IPR sent a questionnaire to the candidates seeking the Libertarian Party’s 2016 presidential nomination as listed at LP.org. Of the 17 candidates, 12 participated:
- Joey Berry of South Carolina (website)
- Brian Briggs of Mississippi (website)
- Thomas Clements of Louisiana (website)
- Keenan Dunham of South Carolina (website)
- Marc Allan Feldman of Ohio (website)
- Donald Eugene Lowe of Texas (website)
- John McAfee of Tennessee (website)
- Kevin McCormick of Arizona (website)
- Darryl Perry of New Hampshire (website)
- Derrick Michael Reid of California (website)
- Jack Robinson, Jr. of South Carolina (website)
- Heidi Zeman of Nevada (website)
Of the other five candidates, Malisia Garcia and Rhett Smith both expressed interest but did not fill out the questionnaire. Gary Johnson and Austin Petersen both ignored multiple requests for answers. Shawna Joy Sterling refused to answer the questions, arguing:
I was initially very interested in IPR, however, the waters are a little hostile for me to further enjoy it . . . I do not feel that IPR is a news media I can support or send my supporters to at this time. . . I have high standards and I can not bring new Libertarians to this news outlet without them getting attacked, as Jill and others have attacked me. I plan to help grow the LP and I can do that without IPR.
With that I present to you, the responses to IPR’s 2016 Libertarian Party presidential candidates questionnaire:
- Do you consider political correctness a problem in the United States today? Why or why not?
Joey Berry: Absolutely. Political correctness distorts reality and covers up problems which leads to no solutions. The issue is similar to the fundamental need for Free Speech to resolve difficult issues (prior to violence and aggression) even when speech is uncomfortable. Trading a basic freedom for a privilege or comfort always has a horrific end result. Political Correctness has led to a world where Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, and Bernie Sanders are considered serious candidates for our nation’s highest executive office. Enough said?
Brian Briggs: I do consider political correctness a problem in the United States. Each candidate should be able to run there race the way they see fit – not set to some mold from past generations. Each candidate is unique.
Thomas Clements: I am person who says what’s on my mind. At the same time expressing myself in public speaking with respect the best of my ability. Privately off the record, there are no words that will hold back the thought.
Keenan Dunham: I consider Political Correctness a problem when it is used to guilt a set of the populace into losing parts of their freedom like gun rights, or banning cigarettes. It is when these campaigns are 100% ideological and they mis-identify the victim that we come into a problem, and then they may be used to grow unneeded government programs.
Marc Allan Feldman: No. The political correctness issue is an irrelevant sideshow. The problems in this country do not come from communication. They come from the way power and control has been distributed. The government of the United States no longer represents the people of the United States. Our government is now an oligarchy run by a small group of wealthy special interests and multinational corporation. I want to represent the people. Every candidate naturally represents his or her largest donors. That is why the largest donation I accept is $5, because these are the people I want to represent. Concerns about “political correctness” are just one more issue to divide the people. Donald Trump, and others, have now made it politically correct to be politically incorrect. If you want to shock people, it may be more effective to be respectful and polite.
Donald Eugene Lowe: Do I consider political correctness a problem? Yes and no. Depending upon the issue and statement. I tend to be not politically correct just right. So it be limited on what could be politically correct to be right. Here is an example of political correctness completely wrong.
What is an African American? President Obama is African American because his father is from Africa. Most black people are not African American because they are not from Africa and their families do not come from there. In fact Africa has more white people than dark skinned people. In 1982 it became political correct to name a black person African American and that is insulting calling a person with dark skin that. They are our brothers and sisters and the last thing we need is political correctness.
John McAfee: Political correctness means simply blindly following the crowd. No good can come of doing so.
Kevin McCormick: The core issue is more then “political correctness”, we have moved towards an attitude in the US where people constantly avoid trying to hurt somebody’s feelings but the end result is you lose access to different opinions and don’t know where you stand with somebody. There is nothing wrong with making mistakes or changing your mind on a topic as you learn more this is life. The best people you can surround yourself with are open minded and honest. What they tell you might hurt your feelings or fly in the face of what you are trying to accomplish. But you need to hear these things they might have a view you haven’t considered. The person you should fear in life is somebody that “knows everything” this person has closed their mind to any information that contradicts what they know.
