Constitution Party Candidate, Darrell Castle, Says He’s More Libertarian Than Gary Johnson

darrell_castle_square

By Matthew Carr, LibertyHangout.org, July 2nd, 2016:

Darrell Castle is The Constitution Party’s candidate for president this year, and I was fortunate enough to come in contact with his campaign. They were very kind, and when I asked Mr. Castle for an interview he was more than willing to do so. The following are the questions and answers which were given through email.

For any who may be unfamiliar with you, could you please tell a little about yourself and about The Constitution Party?

I was born on a small farm in East Tennessee. I have degrees in History and Political science from East Tennessee State University and a Law degree from The University of Memphis. I was a Commissioned Officer in the United States Marine Corps with foreign service around the world.

thesis statement regarding education how do i write a business letter https://thejeffreyfoundation.org/newsletter/olefin-cross-metathesis/17/ click http://www.danhostel.org/papers/do-my-essay-for-me-uk/11/ https://unsdn.org/2020/how-to-write-a-compare-and-contrast-essay-step-by-step/70/ example essay introduction follow link https://geneseelandlordassoc.org/category/writing-essay-services/44/ thesis declarationВ hilft viagra frauen cialis canadian geneic thesis statement examples in introduction paraphrasing dictionary online shopping thesis statement order courswork custom thesis statement ghostwriter sites for college go here source site cheapest prices on generic cialis apa references thesis follow site writing a five paragraph essay http://wnpv1440.com/teacher/college-essay-writing-tips/33/ viagra medical warning thesis statement belonging 2008 ap bio essay https://thejeffreyfoundation.org/newsletter/essay-mobile-phone-advantages-and-disadvantages/17/ write my essay for cheap write my paper for 2nd grade how do i change my passcode on my ipad essay correction Read the rest of the interview here. 

(Via American Third Party Report)

310 thoughts on “Constitution Party Candidate, Darrell Castle, Says He’s More Libertarian Than Gary Johnson

  1. Thomas Knapp

    Well, he says he’s more libertarian than them after mentioning that he’s completely anti-libertarian (just like Trump and Clinton), and that Johnson and Weld are at least somewhat libertarian, on borders and immigration, which seems to be among the biggest issues on the election menu this year.

  2. Cody Quirk

    Hmmmm, he’s ultra-conservative on the social issues, is a protectionist, and also wants overly restricted borders -so Darrell’s claim is pretty much horse shit.

  3. NewFederalist

    I agree with Andy. If the CP is successful in meeting the greatly reduced Pennsylvania requirements this year, I will seriously consider voting for him over the Johnson/Weld ticket.

  4. Andy Craig

    He wasn’t even smart enough to cite any of the (very few) issues that his Theocratic Totalitarian Party is libertarian-ish on. “I’m more libertarian— I want to ban Mexicans and abortions!!!” is a pretty incongruous statement.

    If you think Saudi Arabia is fine model to follow, you can always vote for the most inaccurately named party in America (that is, if you’re in the less than half the country they’re on the ballot). But if you want liberty— as opposed to fundamentalist Protestant theocracy straight out of the middle ages— then they are about the worst party you could want to have any influence at all over laws and government policy.

  5. Cody Quirk

    Exactly; a Libertarian voting for Gary Johnson would be like an anarchist voting for Adolph Hitler; he may seem like a better alternative to an anarchist candidate that’s not pure enough in their beliefs- but if you give him the power by voting him into office, then he will take away your liberties, individual freedoms, and be a million times worse then your typically corrupt mainstream candidate.

    With what the CP wants to do on the social & economic issues to this country; it would be worse then voting for Donald Trump.

  6. Cody Quirk

    Why don’t you read their national platform and then get back to me.

    Oh, and if you think the rhetoric spewed by Riley Hood & Don Grundmann is only from the ‘minority fringe’ in the CP; you’re very wrong; a large percentage of active CP’ers believe the same way and are just as zealous -only they’re more careful to watch what they say in public and online.

  7. steve m

    Comparing a vote for Johnson to a vote for Hitler is complete nonsense. Even insulting. Even stupid!

  8. Cody Quirk

    Shit, I was half-asleep when I said that; what I meant was-

    ‘Exactly; a Libertarian voting for Darrell Castle would be like an anarchist voting for Adolph Hitler; he may seem like a better alternative to an anarchist candidate that’s not pure enough in their beliefs- but if you give him the power by voting him into office, then he will take away your liberties, individual freedoms, and be a million times worse then your typically corrupt mainstream candidate.’

    Had a brain-zoink moment; I apologize.

  9. steve m

    I am still uncomfortable with comparing any US candidate to some one who lead a government that did murder millions of people…

    But, I will withdraw my complaint.

  10. NewFederalist

    Cody has a major hard on for the CP because they rejected his efforts to organize all the parties of the right into one. I don’t blame him for being pissed off but he really should get over it.

  11. William Saturn

    Castle is right. TPP, health insurance mandate, FairTax, humanitarian war, gun control, political correctness, and forcing Jews to bake Nazi cakes are not libertarian positions. Yet Johnson-Weld supports all of these. On the other hand, Castle opposes all of these (Trump does as well). I’m not seeing much of a difference between Trump and Castle on immigration, trade, and the America First foreign policy. Could someone lay out the main policy differences between Castle and Trump?

    IMO, if you’re a libertarian who has rejected Johnson-Weld and is concerned about the theocratic nature of Castle’s party but don’t want to support the duopoly, perhaps you still should consider Trump, an independent who has successfully infiltrated the two-party system.

  12. T Rex

    While neither candidates are libertarian purists (and I don’t require them to be), Castle is easily more libertarian than Johnson.

    On marriage, his position is that the government should not be involved in it, period. On the Drug War and other victimless crimes, he says he favors decriminalization. On foreign policy, he is more reliably non-interventionist than Johnson-Weld. On the Fed, he takes the radical libertarian position (abolition, baby!)

    The 2 major issues libertarians may disagree with Castle on (abortion and immigration) are contentious issues even in the libertarian community. A paleolibertarian or pro-life libertarian could make the argument that Castle’s positions *are* more libertarian on those two issues. I don’t necessarily buy that, but I do think more libertarians have nuanced views on those 2 issues than on the issues where Johnson-Weld are deviating.

  13. T Rex

    Libertarian platform = way better than CP platform

    However…

    CP Candidate = closer to Libertarian platform than LP candidate (or to the CP’s wacky platform)

  14. T Rex

    One more thing I would add: Ron Paul deviated on abortion and immigration as well. Does anyone seriously think Johnson is more libertarian than Paul? Doubtful.

  15. Andy

    Ron Paul voted to INCREASE VISAS for foreign workers, and he also voted against the border fence.

  16. Cody Quirk

    “Cody has a major hard on for the CP because they rejected his efforts to organize all the parties of the right into one. I don’t blame him for being pissed off but he really should get over it.”

    I got over that looooooooooooong ago; my beef with the CP has to do with other things.

  17. Cody Quirk

    “On marriage, his position is that the government should not be involved in it, period.”

    If that’s the case, then he’s in opposition to the CP’s platform on the issues marriage and the family

    https://www.constitutionparty.com/family/

    “…The law of our Creator defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman. The marriage covenant is the foundation of the family, and the family is fundamental in the maintenance of a stable, healthy and prosperous social order. No government may legitimately authorize or define marriage or family relations contrary to what God has instituted. We are opposed to any judicial ruling or amending the U.S. Constitution or any state constitution re-defining marriage with any definition other than the Biblical standard.

    “We call for an end to all taxation and economic formulas that discourage marriage, incentivize co-habitation and child bearing outside of marriage or authorize or provide government funding for policies and programs that further erode the jurisdiction of the family or parental rights.

    “We reject the notion that homosexuals, transgenders or those who are sexually deviant are deserving of legal favor or special protection, and affirm the rights of states and localities to proscribe offensive sexual behavior. We oppose all efforts to impose a new sexual legal order through any courts or legislatures. We stand against so-called “sexual orientation” and “hate crime” statutes that attempt to legitimize inappropriate sexual behavior or stifle public opposition to its expression. We oppose government funding of “partner” benefits for unmarried individuals. Finally, we oppose any legal recognition of homosexual or civil unions.”

  18. T Rex

    “If that’s the case, then he’s in opposition to the CP’s platform on the issues marriage and the family”

    Yes, that is correct. Just like how Johnson takes many positions that differ from the LP platform.

    I care more about what the actual candidate says than what a party platform gives lip service to.

  19. T Rex

    For these last 3 election cycles, the CP candidate has been better than the LP candidate on 2 of them.

    Chuck Baldwin was more libertarian than Bob Barr.

    Virgil Goode was less libertarian than Gary Johnson. Way less. No denying that.

    Darrell Castle however, is more libertarian than Johnson.

    Just my two cents, folks! At the very least, the LP candidate should be more libertarian than the CP candidate.

  20. Andy

    I agree as well, and i find this to be rather embarrassing as a 20 year LP member.

  21. Andy Craig

    Grass is always greener.

    At no point- even in 2008, but certainly not since then- has the CP nominated a “more libertarian” ticket than the LP; and at no point has the CP nominee run on a “more libertarian” platform than the LP’s nominee. Making such a statement requires ignoring 80%+ of what they campaign on and only counting a few pet issues; which are half of the time not even libertarian issue positions.

    What we have instead, is a quadrennial parade of disgruntled paleoconservatives, conspiracy theorists, and protectionist-isolationists who claim to be Libertarians, complaining that the libertarian ticket is none of those things, when it was never supposed to be any of those things.

