would you pick for the Supreme Court as a replacement for Scalia?

My short list for the Supreme Court includes: Clint Bolick, current AZ Supreme Court Justice & co-founder of IJ; Marc J. Victor, criminal defense lawyer in AZ, former judge pro tem ( & Andrew Napolitano.

Do you have any thoughts on the future or governance of the LNC, or preferred strategy and goals for the party beyond the 2016 presidential campaign? What will you do to increase the size and strength of the libertarian party?

–No answer provided–

Who would you choose as your running mate? Would you consider being the vice-presidential candidate?

I’m currently undecided on a running mate, and I was hoping Tom Knapp would run.
I would consider seeking the VP slot if I am not the Presidential nominee, though  circumstances of the events on nomination day will also be considered.

How would you handle today’s Department of Homeland Security?

Abolish it!

Should the US remain a member of the UN?


Does your campaign commitment to accept only cryptocurrency and precious metal — no Federal Reserve Notes —extend to the general election as well as the nomination campaign? If so, do you have a plan to reach large numbers of voters within the financial constraints of that commitment?

I have no intentions of changing the manner in which I accept campaign contributions.

There’s a perception that you’re a radical candidate who will only appeal to radicals. Do you accept this? If not, how will you combat that perception?

I guess in order to accurately answer this question, I would need to know how people are defining “appeal” and “radicals.” I’ve had numerous moderate libertarians tell me I’m their second choice after (fill in the blank). So, I do not accept the claim that I only appeal to radicals.

People will perceive what they wish to perceive, the best I can do is continue promoting the ideas of liberty.

What planks, if any, of the national platform do you disagree with? Why?

I have an issue with the current wording of the Free Trade and Migration plank which begins by stating, “Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries.” And concludes, “However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property.” Basically, the LP position on immigration is “we support freedom of movement, except when we don’t.” My campaign platform states:  “I believe that people should be allowed to travel freely without government interference. This includes the right of individuals to choose where they decide to live. Current federal immigration laws are convoluted and give preferential treatment to individuals from certain countries. The current system also relies on quotas, hosts and in some cases an immigration lottery, as well as preferred treatment to athletes and refugees. This must change, and there should be one uniform immigration law. I believe the best model law is the “wet foot, dry foot rule” in place for people fleeing Cuba. Under this rule, anyone from Cuba who makes it safely into the United States, is allowed to stay; however, the aspect of this rule that I would end is that the Coast Guard patrols the waters looking for people with “wet feet” in order to redirect them back to Cuba. The immigration policy of the United States of America should once again resemble the words written on the Statue of Liberty “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

Do you agree with Johnson that Sharia law and terrorism for extremist Muslims is a worrisome threat to our

No, and I believe that Gary is wrong in his understanding of Sharia. I have several Muslim friends who tell me that Sharia applies only to the Muslims who agree to abide by Sharia in the same way the Old Testament Levitical Law applies only to those who consent to follow it.

What qualifies you to run for the office of President?

I have met all of the Constitutional qualifications to attain the office, thus making me qualified to seek the office.

Violation of privacy has become a huge issue in our country. How would you restore our natural and constitutional rights in this time of surveillance?

I would begin by ending the bulk-surveillance programs. My platform states: “Encroachments on privacy by government should be eliminated so far as it is possible to do so. Electronic and other covert government surveillance of citizens should be restricted to activity which can be shown beforehand, under high standards of probable cause, to be criminal and to present immediate and grave danger to other citizens. The national census and other government compilations of data on citizens should be conducted on a strictly voluntary basis, and the census should only ask the question: “How many people live at this address?””

5 thoughts on “Interview with Darryl W. Perry, Candidate for the Libertarian Party’s Presidential Nomination


    What exactly is the statutory definition of “war crime?” Define under international law, and under
    libertarian principles. For instance, many libertarians would consider drafting people to kill others is a “war crime” ( but not under international law) even if done in defense of one’s country. I think we need to point out how the policies of Bush, Obama, Clinton, LBJ, Lincoln, etc. were harmful to individual rights, not prattle on emotionally about them “committing war crimes.”


    Sure, do both but don’t just cry “war crime.” It is sort of like how we invoke “the Founding Fathers” or “as Jefferson said…” without explaining why what is being invoked is right and proper in today’s context.
    One doesn’t change many minds by invoking slogans.

  3. Thomas L. Knapp


    Well, it wasn’t Darryl who brought up war crimes. He was just answering a question.


    Nope, I’m not running for veep. My exploratory polling said that there was very little interest, and that what interest there was, while exceeding 50% positive, was not overwhelmingly supportive. Thank God.

Leave a Reply

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