Darryl Perry: I think the lack of civility in political discourse is a problem. This is highlighted by the rise of so-called “brutalists” who seek to be offensive for the sake of being offensive because they want to vociferously oppose what they see as political correctness run amok. I’m reminded of the saying: “Just because you can doesn’t mean you should!”
Derrick Michael Reid: Political correctness is a symptom, not the problem. Free speech enables anyone to be politically correct as they deem fit, and to lambast others for inappropriate parlance, as also deemed fit. Extreme political correctness stems from social chaos and rancor inherent in and from bastardizing the Constitution, and migrating centralized power into totalitarian socialistic fascist DC, polarizing the electorate, and from political pandering by the two political pandering machines, to cement selfish political power. That is the problem. The problem is not free speech or political correctness desires, but the bastardardizing of the US Constitution and the Political pandering that creates social chaos, intransigent ideologies, and does not serve “domestic tranquility”, an object of the Constitution.
Jack Robinson, Jr.: Forced political correctness is a problem because it becomes a tool for social confinement, control over our thoughts and speech under the guise of protecting the freedom and rights of others from bias and discrimination.
Essentially the argument made is that when our freedoms conflict, it is reasonable to place restrictions on the liberties of the offender. In a society based on individual rights and liberties, what is supposed to happen when the rights of two entities clash? When are individual liberties in conflict? Exactly whose freedoms are being impinged upon when both sides feel their freedoms are being violated? These seem to be valid questions that add to public discourse and are inevitably questions that need to be answered in a freedom centric society. There is little that can be done to inhibit these legal disputes because they are the type of issues politicians and activist individuals exploit to further their agendas.
In the United States we take distinct pride in believing every individual is different and should not subjugate our values to the values of anyone else; but this does not mean that every individual can do what they please 100% of the time. To hold the position of “100% freedom, 100% of the time” even when trampling someone else’s freedoms is neither a wise position nor is it the law. It is the unwise and reckless use of freedom that creates the conditions under which my own are jeopardized. One cannot and should not be able to cook meth in the apartment below mine because it endangers everyone in the apartment building. One cannot falsely yell fire in a crowded theater to incite panic. However, under the Constitution the actions of an individual and the speech of an individual are held to different standards of limitations. Under the Constitution, freedom of speech is virtually unassailable and this is how it should be. Applying this belief to political correctness, I do not believe the government has the authority to limit speech even when the speech is purposefully malicious.
However, it is this type of unwise and reckless use of freedom that creates the conditions under which my own are jeopardized. With freedom comes wisdom and responsibility – fail to exercise either and either rightly or wrongly, our freedoms will be taken away.
We should tirelessly protect the boundaries of freedom but we should also be aware as a political party of the wise choices and examples we set through our candidate selection process, party platform and individual decisions or we will find our rights will challenged, codified and restricted.
Heidi Zeman: I think that political correctness is getting better. People are realizing that political correctness prevents us from finding solutions.
- What are your thoughts on jury nullification?
Berry: I am a Natural Law Libertarian so I believe that all legitimate government, legal, and social mandates must allow individuals to live and to build a life. In other words, any law or Judicial process is void to the extent that it interferes with the fundamental right to live. With that in mind, a core job of a jury does and should include weighing the validity of the law/process. Allowance for jury nullification should be a mandatory part of jury instructions as well as the determination of guilt/liability:
Something like, “This is the law… You must first determine that the law does not unreasonably interfere with the defendant’s right to live. If it does you must find the defendant not guilty [or find for the defendant]. If the law is clearly not intrusive or unjust, you must then consider the facts presented and determine whether the defendant is guilty [or liable]…”
The people have generally had a small voice in the evolution of Judicial Process and the repression of jury nullification has only served to eliminate common sense and accountability from our court system to the detriment of the people.
Briggs: Jury nullification is a right the American people have. It comes in handy especially during Grand Jury when someone is charged with a wrong charge and can be returned to a lower court to be tried under the correct charge.
It is a privilege to sit on a jury and serve our country by listening to the facts and laws that apply to the case. Then it is the jurys responsibility to say if the prosecution has proved their case or has not.
Clements: Relevant the law which is constant justice may not justify the case in question. A juror can never be punished for the verdict returned which in turn could justify a case. Every case is different whether criminal or civil. A brings times of justice in natural law. In my opinion.