    Why the people who make such complaints would be purport to be members of the LP instead of the CP in the first place escapes me, except that the CP has done such a good job running people away and being crazy that now they’re barely organized in most states and don’t even have enough support to get 270+EV ballot access.

    Wanting an LP more like the CP, or to nominate candidates more like the CP does, is tantamount to not wanting the LP to exist at all.

  22. T Rex

    William Weld believes that abolishing the IRS is “not necessary.”

    This is more libertarian…how? I never in my wildest dreams thought a Libertarian would say that on national TV. I can’t imagine Castle sucking up to the IRS like that.

  23. T Rex

    If being pro-Fed and pro-IRS is now “libertarian” (as long as a few socially liberal stances are taken on the side), that says a lot!

  24. NewFederalist

    “Wanting an LP more like the CP, or to nominate candidates more like the CP does, is tantamount to not wanting the LP to exist at all.” – Andy Craig

    Not sure how you stretched to that position. How about having the LP nominate actual libertarians instead of establishment Republicans? How would that work for you?

  25. Andy

    We do not want the Libertarian Paryy to be like the Constitution Party, we want it to NOT be like the Republican Party. We want the Libertarian Party to actually be libertarian.

  26. Thomas Knapp

    “How about having the LP nominate actual libertarians instead of establishment Republicans? How would that work for you?”

    What a novel idea. Maybe it will come back into vogue at some point in the future. But probably not if Mr. Craig can help it.

  27. Thane Eichenauer

    For the two issues I give more weight to are foreign policy and the Federal Reserve. In the Q&A Castle stated:

    Do you see yourself taking an interventionist approach or non-interventionist approach to foreign policy? How would a Castle administration handle our foreign conflicts?

    I am a non-interventionist, mind your own business candidate. I would only involve us in foreign conflicts if the United States was directly threatened and in danger.

    When asked if he could only accomplish three things as president the third was:

    End the Federal Reserve and return monetary policy to Congress where the Constitution places it.

    Which is not get government out of the monetary policy business. Johnson has a better position on this but I will let foreign policy outweigh monetary policy.

    Advantage: Castle

  28. Andy

    Has Johnson called for abolishing the Federal Reserve System? Has Weld called for abolishing the Federal Reserve System?

    Castle has called for abolishing the Federal Reserve System.

  29. Thomas Knapp

    And Bernie Sanders has called for ending the war on some drugs, voted against the Gulf War and the Invasion of Iraq, is more libertarian than the mainstream on immigration, etc., but I don’t hear you quacking that he’s anything close to a libertarian.

  30. Andy

    Going issue for issue, Castle is more libertarian than Bernie Sanders, by quite a bit.

    Do an issue by issue analysis. Castle beats everyone in the race of whom I am aware right now.

  31. Thomas Knapp

    Different people give different weight to different issues.

    For obvious reasons, I prefer a Libertarian Party candidate to be libertarian on everything.

    When the LP decides to nominate a Republican ticket instead of a libertarian ticket, I go shopping for the least bad thing. I know the other candidates will be anti-libertarian on some things, but which things matter to me (as I expect they do to you).

    For me, if a candidate is anti-libertarian on guns, no dice. If a candidate is anti-libertarian on drugs, not a chance. If a candidate is anti-libertarian on immigration, that candidate won’t get my vote. I would prefer that a non-LP candidate also be libertarian on tax policy, monetary policy, etc., but those are down the list. Your priorities almost certainly differ from mine.

    I also grade on how anti-libertarian a candidate is on an issue. I want the war on drugs ended, period, but “would legalize marijuana, don’t know about heroin” doesn’t bug me as much as “death penalty for anyone caught with a Schedule 1 drug.” I want full open borders, period, but “make them show a passport at the gate” doesn’t bug me as much as “OMG! They might speak Spanish or eat falafel or disagree with me! Keep them out!”

    I also think party matters. I’ve never voted Republican for president and don’t plan to. I voted Democratic in my first presidential election and don’t plan to make that mistake again. And I’d douse myself in gasoline and set myself on fire before I’d vote Constitution Party.

    I won’t be voting for Castle. I wouldn’t be voting for Sanders if he was the Democratic nominee. Both of them are too bad on too many things, even though both of them are decent on some things.

  32. Bondurant

    Johnson has grown more insufferable since he agreed to take a backseat to Weld (the “we’re running as a team” comment at the CNN town hall sounded more like an admission than a cute comment to me).

    But I spent some time reading the CP platform and I cannot support it with my vote. Dump the theocratic nonsense and maybe I’ll take the CP more seriously.

  33. Andy

    Bondurant, Darrell Castle is more libertarian than the Constitution Party’s platform (as was his 2008 presidential running mate, Chuck Baldwin).

    Every political party has different factions, and the Constitution Party is no different (the same goes with the Libertarian Party). There is a more libertarian leaning wing of the Constitution Party, and Castle is a part of that wing.

  34. T Rex

    Great post by Tom Knapp. It is true that we all have different issues we care about.

    I put taxes and the Fed at the top of my list, because 1) they steal money directly out of my wallet, and 2) they enable all the other bad things the state wants to do.

    I favor a candidate who has libertarian views on social issues as well, but I would differentiate that from the “socially liberal” garbage Johnson is pushing. I want to pardon all “criminals” who committed victimless crimes, not force people to bake cakes or pay for other people’s abortions.

  35. T Rex

    I also *love* the idea of screwing over rich bastards who live off US Treasuries…so defaulting on the debt, ending the Fed, etc gets me downright giddy.

    I’ll confess that I have more in common with Lysander Spooner or Benjamin Tucker than these Republican clowns the LP keeps nominating 😉

  36. Constitutional Craig

    Does it concern anyone in the LP that an open-borders policy will mean a vast majority of voters in 60 years will prefer a system of laws that are antithetical to the U.S Constitution? When you combine the following 3 items :1) The Constitution is not positively taught in public schools and colleges; 2) The media consistently vote for, and write favorably about, candidates who do not support the Constitution (and espouse laws that are unconstitutional); and 3) hundreds of thousands enter the U.S. each year who support political ideologies in conflict with the U.S. Constitution. If you are aware of this and still support open-borders, then that is your worldview and feel free to vote that way. I wanted to list it out in case a few people did not project the possibility that we may soon be living under a different political system. I enjoy reading the comments and articles on this site, so I hope we can have a respectful dialogue on the topic.

  37. Thomas Knapp

    “Does it concern anyone in the LP that an open-borders policy will mean a vast majority of voters in 60 years will prefer a system of laws that are antithetical to the U.S Constitution?”

    In 60 years? We passed that signpost decades ago. And I’m not sure how having a system of laws that are antithetical to the Constitution on, say, immigration, would be a cure for that.

  38. Thomas Knapp

    T Rex,

    I’m with you on the debt.

    Hasn’t Trump said something about “renegotiating” the debt? Based on his business practices, that would presumably end in default/repudiation. So at least there’s SOMETHING good about him.

    On the other hand, when it comes to “the rich bastards who live off US Treasuries,” the biggest such “rich bastard” is the Social Security “trust fund,” which bought all those Treasuries (16% of the federal government’s debt) with the money they took from working people. So if you pay Social Security taxes, congratulations, you rich bastard.

  39. Andy

    It concerns me Constitutional Craig, and I think that some libelibertarians misinterpret “peaceful people” crossing borders to mean ANYONE crossing borders, including socialists, communists, theocrats, welfare recipients, common criminals, etc…., as in they naively think all people are peaceful, and therefore advocate for NON-PEACEFUL people to cross borders, where they then become an actual threat to most of the rest of the population.

    Even in a stateless society, human movement would still be restricted, as there would be restrictions put in place on who can go where by various property owners or groups of property owners. Some restrictions would be lax, others would be more restrictive than what we have now.

    There are very real consequences with who enters the country, as the political ideology of the people can impact elections once the immigrants become citizens and can vote, therefore gaining political power. If everyone entering were a libertarian or constitutionalist, this would not be a problem, but this is not the case.

    The people entering could also carry communicable diseases, or just be more prone to criminal behavior (see the rape epidemic in Europe caused by Muslim migrants from the Middle East and North Africa).

    Countries like Sweden and Norway and other European countries that have allowed lots of Muslims from the Middle East and North Africa to enter now have many within the native populations of these countries regretting it. The mass migration movement is being pushed by socialists and communists.

    The US government does a lousy job teaching people about the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution, and this is done intentionally, both in the public school system and in the Naturalization process for immigrants, but at least with the native born, there still remains at least somewhat of a gun rights culture, and at least a little bit of respect for the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. A disturbingly large percentage of the foreigners (NOT all of course, but a lot), have no regard for any constraints on government, especially when it comes to the right to keep and bear arms, and the welfare state, and many if these people would be happy to get rid of the Constitution and replace it with some kind of United Nations socialist bullshit. The Naturalization department is actually engaging in massive fraud when they swear a lot of these people in as American citizens, as they swear an oath to the Constitution, yet they are completely clueless about it.

    Demographic studies on gun rights in this country have shown that the majority if immigrants to this country do not support gun rights, and that among ethic/racial group studies on this issue, 80% of Asians oppose gun rights, and 75% of Hispanics oppose gun rights. The only racial group that has majority support for gun rights are whites, but even among white the support for gun rights is only around 57%. If you narrow the demographics down to whites who live in rural areas, support for gun rights goes up to like 65-70%, or something like that. If you narrowed the field down to whites who would be classified as being “rednecks/hillbillies/cowboys” the support level for gun rights goes even higher.