Dunham: Jury Nullification is an effective tool for justice and certainly a good way people can have their say in the justice process. It is a worthwhile part of due process, and something to consider. I believe Judges should explain this facet to juries when they are called.
Feldman: There are actually four branches of the Federal government: Executive, legislative, judicial, and We the People. The jurisdiction of the people is seen with jury nullification, grand juries, petitions, as well as elections and the empowerment of the first and second amendments.
Lowe: A jury will do what a jury will do. Sometimes the person that broke the law is loved by the people that much they can not send them a guilty verdict.
The President has no power of free will even in court of law when free will is backbone of our justice system in court. Good question and I had no clue what the word meaning was because I never heard of it before.
McAfee: I have no opinion.
McCormick: Jury nullification is the greatest form of civil disobedience we as US citizens have access to but it’s not a surprise that the general public doesn’t know this is an option as a juror. Unfortunately, this option is never presented to a jury and if a prospective juror did know about this option I would expect the juror to be excused by the prosecution the first chance that they get. This is just a small part of the larger issue with our court systems. American’s believe they have the right to a jury trial but in most states this isn’t the case. In Arizona only 3 misdemeanor “crimes” are eligible for a jury trial and you will find a similar policy across the US. It’s just another example of our rights being stripped from us.
Perry: I’m a supporter of the power of juries to vote not-guilty when someone has been charged with a victimless crime.
Reid: Jury nullification is another indication of the growing totalitarian socialistic fascism spreading moral corruption.
Robinson: I am all for it. It is an opportunity for the will of the people to be exercised over what is perceived as government oppression.
Zeman: Every jury (? the question mark is because the ‘jury’ perhaps has previously become a custom-picked staff of the winning attorney) should be told that they have the power to use the ‘nullification of the jury.’ They should be told that if they do not agree with the law that has captured the innocent victim of an unjust law (brave and beautiful sacrifices our Legislators have placed in small rooms, with a violent criminal who perhaps really is dangerous, with no food and an armed guard who walks by occasionally) that they can use their power of the nullification of the jury.
And, since this can free innocent people who now face questions about their arrest, these decisions could perhaps come with some restitution to the brave and beautiful, with some accountability required of the men and women with guns and badges who jailed the often innocent citizen.
- Should immigration to the US be unfettered even if those entering the country are inclined to “vote away” fundamental rights?
Berry: I don’t believe that the possible voting inclination of immigrants should be a factor in our immigration policy. I do think that we have a responsibility to adapt our system of government to guarantee individual liberties regardless of demographics. My current concern is more on our younger generation where many vocal activists are stepping forward with demands to curb basic freedoms in favor of limited privileges and soothing from government (or other authorities).
Briggs: No, immigration needs to be taken very seriously. It is a privilege for an individual to come into this country and become an American citizen. It needs to be made clear what the American values are and fundamental rights. It should be mandatory that the immigrants agree on the fundamental rights of an American citizen before they become an American citizen. There should be a time frame, if the fundamental rights and values are compromised by the immigrant, their American citizenship would be revoked.
Clements: Immigration seems to be a national security issue at times. Also seems to favor one political party’s interest for power in America. When Americans control the economics of America for all citizens fairly carrying there weight. We as a country could expand the union and add some stars to our flag.
Dunham: For immigration I believe we do not need to close the borders, or limit migrant workers, but we do need to make sure they cannot accept social programs or vote illegally before they apply for citizenship. I propose the solution of requiring worker’s visas with photo IDs, with which one cannot accept any social programs or vote. This solves the budget problem without creating another budget problem that can’t be paid for with a wall or deportation.
Feldman: Our government should not be involved in determining the numbers of immigrants. It should be a privilege of every U.S. citizen to sponsor as many or as few immigrants as they would like. It would be up to individuals, communities, religious organizations and others to determine which immigrants and how many to invite in. The government could coordinate a background check for criminality and disease check and that would be all. If someone believes that we should admit more Syrian refugees, we can respond “That’s wonderful. How many would you like?” Fundamental rights are inalienable and cannot be voted away. I would suspect that those who work hard and sacrifice to get hear are just as likely or more likely to support and defend our common fundamental rights as people born here.
Lowe: Immigration, if a person comes here legally and does NOT pose any threat then they should be able to come. If I am President only U.S. Citizens will have the right to vote. When a person from another country becomes a citizen of the United States then they can vote. By letting foreigners vote can and will change the outcome. We still live here and they went back home not having to deal with our elected officials.