    Unless there are some major changes to demographic trends, and/or some kind of massive outreach effort that changed lots of people’s minds on the issue, as white American born “rednecks/hillbillies/cowboys” become more and more of a minority of the population, the combination of big city anti-gun rights “liberals” and foreigners (and their offspring) will become such a political majority that they will be able to use the political process to vote away gun rights. Once gun rights are voted away, or restricted to the point of being useless, whatever else is left of freedom will shortly follow.

  40. Thomas Knapp

    It’s not about whether the people crossing borders are peaceful people or not, although the vast majority of them seem to be.

    It’s about the fact that political borders themselves are nothing more or less than gang turf lines and are inherently anti-libertarian. Your position is the equivalent of worrying that it might be bad people rather than good people who get in the line of fire when you’re trying to murder someone. Them getting in the way isn’t the problem, you trying to murder someone is the problem.

  41. William Saturn

    I agree with Andy and Constitutional Craig.

    Either control the welfare state driving immigration or restrict immigration. As long as you have people coming into this country to get free stuff from the taxpayers, they will continue to come and eventually vote away our rights.

  42. Thomas Knapp

    “Either control the welfare state driving immigration or restrict immigration.”

    Then do the former. Go after the bad things, not the good things. End statism instead of restricting freedom.

    Ending the welfare state is good.

    Trying to pretend that enforcement of criminal gang turf lines is “libertarian” is bullshit.

  43. NewFederalist

    I also agree with Andy, Constitutional Craig and William Saturn. Other than communicable diseases I have no problem with open immigration but there must be nothing other than a desire for a better opportunity to motivate the immigrants. If there benefits provided at taxpayers’ expense then there must be some controls placed on who gets them to remove that as an incentive to immigrate.

  44. Thomas Knapp

    Jesus Tapdancing Christ. Which part of “if you have a problem with the welfare state, attack the welfare state instead of demanding that the rights of people you are afraid might at some point benefit from the welfare state be infringed upon to soothe your panicky hysterical nervous condition” is so goddamn hard to get through your fucking skulls?

  45. T Rex

    While I don’t favor Trumpian mass deportations, border walls,, etc, I just can’t get myself worked up over restricting jihadists from entering the US. Perhaps it is my libertarian vice (everyone is allowed just one, doncha know). 😀

    It seems like an unnecessary risk to take in order to be PC. And as always, it is the law-abiding and hardworking who will be asked to shoulder this significant risk–with both their lives and taxpayer money. At the very least, they should get something in return (such as an abolished IRS).

  46. Steven Wilson

    These are just language games we cannot win.

    The words Libertarian, Constitutionalist, Republican, Democrat, Green, Prohibitionist, etc. mean nothing as much as they mean everything. The candidates are just telling the voters, through the available media, what the voters want to hear.

    James Madison wrote on factions. George Washington warned of parties and their inherit flaws. The proof came during the Jefferson/Adams Presidential campaigns. Jut two terms into our little experiment and the fracture took place that still resonates today.

    Johnson and Weld want to be popular. Jill Stein and Barry Sanders want to be popular. Castle wants to be part of the picture. Hillary and Donald want to rule the universe.

    In her work, “It takes a village”, Hillary Clinton made the statement that a parent should take a secondary role in parenting. Now, could you imagine a founding father making such a claim after going through years of war only to bow to the new state.

    The revolutionary war was fought over many reasons, but the most profound was individual freedom. The same illness of power that festered in King George III can be found in Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.

    The former or the later may say things people agree with, but that which is spoken during a campaign can mutant into something else entirely once in office; just as the folks found out after the Jefferson/Adams brutal campaign for US President.

    A few centuries have passed, but the pathology is the same.

    My solution: process over party. Make voting more laborious for each citizen as they evolve into citizen guardians of individual sovereignty.

  47. Andy

    Rounding up and deporting that many people is probably not realistic, but they could be encouraged to leave by not providing them with welfare, and not granting them citizenship (so they can’t vote, which means they will not have any political power). Random police harassment is not really needed either, as in the police do not have to mess with them unless they commit a legitimate crime (as in an act of violence, theft, or destruction of property), in which case if they get arrested for something like that, it could lead to their deportation.

    So interim solutions are to cut off the welfare magnet (which would include repealing the Refugee Resettlement Act, which is placing people from 3rd world countries all over the USA AT TAX PAYER EXPENSE, and then signing them up for every welfare program once they are here), and make it more difficult to become an American citizen.

    I have no interest in cutting off all immigration, I just want to weed out the socialists, communists, theocrats, and welfare recipients. If all of the immigrants were like Lily Tang from the LP of Colorado that would be great.

  48. T Rex

    Agreed, Andy.

    I live in CO and will be voting for Tang 100%. Excellent candidate! Way more libertarian than Johnson-Weld.

  49. Cody Quirk

    “Does it concern anyone in the LP that an open-borders policy will mean a vast majority of voters in 60 years will prefer a system of laws that are antithetical to the U.S Constitution?”

    CC-

    http://www.lp.org/platform

    “3.4 Free Trade and Migration

    We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property.”

  50. Andy

    Christopher Cantwell may not be the most congenial person around, but he hits the nail on the head in this video about how hordes of socialists, communists, and theocrats flooding into the county is actually destructive to liberty.

    Christopher Cantwell: Libertarianism Is Not A Suicide Pact

  51. T Rex

    “However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property.”

    This is reasonable and in the LP’s own platform.

  52. Andy

    Another excellent video from Cantwell on the same subject.

    Christopher Cantwell: Open Borders, or Market Immigration?

  53. T Rex

    For some reason, there’s almost an inverse correlation between someone’s support for open borders and how libertarian they are. If they support open borders they usually (not always) support the IRS, Fed, etc to look cool for their leftist friends. And they usually choke when asked about other libertarian issues, wondering if their progressive friends will think it’s ok.

    Castle doesn’t do that, and would just tell the leftist he/she is incorrect, which is why I support his candidacy.

  54. steve m

    Just one quick observation.

    IPR isn’t the center of the Libertarian movement.

  55. Jim

    T Rex “For some reason, there’s almost an inverse correlation between someone’s support for open borders and how libertarian they are. If they support open borders they usually (not always) support the IRS, Fed, etc to look cool for their leftist friends. And they usually choke when asked about other libertarian issues, wondering if their progressive friends will think it’s ok.”

    I’ve noticed the exact opposite. Those who support immigration restrictions realize that they have to pay for the deportation force and border guards, so they need taxes. They realize that they need to violate property rights to prevent immigrants from living and working in the US, and they’re OK with that. I’ve actually had “libertarians” who support immigration restrictions attempt to justify the infamous “100 mile Constitution free zone”, where vehicles can be searched without warrants within 100 miles of the border, on the grounds that they might be hiding illegal immigrants.

  56. Thomas Knapp

    Quoth T Rex:

    “I just can’t get myself worked up over restricting jihadists from entering the US”

    And if that was possible, I don’t see why you WOULD get worked up over it. But it’s not possible. All that is possible is to give the state a bunch more power to restrict EVERYONE’s freedom of movement. And I’m not willing to do that just so you can have a false sense of security.

    Quoth Andy,

    “Christopher Cantwell may not be the most congenial person around”

    The period between the last time Cantwell said anything of any conceivable value to thinking human beings and now is measured in years. He is one or both of two things: A mentally retarded and morally reprobate fascist fuckstick, a COINTELPRO cop, or both. Ditto for those who promote his irrational authoritarian filth.

  57. RedPhillips

    “For some reason, there’s almost an inverse correlation between someone’s support for open borders and how libertarian they are. If they support open borders they usually (not always) support the IRS, Fed, etc to look cool for their leftist friends. And they usually choke when asked about other libertarian issues, wondering if their progressive friends will think it’s ok.”

    That’s because for many of these folks their alleged libertarianism and/or support for Johnson is a pose. It’s a way to be for low taxes, free markets and somewhat limited government without being one of those grubby wrongthinking conservatives. Many aren’t for open borders because they have genuinely seriously thought about the issue, but because support for closed borders inherently raises issues that are wrongthink, and they would just rather not deal with that. So they embrace open borders in order to signal that they are not one of those racists xenophobes. The reason support for open borders, support for the Fed, the IRS, etc. travel together among certain “reasonable” libertarians is because they are part of the package of “right” things to believe. People who are so eager to status signal on PC are generally not the kind of people who are going to buck the conventional wisdom.

  58. Thomas Knapp

    “For some reason, there’s almost an inverse correlation between someone’s support for open borders and how libertarian they are. If they support open borders they usually (not always) support the IRS, Fed, etc”

    I’ve been scratching my head for hours now, trying to think of a single open borders person who resembles that remark. Haven’t been able to identity one yet. In my experience, people who are libertarian on immigration tend to be libertarian on other things too, and immigration authoritarians similarly tend to be authoritarian about everything else as well.

  59. Thomas Knapp

    NewFed,

    Unfortunately I can’t drink like I used to. Generally one or two alcoholic beverages a month. That may be why I get so cranky when alleged libertarians start in with “on everything but immigration — on THAT, moar Hitler please.”

  60. NewFederalist

    I apologize for my snarkyness, Tom. Perhaps it was me I should have been speaking to about another drink!

  61. RedPhillips

    “I’ve been scratching my head for hours now, trying to think of a single open borders person who resembles that remark.”

    Ummm… Gary Johnson comes to mind.

  62. Thomas Knapp

    Red,

    If Gary Johnson comes to mind, you probably need to look into trading in for a new mind. The next time I hear Johnson talk for more than ten minutes without saying he wants to eliminate the IRS will be the first.