McCormick: Not sure what you mean by “voting away” fundamental rights. An immigrant entering this country doesn’t have the power to vote my rights away. The old white men running our country have done a great job of limiting our rights outlined in the bill of rights over the last 50 years. Our country is founded and has become the great nation it is thanks to an open immigration policy. People are not risking their lives, leaving family and friends behind and moving to an unknown city to harm us. They are moving here for opportunity and a chance to improve their life. We should be proud that people around the world want to live here and contribute to our economy.
Perry: Free people should be allowed to cross the borders of free countries, freely!
Reid: Immigration should be controlled so as to allow sufficient assimilation time. Immigration comes from many varied cultures. We take them as they are, even if not having an American perspective of democracy, liberty, freedom and capitalism. Controlled immigration through sufficient assimilation time allows new Americans sufficient time to assimilate into the melting pot culture of democracy, liberty, freedom and capitalism. We take non-violent immigrants as they are and assimilate through controlled immigration. It works.
Robinson: Immigration should not be unfettered but how a person might vote is perhaps the one reason that should never be used to justify any governmental action.
Zeman: The immigrants I know are liberty minded. The people who are voting away fundamental rights have been our citizen legislators. As we elect a Libertarian President, and have leaders who are Libertarian, fundamental rights will be restored I believe.
- What individuals would you nominate to the Supreme Court and/or what will you look for in an individual before nominating anyone to the Supreme Court?
Berry: I don’t plan to release any potential picks for our nation’s highest court any time soon. I believe that the consideration and vetting process should be deliberative and unhurried. I will say that it is very, very unlikely I will choose a person who is a sitting judge. As a Libertarian, my highest concern will obviously be finding a person who will interpret the Constitution as written with a strong background in defense of personal rights.
The appellate courts differ strongly from the trial courts in that the appellate courts are supposed to oversee and correct the lower courts (with upholding the Constitution and recognition of Natural Law rights as the highest concerns). I have direct experience attempting to get the court’s to correct themselves and I have found an almost complete disregard for individual rights (and common sense) in favor of Judicial privilege deeply entrenched throughout the courts.
Whoever I nominate will not support “Protection of the Judiciary” over their duty to defend individual rights.
Briggs: I would look for a moderate judge. One that has been fair in his rulings and upholds the constitution. I would look for one that is not rash in making decisions and one that is a God fearing person.
Clements: As a President and if the nomination for Justice Supreme still open seat. Strict criteria in selection of any candidate in any profession would be considered. Constitution basic principles would be process for selecting an individual. For 240 years the Constitution has been running this country and the Supreme Court. Certainly working with all the Senate individuals for the best nomination.
Dunham: I cannot speculate at this time who I would nominate to the supreme court, but I would nominate some one who has shown they follow the law, the constitution, and procedure to the letter.
Feldman: A keen mind, superlative education and experience, and sound judgment. That is all.
Lowe: United States Supreme Court Justices once I am President will all be replaced. They broke the Constitution and therefore will not be representing the United States Supreme Court no more.
I will write an Executive Order that the main qualification to be considered for the United States Supreme Court must be a judge voted for by the people that is selected from the Supreme Courts of the States. No other person may be considered for the seat. I will also write an Executive Order the term limits of a United States Supreme Court Justice can be no longer than 3 years per life of a person who is a judge.
I hope to make it law or an amendment to the Constitution regarding term limits.
McAfee: It must be some who holds liberty, privacy and self determination as the highest goals.
McCormick: I would only nominate justices that have a clear understanding of the constitution and the rights provided to the people. A key question I would ask is if they believe secret courts that strip the individual of their right to address their accuser and know if they have been a subject to a “search warrant” are legal. Anyone who believes our founders believed secret courts that can issue warrants to search my digital records without my knowledge is legal doesn’t belong on the bench.
Perry: The first two people I would consider for Supreme Court are Clint Bolick & Marc J Victor. Both of whom are Libertarians, Bolick is currently a member of the Arizona Supreme Court, Victor is a practicing lawyer and a former state judge in AZ.