  63. Andy

    Funny how some of the same people who push this notion that anyone should be able to waltz in the country, regardless of the person’s ideology, even if it means they will get on welfare, therefore becoming a tax burden on everyone else, and even if they hold ideas which are destructive to liberty, so when they become citizens, and are granted voting rights, they can vote to expand the state, so consequences be dammed, yet when it comes to Libertarian Party membership ranks, and who gets chosen to be Libertarian Party candidates, many of these see people want a “closed border” when it comes to accepting migrants/refugees from other political parties who bring different ideas with them, such as hard working migrants/refugees from the Republican Party, like Bob Barr and Bill Weld, both of whom came to the Libertarian Party to seek a better life.

    When it comes to hard working Republican migrants/refugees, Libertarians like Tom Knapp want to “build a wall” around the Libertarian Party, and they call for the hard working Republican migrants/refugees to be deported, and to be denied the opportunity to spread their multicultural ideas as Libertarian Party candidates.

    Now I happen to agree with people like Tom on the issue of Republican migrants/refugees with the wrong ideology coming into the LP, and i join them in calling for denying them the opportunity to be candidates, and “deporting” them from the party. The Libertarian Party should not “open its borders” to just anyone as there are very real negative consequences that can result in such an immigration policy, as the immigrants to the LP may bring with them different ideas and the resulting multiculturalism may mean that the Libertarian Party will no longer remain libertarian if it mixes with too many non-libertarian migrants, and allows them to become convention delegates, party officers, and candidates for the party. I join the CLOSED Libertarian borders Libertarians like Tom Knapp, in calling for the deportation of the Republican migrants, and I would like to deny these invaders the ability to vote at the next convention.

  64. Thomas Knapp

    “The Libertarian Party” is a voluntary organization with rules made by its voluntary members.

    “The country” is a set of turf lines drawn on a map by a vicious gang of armed criminals.

    Your complaint is along the lines of saying I don’t like ice cream unless I have my kid beat your kid up and steal his Klondike Bar.

  65. RedPhillips

    Very few people actually support truly open borders. That word is generally a way of saying someone supports amnesty, continued mass immigration, weak border enforcement, etc.

    Open borders libertarianism is self-defeating. It is a suicide pact. Open borders libertarianism would be a more logical position if it was always accompanied by a denouncement of the current democratic project, so everyone can come in but no one gets to vote. But open borders libertarianism into a system where the current democratic project remains in place is a recipe for the irrelevance of limited government principles to whatever degree. This is not an ideological statement. This is a statistical statement based on substantial amounts of known data.

    As for the IRS, for some reason I thought Johnson was for the flat tax, but I see that he is actually for a national sales tax. I really don’t think it is necessary for me to change out my entire mind though.

  66. George Dance

    WS – “Either control the welfare state driving immigration or restrict immigration.

    And the Constitution Party’s choice is to “restrict” (actually, to ban all) immigration.

    “As long as you have people coming into this country to get free stuff from the taxpayers, they will continue to come and eventually vote away our rights”.

    And if you limit giving ‘free stuff’ to the native-born, they’ll do what?

  67. steve m

    The next Libertarian Convention should hold an unbiased vote to determine our candidate. Anyone who disagrees with me should be considered biased and have their vote rejected.

  68. RedPhillips

    “Either control the welfare state driving immigration or restrict immigration. As long as you have people coming into this country to get free stuff from the taxpayers, they will continue to come and eventually vote away our rights”.

    The problem with this is that we can’t get our current demographic to agree to cut the welfare state. How are we going to get an ever Bluer due to immigration demographic to cut the welfare state? Are we going to give them all a lecture on the NAP, because that has worked so well with the current population? As long as you assume the maintenance of the current democratic project, immigration is suicidal if you support limited government.

  69. Andy

    George Dance, I have already addressed the issue of native born Americans receiving welfare and supporting the expansion of the welfare state here before, and yes, this is a problem, and i have provided some solutions to this problem here before as well. It is important to examine statistics, and if you do, you will find that immigrants, both legal and illegal, and their offspring, consume welfare at a rate that is higher than the native born population, and that they vote in favor of expanding the welfare state, and in favor of restricting gun rights, at a rate that is higher than the native population. Stephan Molyneux has some excellent videos on YouTube where he breaks down the statistics on this issue (maybe I will post the links later).

    Once you examine the statistics, the agenda behind mass immigration becomes more clear. The establishment politicians do not have your best interest at heart. Look at all of the problems in European countries like Sweden that have allowed large numbers of Muslim immigrants from the Middle East and North Africa.

  70. langa

    First, arguing that we should restrict immigration, because some immigrants might come here and do bad things, is the same logic as arguing that we should restrict gun ownership, because someone might buy a gun and use it to do bad things. In fact, every argument for restricting immigration could also be used to support gun control (or drug prohibition, or protectionism, or any number of authoritarian laws).

    Second, in spite of Johnson being a bit better on immigration, overall, Castle is far more libertarian than Johnson, for all the reasons mentioned above by T Rex (and others). It’s sad that we are even having this debate, as the LP should be nominating candidates who are far more libertarian than the likes of Castle.

    Finally, I see Andy Craig is back to complaining about the presence of “conspiracy theorists” in the LP. Yet, shockingly, he and his Libertarian Hypocrites Caucus, err, I mean, Libertarian “Skeptics” Caucus, remain silent on Johnson and Weld’s close ties to the notorious conspiracy theorist Frank Gaffney.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Gaffney#Conspiracy_theories

  71. Thomas Knapp

    Red,

    That doesn’t help much. I’m unaware of any collective other than “IPR commenters” (and IIRC, possibly “Facebook users”) of which you and I are both members.

  72. Jim

    Gary Johnson’s position on immigration is for greater availability of work permits with background checks on those who get them. He has rejected the idea of giving them all citizenship several times.

    The immigration policy of the founding fathers was open borders. The US had an open borders policy with citizenship restrictions for nearly 100 years. After that, until the early 1900’s, the only enforced immigration restrictions were on Chinese.

    Rothbard, in his Nation’s By Consent essay, where he supposedly became anti-immigrant because of concern over welfare immigration, only proposes citizenship restrictions, secession, and voluntarily refusing to allow immigrants to buy property or work as the means to control immigration. To the great and continuing disappointment of Lew Rockwell and his circle, at no point does Rothbard suggest government ought to enforce the border or search-and-deport illegals that are already here.

    The position of Darrell Castle, of the Constitution Party, is to completely halt all immigration so that no one can enter without the consent of the government. I fail to see how that is at all in keeping with either libertarianism (outside of Lew Rockwell’s shrinking group) or with the people who actually wrote the Constitution.

  73. RedPhillips

    Thomas, I’m not 100% sure I understand what you are saying then. I assumed you were referring to the we in this sentence: “The problem with this is that we can’t get our current demographic to agree to cut the welfare state. ” The we there would refer to anyone who is invested in limited government to whatever degree – conservatives, Tea Partiers, libertarians, heck even mainstream Republicans. All have been unable to persuade the current government which is a product of our current demographic to abolish the welfare state. How are “we” (limited government advocates of whatever sort) going to accomplish that if we (the nation) are adding a lot of new Dem voters each cycle through immigration?

    Jim, the problem with allowing immigration without citizenship is birthright citizenship. So their kids become citizens and we get to postpone our electoral irrelevance for one generation. Whoopee! One problem with the immigration debate is that the negative effects are going to be felt by later generations, so current citizens can virtue signal that they aren’t wrongthinkers, but their kids and grandkids are going to live in a squabbling multi-cult dump.

  74. Thomas Knapp

    Red,

    OK, I can stipulate to that particular “we,” although I wouldn’t consider the set to have the same inclusions.

    Since immigration and voting have precisely zero to do with each other, though, I’m not sure what makes you think the question is valid. You’re talking about naturalization and citizenship. Those things aren’t immigration. Nor is being born in the US immigration.

    Finally, one reason that immigrants who become citizens, and the children of immigrant who are born citizens, are inclined to vote Democratic is that the Democrats, although just as bad on immigration as the Republicans and other Know-Nothings, do at least try to PRETEND they’re not that way. Maybe if limited government supporters started supporting, oh, I don’t know, LIMITED GOVERNMENT vis a vis immigrants, they’d be more appreciative.

  75. Jim

    RedPhillips – which group(s) of immigrants kids and grandkids is it exactly that you believe would cause the US to become a “multi-cult dump”?

    FYI, median household income and home ownership rates for 2nd generation Americans are identical to the US as a whole ($58,100 2G vs $58,200 Alll; 64% 2G vs 65% All). Poverty rates for 2nd generation Americans are a hair lower than average (11% 2G vs 13% All), and college graduation rates are a bit higher (36% 2G vs 31% All.)

  76. RedPhillips

    Well, they don’t have zero to do with each other because foreigners don’t become US citizens in their foreign countries and then immigrate here. They immigrate here and if they do so legally are potentially eligible for citizenship. If they do so illegally their birthright citizen children become citizens. Being born here is clearly an immigration issue if your parents are foreigners, legal or illegal.

    The problem with the boilerplate that immigrants don’t like Republicans because they are mean to them is that it’s not supported by the data of which we have plenty. They have no philosophical commitment to limited government, even high performing immigrant groups like Koreans or high caste Hindu Indians. Why should they? It’s presumptive to assume they would. If I emigrated to New Delhi, I wouldn’t suddenly become dedicated to the Indian system of government, and I highly suspect neither would you.