Reid: The two pandering political machines, for selfish political power, have politicized the supreme court, into the supreme political machine, backing up the two pandering political machines, collectively operating to concentrate totalitarian socialistic power in DC. The solution is to restore the constitution, and that can be done by nominating me as the LP candidate to sweep all 50 states in November, where impeachment indictments will be repetitive used curb unconstitutional judicial fiat and restore the constitution. Confirmation should be simple, as in, 1) Is the justice nominee intelligent, and 2) Will the justice UPHOLD the constitution. Justices may use words and creative reasoning to bypass the literal meaning of the Constitution, but have clearly violated the intent, purpose, scope, object and spirit of the Constitution, violating their oaths, and bastardizing the Constitution. Founding fathers wrote what they meant, and meant what they wrote. The Constitution is clear, but has been subverted through politicization. Upon my election, I will cure such judicial fiat treason and sedition, and restore the Constitution.
Robinson: I would look for a justice that is in favor of individual rights over government rights, passivity versus activism, originalism over stare decisis and believes the primary responsibility of a justice is to decide whether legislative law is constitutional or not, rather than writing or making law.
Zeman: I do not have anyone in mind at this moment, however, when the need arises, or sooner as time permits, I would intend to review the decisions of Appellate Judges to start, and become familiar with cases whose outcomes are being questioned. I will be looking to nominate Judges who reinstate and / or preserve our Bill of Rights.
- If Donald Trump is the GOP nominee, how will you appeal to the #NeverTrump voters? If Trump is not the nominee, how will you appeal to Trump supporters?
Berry: While I believe that the Libertarian Party (on the local, state and national levels) should target messages to individual groups like Trump supporters, I plan a consistent, honest, and even blunt campaign to cut through to core issues. I will promote an agenda of reform and expansion of individual rights that should be appealing to virtually all Americans. Making our government leaner, more just, and more efficient is not sexy but it’s necessary. It’s like cleaning out the attic or garage. It’s hard work but it makes life better in the long run.
Specific to Trump, whether or not he is the nominee, I suspect that my anti-establishment campaign will automatically appeal to those Trump supporter’s who reject status quo politics but find aspects of his campaign unappealing.
Briggs: If Mr. Trump gets the GOP nominee, I would appeal to the ‘Never Trump voters’ as one that understands what they go through day by day in real life. Trump would make American worse than what it is now. I would turn this country around so that the American people come first.
If Mr. Trump is not the nominee, I would appeal to the Trump supporters because they want change. I want change also in Washington. America needs to move forward not backwards.
Clements: GOP nominee or the Left Party nominee is no match for this candidate. A simple man born in poverty, lives in poverty, fights for poverty, cooks like poverty, dresses like poverty, washes own clothes in poverty, cleans house like poverty, fixes own vehicle like poverty, shops like poverty, eats fried macaroni and speaks like poverty. I escaped that two party system that destroyed my life with a stroke of the pen from our current POTUS. I found a home in Liberty and I intend to share all my testimony for every American to find freedom.
Dunham: I mainly want to court Trump voters by explaining to them that we don’t need a wall or deportations. That to solve the problems of immigrants voting and receiving social programs I would initiate the low-cost solution of requiring photo-ID worker’s visas. This is all that needs to be done, along with following the laws already on the books, to limit any strain on the USA. My Tax Plan is a switch from Income Tax to a 9% non-food Sales Tax, so that would capture purchases made by all immigrants automatically for clothes, electronics, vehicles, and so on. My plans are initiatives I’m trying to accomplish now via activism, and none of them are promises that for candidates like Trump might evaporate if he was in office.
Feldman: I would not try. #NeverTrump voters will vote for the Democratic nominee as the best chance to beat Trump, or they would stay home. They like the Republican party, so they are already stuck in an aggression based paradigm.
Trump supporters will vote for the Republican nominee as the best chance to beat the democrat, or they would stay home. They like the Republican party, so they are already stuck in an aggression based paradigm.
I believe the real opportunity for the Libertarian Party in 2016 is with the 100 million people in this country who have not voted for a long time, or have never voted, and do not support Democrats or Republicans. We should leverage our strength and use the same nationwide organization that we are using to gain access to the ballot in all 50 states, to get access to these potential voters in all 50 states. I would do it with a massive voter registration drive. I would go to college campuses, ethnic festivals, parades, and sporting events and all those places where we have been getting petition signatures. We can partner with Rock the Vote and others. We may be adding many new GOP and Dems and Greens, but I believe that many people will see our dedication and integrity and register as Libertarians..
Lowe: The main reason people like Trump is he has been Presidential campaigning for around 30 years. On the Opera show 30 years ago he was asked if he would run for President. He said ” most likely not”. Then he started to sound Presidential and started campaign speech while on the show. At some point he got tired of being Presidential like and turned into what you see now. The other reason people like him is because they don’t know of me. 8 out 10 Trump supporters will become fans of me if they hear me out. His haters will vote for me 90%+. His supporters around 40% once given me a chance to speak will vote for me.
People get us mixed up just cause we are both Donald. To help this even more I did this.
Donald Trump on twitter @realdonaldtrump
Donald Lowe on twitter @realdonaldlowe
He says “Make America Great Again”
I say “Keep America Free ”
He has spent millions to get to become a Presidential Nominee and I have spent less than $15,000 since June 2013 on campaign for President and I have been able to campaign in person in 48 states.
He talks of a tax system that is unfair to all. In my tax plan I lower taxes while treating everyone same under the 14th Amendment of Constitution.
He talks of a healthcare tailored to women because he likes women. In my healthcare the people choose how much to pay based upon the ability to pay. By doing this it will make to where we all have the best quality of healthcare equal to everyone else. The Affordable Healthcare Act I can not afford to pay. It will be a thing of the past. My healthcare every United States Citizen now will have healthcare and it paid 100%. No more government health care other than Military and our Veterans.
Trump hates Americans and I don’t.
I bring God and Jesus all the way and Trump turned God away and looks like he denies Jesus. During my campaign I hosted church in Gary Indiana where people from around the country and even a few people from overseas showed up to meet me and hear the word of God. I never planned it that I be the Pastor. People have drove over a 1,000 miles to hear me speak. I don’t get to have the large campaign venues they cost money. So I speak every day about politics and God wherever I am. It’s wonderful when people meet me and start crying tears of joy and that never gets old. When people in the background of where I am screaming “I love you Donald” it’s heart warming to me. People have broke down the bathroom door to meet me. That happened in Lancaster Pennsylvania.
Put me on stage with Donald Trump and you will see how the people will change the outcome of the election. I am already pitching the media to host a debate between the Libertarian Party, Republican Party and The Democratic Party for the Nominating Candidates from each party. Each month have 2 debates hosted by different media. If I am the Libertarian Party Nomination for President I will show up at every one of those debates.
McAfee: By being truthful about who I am.
McCormick: The majority of American’s don’t agree with anyone running for president in the established parties. This is our biggest problem in the US. The two parties are moving so far to one extreme or another to attract a motivated voter and have left all of us focused on extreme issues when the reality is once they get elected the only thing they can agree on is passing more laws to limit the freedoms of American’s to keep themselves in power. I’m running a platform that sounds so simple but the established parties are against it. We need to protect our rights to personal freedom, privacy and free speech. While balancing the budget and putting a stop to out of control spending. We will never put an end to the political cycle we are stuck in until an independent 3rd party is sitting in the White House.
Perry: I don’t believe Trump supporters are likely to support a libertarian candidate, because libertarian candidates are appeal to logic and reason.
Reid: Trump is an infantile bombastic property mogul who has NO CLUE how to make America great again. I can humiliate and destroy him, easy, pointing out his meaningless pander and ineffective plans. I will bring the Libertarian Party victory in November, by appealing to 90% of the voters, with plans that fit ALL of their core values and objectives.
Robinson: I have the best idea of any candidate. Trickle up economics solves all the great social and economic problems of our nation and also appeals to all political parties. The attraction will be far broader than Trump related emotions. No candidate has or has ever had an economic message this powerful. We can win this election. It is the first ever economic policy based on Libertarian principles of low taxes and smaller government, while satisfying the socio-economic problems of our nation. We accomplish more than socialism without the 90% tax rate and government involvement.
Zeman: I will appeal to the NeverTrump voters by embracing their passion and showing them we are the same; we are the party that is disgusted with our government not protecting us from terrorists, and we are disgusted with our government not creating an environment where private business can flourish. Although Donald segregates terrorists into racial categories, I believe I can open the eyes of his followers to the realization that the terrorists are in our government, not overseas. I believe the Libertarian business friendly platform will open their eyes to the fact that our country will prosper under Libertarian leadership.
- If you do not receive the nomination, will you remain in the Libertarian Party and support its candidates including its 2016 presidential nominee?