  77. Thomas Knapp

    “[Immigrants] have no philosophical commitment to limited government, even high performing immigrant groups like Koreans or high caste Hindu Indians. Why should they?”

    Agreed. Why should they have a philosophical commitment to limited government, given that somewhere in the neighborhood of 95-99% of Americans don’t either?

  78. Andy

    Tom, you overlook the mountain of data that says that a higher percentage of modern day immigrants (and their offspring) are more in favor of an ever expanding state than the native population is.

    One of the most important issues in maintaining some semblance of a free society is the right to keep and bear arms. The overwhelming majority of modern day immigrants and their offspring OPPOSE the right to keep and bear arms. Combine the immigrants and the big city liberals, and we are fucked.

  79. Thomas Knapp

    Andy,

    It’s not so much that I overlook the “mountain of data” is that I have standards concerning data that go above and beyond “what can we say and pretend it’s data?”

    I’ve explained before why I’m not worried about the right to keep and bear arms. It enforces itself. If there are 100 of us and 99 are against it, well, I’ll make sure I have at least 99 rounds of ammo.

  80. Andy

    “Thane Eichenauer
    July 5, 2016 at 20:21
    Andy,
    As far as abolishing the Federal Reserve I have read that Gary Johnson supports the idea.”

    That is nice if he said this in 2012, but what about 2016? Did Council on Foreign Relations member Bill Weld give him permission to say to abolish the Federal Reserve, or does that go against what Weld’s bankster masters want?

  81. George Dance

    Constitution Party Andy: “Finally, I see Andy Craig is back to complaining about the presence of “conspiracy theorists” in the LP. Yet, shockingly, he and his Libertarian Hypocrites Caucus, err, I mean, Libertarian “Skeptics” Caucus, remain silent on Johnson and Weld’s close ties to the notorious conspiracy theorist Frank Gaffney.”

    Ah, yes, let’s talk about connections to Frank Gaffney and his secret conspiracy group, the Council for National Policy (CNP) (one of the bugbears for conspiracy nuts on the left like the Southern Poverty Law Center). Shall we begin with CNP member Howard Phillips, who founded the Constitutions Party? Or maybe CNP Executive member Michael Peroutka, who the Constitution Party ran for President in 2004? Or maybe some others whose names aren’tt as well known (after all, CNP membership is supposed to be a secret).

    If you wish to try to smear Johnson and Weld with alleged “ties” to the CNP, remember that that is a two-edged sword.

  82. José C

    From an article in National Review on-line. . .

    George Washington proclaimed, “The bosom of America is open to receive not only the opulent and respectable stranger, but the oppressed and persecuted of all nations and religions, whom we shall welcome to a participation of all our rights and privileges.” Washington did not stop there, however, adding the following condition: “if by decency and propriety of conduct they appear to merit the enjoyment.”

    And this. . .

    James Madison noted the importance of adding only the “worthy part of mankind to come and settle amongst us.” The goal, is “not merely to swell the catalogue of people,” he continued. “No, sir, it is to increase the wealth and strength of the community; and those who acquire the rights of citizenship, without adding to the strength or wealth of the community are not the people we are in want of.”

    And this. . .

    “The safety of a republic depends essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits; on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias and prejudice; and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education, and family.” – Alexander Hamilton

    So we want free and open immigration. To those who do not wish us harm, those who will assimilate, and those who do not desire to live at the expense of the taxpayers we welcome you. To those who wish us harm, have no intention of assimilating, and who wish to live at the expense of the taxpayers you are not welcome.

    Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/437446/brexit-britains-declaration-independence

  83. Andy

    Stefan Molyneux: 62% of Illegal Immigrant Households on Welfare | Steven Camarota and Stefan Molyneux

  84. Cody Quirk

    “Ah, yes, let’s talk about connections to Frank Gaffney and his secret conspiracy group, the Council for National Policy (CNP) (one of the bugbears for conspiracy nuts on the left like the Southern Poverty Law Center). Shall we begin with CNP member Howard Phillips, who founded the Constitutions Party? Or maybe CNP Executive member Michael Peroutka, who the Constitution Party ran for President in 2004? Or maybe some others whose names aren’tt as well known (after all, CNP membership is supposed to be a secret).”

    WOW! Looks like Darrell is being more hypocritical in this interview then I first realized!

  85. T Rex

    Thane,

    Nobody is disputing that Johnson has said (*very* reluctantly, meekly, and unconvincingly) that he would “sign legislation” to get rid of the Fed…usually when pressured by more radical libertarians. But it is cartoonishly obvious that he doesn’t want to push the issue, doesn’t understand the issue, and prefers not to be asked about the issue.

    There’s a great article from Nolan Chart on this very subject, from the last time Johnson ran for president.https://www.nolanchart.com/article9605-why-i-cannot-support-gary-johnson-for-president-html

    Castle, on the other hand, understands the Fed and fractional reserve banking, and makes abolishing the Fed the central plank of his platform. Which is more convincing? Which is more bold?

  86. Cody Quirk

    “Nobody is disputing that Johnson has said (*very* reluctantly, meekly, and unconvincingly) that he would “sign legislation” to get rid of the Fed…usually when pressured by more radical libertarians. But it is cartoonishly obvious that he doesn’t want to push the issue, doesn’t understand the issue, and prefers not to be asked about the issue.”

    Or maybe it’s because he’s trying to come across as being rational & practical to the general American voter instead of being a fringe candidate that is eager to talk about conspiracy theories and radical change, which turn off many American voters in general that are otherwise accustomed to voting for more moderate candidates of the twin evils.

    “Castle, on the other hand, understands the Fed and fractional reserve banking, and makes abolishing the Fed the central plank of his platform. Which is more convincing? Which is more bold?”

    Hmmmm, a candidate that claims that Gary Johnson is also a member of the CFR -while the founder and a former presidential candidate of his political party were and are members of the Neocon GOP equivalent of the CFR (CNP), whom then dropped out of the CP presidential nomination late last year over ‘health issues’ and then suddenly after several big names, including Joe Miller, turned down running for president for the CP -suddenly jumps back in claiming his health has improved enough to run. And then afterward the EC of the Constitution Party, conducts their national convention in SLC in a way that made a state delegation walk out and select another presidential candidate to place on their ballot, along with other CP state affiliates that could possibly do likewise in the coming months -similar to what the Georgia CP did in selecting a different VP candidate on their state ticket.

    That’s not including the fact that despite his watered down semi-libertarian ‘constitutionalist’ views, yet had to be (in order to qualify to be the CP’s candidate for president) in agreement with the CP’s national platform and he likely is on a personal level… Never mind that the CP’s platform contains firm protectionism, theocratic views on social issues, and especially a theocratic view on the role & origins of government.
    His answer on nominating a man (Herb Titus) to the SCOTUS, despite the fact that Mr. Titus has ties and friendly relations to Michael Peroutka and many of the ‘Christian Reconstructionist’ crowd, along with Titus’s support of the Constitution Restoration Act -gives away the theocratic and religious zealous overtones of Darrell’s agenda.

    Fact of the matter is, not only is Darrell Castle LESS libertarian then Gary Johnson; but if Castle had the money and star power of Donald Trump, then Castle would be the greater threat to this country and our individual liberty. 

  87. steve m

    T Rex,

    Castle wants to end fractional banking?

    So he wants to turn banks into warehouses that charge you to store your money in them? What fractional banking does is allow the bank to loan out the money trusted to it and charge interest. The banks try to retain enough cash to payout with draws for cash. If you eliminate banks loaning out deposited money then they have no reason to be in the business of storing it, having checking account, atms unless they charge you fees to provide such services.

  88. T Rex

    “Or maybe it’s because he’s trying to come across as being rational & practical to the general American voter”

    That was his strategy at the Town Hall: telling people what they want to hear instead of what they need to hear. http://www.targetliberty.com/2016/06/total-abortion-libertarian-town-hall.html

    “Never mind that the CP’s platform contains firm protectionism, theocratic views on social issues, and especially a theocratic view on the role & origins of government.”

    While I’m not endorsing protectionism, is it really worse than the new national sales tax Johnson is proposing? (If Johnson came out for tariffs tomorrow his supporters would likely find a way to defend it, for the sake of “realism”)

    Nobody is disputing that the CP platform is less libertarian than the LP platform. That point has been made over and over and over and over again on this thread.

  89. steve m

    T Rex,

    A consumption sales tax is charged equally no matter what the country of origin of the product being bought is. A sales tax that displaces the income tax would 1) eliminate the April 15th tax filings that we have to do. 2) encourage investment over spending. 3) with eliminating the corporate income tax should spur job growth here in the US achieving what tariffs would like to do.

  90. T Rex

    And the Constitution Party argues their tariffs will do similar things.

    I’m not necessarily agreeing, just pointing out the hypocrisy of some of the Johnson supporters.

  91. steve m

    A tariff will eliminate the April 15th tax filing deadline? That is some tariff 😉

  92. T Rex

    Of course it wouldn’t. We would likely end up with both tariffs *and* the IRS.

    Weld says eliminating the IRS is “not necessary.” Which means perhaps we will have both the IRS and a national sales tax under a Johnson-Weld regime.

  93. Cody Quirk

    “Nobody is disputing that the CP platform is less libertarian than the LP platform. That point has been made over and over and over and over again on this thread.”

    And yet it seems that some Libertarians are pretty damn clueless as to how unlibertarian the CP’s platform is.

    http://www.constitutionparty.com/our-principles/platform-and-resolutions/

    Read up on their Sanctity of Life, Character and Moral Conduct, Gambling, Pornography, Obscenity, and Sexually-Oriented Businesses planks and see just how BS Darrell’s claim about Gary Johnson is.