Berry: If I am not nominated as either the Libertarian Party Presidential or Vice-Presidential candidate, I will almost certainly adjust my FEC paperwork to continue an Independent bid for the Presidency. I would identity as an Independent Libertarian and continue to support the Libertarian Party as much as possible. The reality is that an Independent bid would stand virtually no chance of success due to ballot issues, so I would obviously adjust my campaign to supplement rather than usurp the official Libertarian nominee.
*I started my campaign to promote reform and modernization of our political process (and to develop tools for Independent and 3rd party candidates) and I plan to see that through to the end. I am running an almost pure Libertarian campaign in that I am presenting principles to a political free market and the responsibility of promoting those principles (via social media) rests on the people; I am rejecting the typical election bureaucracy and running a zero fund-raising campaign; if my campaign is unsuccessful in developing substantial momentum that will reflect either a failure in my principles or a failure in the Libertarian concept of government.
Briggs: Yes, I would remain in the Libertarian Party and support the 2016 presidential nominee.
Clements: If not the nominee for President. I am already the longest running United States Senate Candidate in America at two years and six months with 195 days left this election. I work hard for this November, 8th, 2016. election as a Libertarian candidate either driving across this country or my current Louisiana State and visiting as many National Parks for the family adventure of all time in history.
Dunham: I will remain in the Libertarian Party performing activism for all Americans’ well-being. I will not change or slow down even after 2016.
Feldman: I am a life member of the Libertarian Party, and I take that commitment seriously. I would not support any candidate at any level just because they carried the Libertarian party label. However I have enough trust and respect for our delegates to pledge my support to any Presidential or Vice Presidential candidate whom they would
Lowe: The rules of the Libertarian Party state no candidate can run for office if not the Nominated candidate. I will honor the party and my race will be over.
I would stay with the party. Almost 3 years on campaign and if I not the person they want it will hurt but I will be set free from such a long campaign. If I do become the Libertarian Party Nomination then my game is on more so than ever. I will take them to the White House with me. I knew this campaign was going to be hard going into this. So I decided that God would lead my campaign. Time and time again I wanted to quit but things keep happening to keep me getting bigger in the campaign. I never dreamed I would become the face of hope for so many. As I grew into the man God wanted me to be the people started to turn to me for inspiration and to hear what I had to say. If I am President every Sunday I will host church from around the world. City after city it will be a full day for everyone to worship and honor God. It’s my way to give thanks to Jesus for letting me be apart of the Will of God. I will lead the people in politics and help set you free from your sins by leading you to Jesus for forgiveness of your sins. I am only a man with Faith in God. I sin too much but Jesus loves me. If I am to be President for the Will of God then you are watching a Leader born that God has blessed.
Will you be set free or be trapped by false leadership as my opponents just might be as they are the Republican Party and Democratic Party are my opponents.
McAfee: I will remain and support any nominee,with the exception of Gary Johnson. If the party nominates Gary, then it us trying to do the same thing again and expecting different results. This is the definition of insanity. I have had enough of insanity and do not wish to be associated with it.
McCormick: I first identified myself as a Libertarian in 1996 when I voted for President of the United States and cast my ballot for Harry Browne. Since then I have voted Libertarian in every election and live my life sharing the principles of our party. I am not making this late run for the presidential nomination to promote my own personal agenda. I am doing this because we have the opportunity of a lifetime to properly introduce the Libertarian party to millions of disenfranchised voters but our party and current candidates are not reaching these voters. We need a clear and concise message during this election cycle. If I don’t receive the nomination I will continue to drive the Libertarian message and work closely with the nominee to develop a strategy to make this the year the Libertarian party broke through the political barriers and changed US politics forever.
Perry: I’m a life-member of the LP and I intend to remain a life-member of the LP after the National Convention.
Reid: I would remain in the party and support the nominee, though very sadly realizing that a historic golden opportunity to win the White House and save the nation from chaos and ruination, was lost to pander, egotism, ignorance, and utter nonsense, as any such other nominee clearly tragically lacks the knowledge base, solution set, comprehension, and skill set to win, or make any significant difference to the ongoing implosion, whatsoever, probably resulting in decades of global economic depression and world war inflicting hundreds of millions of deaths world wide. Forgive them O’ lord, for they have no clue.