  94. T Rex

    Yes, we are aware. And we’ve covered Castle’s differences from certain parts of the CP platform. For the 100th time.

  95. Cody Quirk

    Please show me where Castle disagrees with, or even opposes those particular aspects of the CP’s platform.

    A CP’er also cannot be a presidential candidate for the party if they are in disagreement with any aspect of their national platform and the core CP principles; it is part of their standards that they are supposed to hold their national candidates to.

    Just because he doesn’t publically advocate for, or include those controversial parts of the CP platform into his stances and candidate platform does not mean that he is opposed to them or would not implement them if elected president; in fact I must compliment him on how he is trying to be careful with what he publically advocates and in trying to broaden his public appeal.

    Yet his desire to put a Christian Reconstructionist on the SCOTUS is damming in my eyes and shows that if elected president, it would be the same thing as electing Michael Peroutka to the White House; they would not reduce the size of government but instead turn it to the Christian & slightly more moderate version of Taliban Afghanistan.

    If you don’t want to vote for the LP ticket this November, then at least vote for Jill Stein or an independent candidate… Because if you vote for Darrell Castle, then you minus well vote for Donald Trump.

  96. T Rex

    You are really obsessed with party platforms. Maybe we should all just vote Republican since their platform calls for “limited government.” And we see how religiously Johnson and Weld follow the LP platform.

    There isn’t a single candidate (or voter) alive who has ever taken a position contrary to their party’s platform, apparently.

    And Jill Stein?!? Her platform makes Bernie Sanders look like Murray Rothbard.

  97. T Rex

    “A CP’er also cannot be a presidential candidate for the party if they are in disagreement with any aspect of their national platform”

    Uh huh. All parties hold their candidates to that standard…

    …in some alternate universe, within an alternate multiverse.

  98. Cody Quirk

    This is in fact my real beef with the CP; not the past events that lead me out of the CP, but the dogmatic sectarianism of their membership and their not-so-hidden agenda to turn America into an unconstitutional near-theocracy (or as some religious zealots in the CP call- a ‘Theonomy’); I’ve dealt with and had numerous dealings with such CP’ers (as many on here are aware of), and let me tell you, if these people ever had any power, influence, or serious appeal – they would make a President Donald Trump look like Jon Huntsman Jr. and would be a hundred times worse then the current twin-party neocon establishment.
    They especially would attack and drive the L.P. underground if given the power to do so.

    As someone that has largely been a philosophical libertarian on the nature of religion and vehemently opposed to ALL forms of religious fundamentalism, including such that may come out of the religious denomination that I belong to; I don’t ever want to see these nutjobs achieve any form of serious influence within any level of government here. Though at least our country’s growing descent into secularism certainly helps push these people further out into the fringes.

    But nevertheless as they still represent the antithesis to the freedoms & rights that our country was founded on, and are also what our founding fathers warned about in their writings and speeches on sectarianism and church & state -therefore I will continue to relentlessly speak out and condemn them, as these individuals/forces are nothing but vile scum in my eyes.

    My main political regrets are not only failing to leave the CP sooner or even joining it in the first place; but failing to quickly see how anti-constitutional and potentiality dangerous many of these fringe zealots were when first meeting them.

    But at least I woke up to reality in due time with them, and have done my part time and again in exposing and publicly criticizing them.

  99. Cody Quirk

    “There isn’t a single candidate (or voter) alive who has ever taken a position contrary to their party’s platform, apparently.”

    Again, show me where Darrell Castle opposes or takes issue with the controversial aspects of the CP’s platform. I’m waiting.

    “…in some alternate universe, within an alternate multiverse.”

    Granted, there have been times where the CP and some of its state affiliates have taken a more liberal and pragmatic view of some of their bylaws and platform. Yet on a national level and in selecting their presidential candidates, they take adherence to their core principles & their platform VERY seriously- to the point of clannish paranoia of any newcomer that wants to run on the CP’s national ticket.
    If not, then Alan Keyes would have been the CP’s candidate in 2008.

  100. langa

    If you wish to try to smear Johnson and Weld with alleged “ties” to the CNP, remember that that is a two-edged sword.

    Holy Red Herring, Batman!

    I don’t have to “smear” Johnson and Weld. They have “smeared” themselves (at least by the standards of the “guilt by association” crowd, of which Andy Craig appears to be President) through their association with Frank Gaffney. Quoting from the linked Wikipedia article:

    Conspiracy theories Gaffney has promoted include:

    The belief that former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was involved in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the Oklahoma City bombing.[39]
    Accusations that Republican Party strategist Grover Norquist is a secret agent of the Muslim Brotherhood. In 2014, Gaffney claimed that Norquist had “been working with the enemy for over a decade.”[40] (Responding to the accusation, the board of directors of the American Conservative Union unanimously condemned Gaffney’s charges as “reprehensible” and “unfounded.”[41] The organization also banned Gaffney from its Conservative Political Action Conference.[32])
    Accusations that Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin is a secret agent of the Muslim Brotherhood.[42] (After the allegation was repeated by Michele Bachmann, U.S. senators John McCain, Scott Brown, and Marco Rubio joined in dismissing it, and Speaker of the United States House of Representatives John Boehner said “accusations like this being thrown around are pretty dangerous.”[43])
    The belief that Barack Obama is not a “natural born citizen of the United States” (popularly known as the “birther conspiracy”).[44]
    The belief that the logo of the U.S. Missile Defense Agency is a coded indicator of “official U.S. submission to Islam” because it “appears ominously to reflect a morphing of the Islamic crescent and star”.[45]
    The belief that the responsibility-to-protect norm has been supported by the United States government to lay the groundwork for a forthcoming American military invasion of Israel.[46]

    Forget the Constitution Party. I want to know if these are the kinds of positions that the Libertarian “Skeptics” Caucus thinks give the LP a bad name. Yes or no? It’s a simple question.

  101. Thomas Knapp

    “Nobody is disputing that Johnson has said (*very* reluctantly, meekly, and unconvincingly) that he would ‘sign legislation’ to get rid of the Fed … usually when pressured by more radical libertarians. But it is cartoonishly obvious that he doesn’t want to push the issue …”

    Here we go again. It’s damn hard to make me defend Gary Johnson, but when I have to I have to.

    One element of a good presidential campaign is that it addresses issues people give a shit about.

    On a really, really, really good day, it’s just barely possible that two, maybe even three percent of the electorate gives a shit about the Federal Reserve. A tiny little shit. For about a minute. If lots of effort is put into calling it to their attention. If there aren’t any major sporting events, Seinfeld re-run marathons, or SlapChop infomercials on the tube at the moment. And if their spouses aren’t showing off new nighties and making googly eyes at them.

    Outside of that narrow set of circumstances, maybe 1/2 of 1% of us care much about the Fed at all and maybe 1/20th of 1% think it’s DA MOSTEST IMPORTANT ISSUE EVAH.

    So for once, with respect to it being “cartoonishly obvious that he doesn’t want to push the issue,” I’d say Johnson got something right. Not because one shouldn’t be against the Fed, but because presidential campaigns have to be interesting in addition to being right if they want to accomplish anything.

  102. robert capozzi

    L: Johnson and Weld. They have “smeared” themselves …through their association with Frank Gaffney.

    me: What is the association? Did they go to the same party once? Daily conference calls?

  103. langa

    What is the association? Did they go to the same party once? Daily conference calls?

    Don’t play dumb. The association has been explained to you multiple times, right here on IPR.

  104. Thomas Knapp

    “What is the association? Did they go to the same party once? Daily conference calls?”

    I don’t know if Weld has any association with Gaffney.

    A the pre-nomination when Johnson was constantly wailing about “sharia law” in public and trying to make it his campaign’s centerpiece, his talking points clearly came from, and when challenged his “go look at this” reference was, a paper by Gaffney on the subject.

    So far as I can tell he has pretty much cut that shit out since the wheels came completely off it under challenge at the debate in Pennsylvania, though.

  105. langa

    I notice that none of the immigration restrictionists ever answer my question as to why it’s OK to restrict immigration if it might lead to something bad, but it’s not OK to restrict gun ownership, or drug possession, even though those things can sometimes lead to bad consequences.

    Of course, the real answer is that libertarianism is about prohibiting actual aggression, not prohibiting anything that might conceivably lead to aggression.

  106. langa

    TK, even if Johnson and Weld’s association with Gaffney is in the past, I don’t see how that matters, given that, for example, Lew Rockwell is frequently excoriated for a newspaper column he wrote 25 years ago.

  107. langa

    At the very least, the Libertarian “Skeptics” Caucus should demand that Johnson and Weld publicly denounce Gaffney, and apologize for their involvement with him. But I’m not holding my breath.

  108. robert capozzi

    Sounds like GJ read some of FG’s stuff. That doesn’t seem like what I consider an association.

    I read much Rothbard, and I met him once and spoke on the phone with him once.

    Am I forever associated with Murray “fetuses-are-parasites” Rothbard?

  109. Thomas Knapp

    “I read much Rothbard, and I met him once and spoke on the phone with him once. Am I forever associated with Murray ‘fetuses-are-parasites’ Rothbard?”

    If you’re a presidential candidate who runs around screaming “fetuses are parasites,” and when someone asks you why you think so you say “read your Rothbard,” yes.