Robinson: I have frequently said that I am in this race to promote Trickle Up economics far more than to become president. I have also said that if becoming president is the course that I must take to see that Trickle Up economics is realized then I will fight all the way to the end in order to become President. I also believe that while I have the best idea that other candidates might in fact be better as “the face” of the Libertarian Party giving us and my economic policy a better chance for victory. I have frequently said that I will support another candidate that the party thinks is the best choice as long as they advocate Trickle Up as their economic policy. We cannot rely on disaffection to drive voters from other parties to the Libertarian party. We must have our own ideas that solve America’s problems without violating our principles and capture the imagination of the American people.
Zeman: I have always supported the candidate I liked, and the Libertarians are the ones I like now. I plan to be Libertarian forever! I would support our nominee . See, I trust our party will choose the best candidate to be President in 2016!
- Do you ever read the Independent Political Reportwebsite? If so, how often do you read it?
Berry: I only recently started to visit your website. I have found your coverage of Libertarian issues very useful so I have had several visits over the past few weeks.
Briggs: I do read the independent Political Report every week.
Clements: I have never read your Independent Political Report.
Dunham: I read IPR every week. Thank you.
Feldman: I read IPR about once per week. A bit more often in campaign season when I am running.
Lowe: I will start reading your paper. I never heard of it before.
McAfee: I do not read it
McCormick: Yes about once a month
Perry: Yes. I’ll generally look at the site a couple times per week.
Reid: Yes, I peruse IPR about once a week, on average. The following is indubitably the most important post of the 2016 election cycle, to the Libertarian Party, and to the United States of America.
Robinson: Not often I follow on twitter and read articles when posted. I recently read their discussion of republicanism, anarchism and minarchism. My policies have all the earmarks of minarchism.
Zeman: I just opened it in another window, and am now a reader. Wow, the Oregon party leader is supporting Trump; that’s odd!
- What is your favorite song?
Berry: I typically appreciate music and entertainment broadly rather than specifically. I couldn’t name one favorite song as what I like changes with my mood. Here is a list of some of my top choices:
What a Wonderful World – Louis Armstrong
Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald – Gordon Lightfoot
Sweet Home Alabama – Lynyrd Skynyrd
Everything – Lifehouse
Rockstar – Nickelback
Yeah! – Usher
Shake It Off – Taylor Swift
Wake Me Up Before You Go-Go – Wham!
The Greatest – Kenny Rogers
A Father’s Love – George Strait
Gangnam Style – Psy
Brickhouse – Commodores
Double Shot (of My Baby’s Love) – Swingin’ Medallions
God Bless the U.S.A. – Lee Greenwood
(my favorite overall artist is likely Randy Travis, Vince Gill, or the Eagles with Jimmy Buffet, Charlie Daniels, and Johnny Cash occasionally rising to the top.)
Briggs: Daddys Hands
Clements: A new rock band name: Torn Shorts-/ song: Be My Mechanic.
Dunham: Megadeth – A Tout Le Monde
Feldman: American Pie by Don McLean
Lowe: No answer.
McAfee: It depends on my mood. Ruichi Sakamoto’s “Sheltering Sky” is good for most purposes.
McCormick: Jack Johnson Rodeo Clowns
Perry: I don’t have a “favorite” song
Reid: I have two actually.
Dont Tread on Me, Metalica
Spirit in the Sky, Norman Greenbaum
Praise the Lord.
Robinson: Green green grass of home- Johnny Cash
Zeman: It changes regularly, but I like Unchained Melody always.
- What is your favorite movie?
Berry: In general, The Outlaw Josey Wales stays at the top but Vegas Vacation and O Brother, Where Art Thou? appeal to another side of me.
My favorite modern Christmas movie is Elf.
There are several inspirational movies that I enjoy including: Hidalgo, The Shawshank Redemption, Men of Honor, The Terminal, August Rush, and Secondhand Lions.
I also like war movies that go beyond gore and action including: Tora! Tora! Tora!, We Were Soldiers, and The Siege of Firebase Gloria.
Briggs: Big Momma, Sister Act
Dunham: Chinatown (1974)
Feldman: American Beauty.
Lowe: No answer.
McAfee: Fritz Lang’s “Metropolis”
McCormick: Usual Suspects
Perry: I don’t have a “favorite” movie
Reid: Master and Margarita, Russian, 2005
Robinson: Cool Hand Luke
Zeman: Another favorite that changes now and then, but I always like Napoleon Dynamite.