  110. Thomas Knapp

    langa,

    I guess it’s a fair point that if Johnson doesn’t want to be associated with Gaffney, he should formally state that he’s no longer a follower of Gaffney.

    I’ve never heard of Lew Rockwell being excoriated for a newspaper column. But maybe I don’t follow him closely enough.

  111. robert capozzi

    L, to me, “involvement” sounds even closer than “association.”

    How about for you?

    If so, I thought you were the “words have meanings” wo/man. Help us understand your (stretched?) word choices.

  112. Cody Quirk

    Here’s an interesting piece that adds further doubt to Darrell’s libertarian claim-

    castle2016.com/depopulation/

  113. Thomas Knapp

    “involvement, n 1: the act of sharing in the activities of a group …. 5: the condition of sharing in common with others (as fellows or partners etc.)”

    “association, n 1: a formal organization of people or groups of people … 2: the act of consorting with or joining with others; 3: the state of being connected together as in memory or imagination”

    In 2005, as a debate over the renewal of the PATRIOT Act waged in the Senate, notorious neocon Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy authored a letter urging renewal of the law which was signed by over 50 members of the national security establishment. This included men such as John Ashcroft, Frank Gaffney, James Woolsey and … yes, newly crowned Libertarian Party Vice Presidential nominee William Weld.

    I’d say that Weld’s name on that letter is a reasonable indicator of “association” or “involvement” at some level. That public document didn’t just waft in Weld’s window on the morning breeze. Either Gaffney or Gaffney’s proxies sought him out and asked him to sign it, or Weld sought out Gaffney or Gaffney’s proxies and asked to sign it.

    As far as Johnson is concerned, SOMETHING happened to get him toeing Gaffney’s line when he was noted for doing exactly the opposite only five years ago. As capricious as he seems to be in general, I suppose it’s possible that he just flipped a coin and said “OK, time to be pro-Gaffney instead of anti-Gaffney now,” but I’m not sure that that’s a compliment.

  114. Thomas Knapp

    RC,

    OK, now that you link to the Balko story, I do vaguely remember it. I don’t recall that it gets brought up that often these days except when it might actually be relevant that Rockwell was once known as an enthusiastic copsucker.

  115. Magnus Dahlstrøm

    The Libertarian Skeptics Caucus is nothing more than Andy Craig and his stuffed animals. It’s not even worth discussing.

  116. robert capozzi

    tk, OK, WW signed a letter which — while I’ve not read it — I would likely not have. There is both “involvement” and “association,” which have overlapping meanings, depending on the context. (#3 for “association” is quite a weak link.)

    I too continue to wonder about GJ’s false start, stumbling on the Sharia and burqa “issue.” Maybe he had some sort of paranoid eruption on reading FG or some other source…I don’t know. I for quite some time thought that fetuses are parasites, so I know how it feels to fall down a rabbit hole, led astray by impressive-sounding, persuasive pundits and polemicists.

    So far, L’s only evidence that GJ is “associated” with FG amounts to the #3 def. of “association.” By his/her bringing up LR’s “excoriation,” it feels possible that L is lashing out at J/W in psychic retaliation. At some barely conscious level, L might think: If the Orange Line Mafia can beat sweet Lew up for a generation-old eruption, I can get back at them by kicking up some dust on their candidates, both Republicans who clearly don’t toe the plumbline of NAPsterism. It may not be precisely true, but counter-smearing is sometimes necessary.

  117. langa

    TK, it has been mentioned quite frequently here on IPR. For example, when we debated the NC LP taking the anti-libertarian position that a law protecting private property rights should be repealed, hordes of people (most of whom haven’t been seen here since) descended on IPR and tried to hijack the thread, and turn it into a debate about Rockwell, even though he had nothing to do with the issue at hand. They mentioned that column, along with many other irrelevant things. I’m pretty sure Andy Craig has done the same thing here on IPR, whenever he disagrees with anyone from the Mises crowd.

    Personally, I’m not a fan of guilt by association, nor am I a fan of continually bringing up things that took place years, or even decades, ago. I’d prefer to avoid those sort of character assassination-style smears. And for God’s sake, I wish some people would stop worrying so much that someone, somewhere, might conceivably be offended, or might not take the LP, or the libertarian movement in general, “seriously” enough (e.g. the brouhaha over the Weeks striptease). Nowadays, there are so many people who are so easily offended that it’s lunacy to expect that anyone, let alone any political party, can totally avoid offending people.

    But if some people are going to be judged by those kinds of criteria, then everyone should be, and that should certainly include the men picked to be the public faces of the LP.

  118. langa

    At some barely conscious level, L might think: If the Orange Line Mafia can beat sweet Lew up for a generation-old eruption, I can get back at them by kicking up some dust on their candidates, both Republicans who clearly don’t toe the plumbline of NAPsterism.

    Nope. I am simply thinking (at a very conscious level) that what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

  119. robert capozzi

    L: But if some people are going to be judged by those kinds of criteria, then everyone should be,

    me: Or…you can be a shining exemplar of wisdom, fairness, and good judgment, showing us the way toward virtue and truth by example.

  120. Thomas Knapp

    “For example, when we debated the NC LP taking the libertarian position that having government employees stand in front of bathrooms and feel up everyone who needs to take a leak is a bad idea”

    Fixed, no charge.

    I suppose it’s possible that somebody brought up Rockwell’s past confessions of vicarious biastophilia in that context, but I don’t recall it.

  121. robert capozzi

    L: what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

    me: IOW, psychic retaliation, as I said.

    Another way to go is to turn the other cheek (metaphorically speaking). And to remember that judging others is a form of what’s now known as psychological projection.

    BTW, I don’t believe I’ve ever seen GJ or WW attacking Lew, MNR, or those “associated” with them. Have they?

  122. langa

    BTW, I don’t believe I’ve ever seen GJ or WW attacking Lew, MNR, or those “associated” with them. Have they?

    I have no idea. That’s beside the point, as is your “projection” claim.

    The bottom line is that you can characterize it however you want, but I will continue to demonstrate that the Libertarian “Skeptics” Caucus, and other like-minded people in the LP and in the broader libertarian movement, are a bunch of sanctimonious blowhards who are far more damaging to the party and the movement than are the “nuts and cranks” that they so frequently and vigorously denounce.

  123. Robert Capozzi

    L, please do demonstrate. If something isn’t working, and you can demonstrate a more effective path toward liberty, I definitely want to hear more!

    Do you consider me to be sanctimonious, btw?

    Jeez, I sure hope not. I’m working on the opposite tack.

  124. Thane Eichenauer

    T Rex,
    My angle is 80% what Thomas Knapp says above. The other 20% is pointing out that Gary Johnson is at this time, not a reader, not a INTJ, not a green card (as the Advocates for Self Government describe people), and certainly not a book writer. To me he seems like an orange card (as the Advocates describe people) type. He may have been the best Republican governor during his terms in NM and still been and still is not much of a libertarian. He may not understand the why and how someone should support abolishing the Federal Reserve but so what? He said so publicly and I cannot look at the words and say how enthusiastic they are. He certainly is enthusiastic about the Fair Tax which I personally find puzzling on an ongoing basis.
    For the reasons Knapp gives that is why I have two primary issues, anti-warmongering and the Federal Reserve. I discuss other domestic policy issues with people who are interested but even among the politically interested many don’t have a grasp of monetary issues.
    Thank you for your comment.

  125. George Dance

    So the sum total evidence that Johnson and Weld are secretly working for Gaffney’s Council for National Policy are:
    a) 11 years ago, Weld signed a letter, authored by Gaffney, urging that the sunsetting Patriot Act provisions be extended;
    b) Johnson has said some negative things about Sharia law, and urged people to “Google sharia versus the Constitution” – and a google search turns up links to CNP material.
    a) as for the first, Weld should be asked where he stands on those parts of the Patriot Act (or as it’s now called, the “American Freedom Act”) now. It’s trivial (though maybe interesting trivia) why he signed a letter a decade ago; and I suspect any such explanation would just be ignored anyway – the way the explanations for Bob Barr’s vote for the Act are alway ignored, for instance.
    b) As for sharia law, it’s been banned here in Ontario for 7 years; and AFAIK it’s come up only twice in the interim:
    (i) one of the defendants accused of plotting to blow up train track, to derail a VIA trail refused to plead or mount a defense in a Canadian criminal court, insisting he be tried under sharia law (the court assigned him a lawyer and tried him anyway);
    (ii) a man and his second wife were accused of drowning his first wife and his two daughters, for the reason that the daughters were wearing makeup and otherwise dishonoring the family. They didn’t insist on a sharia trial, but some people without standing did demand one for them, pointing out that such killings are no crime under the latter.
    Neither of those instances of aggression (waging jihad and honor killing) would be crimes under sharia law; that’s precisely the reason why I would not support giving either defendant the option of being tried under that law instead (even in the second instance, where it was only other Muslims being killed).

  126. Thomas Knapp

    George,

    It’s not just that the Google search that Johnson recommended to people turns up Gaffney material (IIRC, seven of the 10 links on the first page. It’s also that he quoted that material word for word. There’s no reasonable doubt whatsoever that Gaffney was the source for Johnson’s weird case of Sharia Tourette’s.

    Now, as to the effect of “banning” sharia law:

    Obviously where this or that provision of a religious code conflicts with valid (by which I mean non-aggression-principle compliant) civil/criminal law, the latter should prevail. But if you’ve followed the issue, you’ll have noticed that among the most prominent groups opposing “bans on sharia law” are Orthodox Jewish organizations. There’s a reason for that.

    Many religious codes, including not just sharia but halakha, require their adherents to structure e.g. contracts, wills, marriages, divorces and so on in particular ways in order for those things to be recognized as valid by religious bodies.

    There’s a very valid concern that a “ban on sharia law” — by which is usually meant a ban on courts considering the provisions of sharia law — would result in the invalidation of contracts, agreements and wills constructed per the provisions of sharia. To put it as simply as possible, if I make my will compliant with the requirements of my religion, that will should be probated per its terms (so long as those terms do not conflict with reasonable civil law) instead of it being deemed invalid and me being deemed intestate because some knothead doesn’t like my religion.

  127. Andy

    Weld’s ties to the Council on Foreign Relations is a FACT. He is not just tied to the organization, he is an active member of it.

    Here is a link to Weld’s profile on the site for the law firm in which he is a part:

    https://www.mintz.com/professionals/detail/name/william-f-weld

    From the link: “Bill is an active member of the Council on Foreign Relations in New York and Washington, DC, “

  128. robert capozzi

    GD and TK, thanks for summarizing what I’ve been asking L for. (S/he claims to’ve provided me an association previously, but I surely don’t recall any such explanation.)

    Thankfully, GJ has backed off banning burqas and even mentions of Sharia. He’s at least severely tempered his advocacy of the FAIR tax, and — oddly and in some ways refreshingly — WW is talking and kinda counteracting GJ’s FAIR with advocacy of a flat tax, which generally makes more sense to me.

    Jewish bakers and Nazi cakes seems to’ve blown over.

    The praise of BHO and HRC seem kinda odd to me, but it seems they want to be the civil adults in the room.

    Overall, I feel they’re running a very good campaign…positioned to outreach to the disaffecteds while not pissing off the NAPsters too much. Now the question is whether they can take it another level or not. That’s probably mostly going to be a function of funds.

  129. T Rex

    “Again, show me where Darrell Castle opposes or takes issue with the controversial aspects of the CP’s platform. I’m waiting.”

    Dude, did you even READ THE FRIGGIN’ ARTICLE THIS THREAD IS ABOUT!?!?!?!?! I mean, holy hell, this is intellectual laziness at its most extreme.

    Since you are apparently too lazy to read I will go ahead and spoon-feed it to you. Excerpt from the article we are discussing:

    This next question ties in with drug policy. Do you see a role for the federal government in regulating and/or prohibiting things such as prostitution, gambling, smoking, polygamous relationships or any other activities made by consenting adults?

    No I really don’t. The states are free of course to regulate if their people prefer but I see no Constitutional role in such things except possibly to control the spread of pandemic disease or something of that nature.

  130. Andy

    When I met Darrell Castle in person back in 2008, I asked him if he favored calling off the War on Drugs at the state and local level as well as at the federal level, and he said yes.

  131. Andy

    Robert Cappozi said: “The praise of BHO and HRC seem kinda odd to me, but it seems they want to be the civil adults in the room.”

    Things can be kept civil without heaping praise upon opponents who do not deserve any praise.

  132. robert capozzi

    Andy, yes, I agree. It’s too much praise.

    As stated previously, it might be a cynical ploy to get more MSM earned media. And it may well work as far as it goes. Still, were I advising them, I’d dial that stuff WAY back. On its face, it lacks integrity, and my view is integrity is the way to walk the world.

  133. Andy

    “robert capozzi
    July 6, 2016 at 11:06
    Andy, yes, I agree. It’s too much praise.

    As stated previously, it might be a cynical ploy to get more MSM earned media.”

    I suspect that it is a cynical ploy to help Hillary Clinton get elected.

  134. T Rex

    “When I met Darrell Castle in person back in 2008, I asked him if he favored calling off the War on Drugs at the state and local level as well as at the federal level, and he said yes.”

    Everybody knows that Johnson’s position (keeping all drugs illegal except marijuana) is more libertarian. Just as keeping the Fed, giving taxpayer money to Planned Parenthood, jailing cake bakers, paying for other South Korea’s defense, etc is all more libertarian.

    /sarcasm

  135. Thomas Knapp

    “I suspect that it is a cynical ploy to help Hillary Clinton get elected.”

    If so, it’s an ass-backward plan. If they wanted to help her get elected, why would they be playing to HER voters?

    Every Clinton-leaning voter who thinks “wow, Johnson’s not so bad, he says nice things about Clinton and Obama, I think I’ll vote for him instead” hurts Clinton.

    Every Trump-leaning voter who thinks “Jesus, what a liberal, saying nice things about Clinton and Obama, fuck that noise, I’ll stick with Trump” hurts Clinton.

  136. robert capozzi

    tk, yes, that’s my reaction to AJ’s theory as well.

    Two largely unknown former R guvs are really not going to sway many. In fact, they are likely to garner maybe 5% at best. They are not influential pundits. They are not endorsing HRC. The comments they’ve made against DJT are pretty freakin’ tame, too.

    But, ever open minded. AJ, why do you think J/W are trying to get HRC elected? Put some meat on the bone re: the back story.

  137. Andy

    Praising Hillary Clinton repels people who might vote Libertarian. It also encourages disgruntled people on the left to stay on the Democratic Party’s plantation.

    What’s the point of voting “3rd party” if the “3rd party” candidates think that Hillary Clinton is wonderful?

  138. Andy

    Why? My educated guess would be it is because the CFR prefers Hillary Clinton as the next President.

  139. T Rex

    My first thought when I take a position on an issue is, “but what will the general public think?”

    Johnson-Weld aren’t going to get many votes anyway, so they might as well throw the Libertarians some red meat instead of pandering to everyone.

  140. robert capozzi

    aj, oh, I see. J/W are a false-flag campaign, is that right? They aren’t actually campaigning FOR votes, they are doing everything possible to NOT GET votes, and to get HRC elected.

    Kind of like the premise of THE PRODUCERS…to put on a poor play, looking to maximize tax losses, kinda thing?

    Did they hatch this plan in 2012? Let’s get this tool GJ to run for the Rs, get ousted quickly since he’s pro-choice; switch to the Ls; do well by L standards; spend the next four years working on lawsuits; run again in ’16; call WW 3 weeks before the convention (he didn’t have his number, he had staff check with Ls who might know WW to track him down); WW of course would accept; get the LP convention to nominate WW, despite his NY gubenatorial Lucy-and-the-football move in 06; get the media to give J/W unprecedented coverage but coach GJ to say nice things about HRC if asked.

    If so, they are goooooooooooooooood.

    Petersen, McAfee, or Perry might have gotten 1.1% of the vote, so let’s get J/W to really tank the LP down to maybe, say, 0.5%. Brilliant!

  141. Andy

    langa, I have already answered your question about immigration multiple times, and that is there is no right to move on to land that is already occupied by occupied by other people. Also, in our present society, there are all kinds of other problems beyond logistics, such as the fact that a high percentage if immigrants (and their offspring) are being supported via welfare state programs, and as if this is not bad enough, these people are fraudulently being sworn in as American citizens (which requires swearing an oath the the Constitution, which they clearly do not understand or agree with), and then being added to the voter rolls, which means they gain political power.

    Mass immigration as it exists today WOULD NOT be happening in a stateless society. This has nothing to do with anarcho-capitalism.

  142. Thomas Knapp

    “there is no right to move on to land that is already occupied by occupied by other people”

    That’s never been in question.

    So am I to take it that you are standing on the bank of the Rio Grande and that your problem is that you’re afraid some Mexican is going to step on your toes as he crosses the two square feet you are occupying, en route to the 3.79 million square miles of land comprising the US, much of which is unoccupied?

    Or is what you mean by “occupied” not “occupied” but “my preferred street gang says this is THEIR turf, even though they have no defensible moral claim whatsoever to it?”

  143. Andy

    Robert, I have no idea how far back or how detailed the planning went, but there has appeared to have been some king of operation in place to get the LP to nominate Republican 2.0 candidates since 2008.

    The CNN Town Hall with Johnson and Weld really was not a good thing considering they made multiple comments that damaged the Libertarian brand, and just frankly did not come off very well in general. CNN likely only gave them that air time because they knew they would damage the Libertarian brand and put Hillary Clinton over.

  144. Andy

    Tom, the entity which is supported by our taxes and is supposedly our agent, the US government, owns that, and the rest of the public lands. You may not like that, and neither do I, but that is the present condition under which we live. Just because land is currently being held by some division of the US government, it does not mean that said land should be open for every person on the planet to crash on or travel through. If not for decades and decades of the US government taxing people and holding land, all of that land would likely already be owned. If not for taxes, I would probably own a bunch of land from ancestors who were farmers, and lots of other Americans would own a lot more land as well. The government holding public lands is supposed to be doing so as agents of the American people (yes, they do a lousy job of this, and no, they should not being doing this, but these are separate issues). The government is acting as stewards of the land.

    Acting as though anyone on the planet can go on any land currently being held by US government entities would mean that it would be OK to turn the local public park near where you live into a refugee camp for people from some 3rd world country, even over the objection of the people in the city/town who pay the taxes to support that park. Hey, the land is held by government, so that means that anyone on the planet should have the right to crash there, right?

    You and I both agree that government ought to be dismantled and shut down, so I think our real disagreement here is one of strategy and approach. You say allow everyone on the planet to come to the land territory known as the present day USA, no questions asked and present consequences be dammed, and to hell with what anyone who already lives here thinks, while I say privatize all the land and end all of the welfare and forced association programs, and then leave the rest up to the market.

  145. robert capozzi

    aj: there has appeared to have been some kin[d] of operation in place to get the LP to nominate Republican 2.0 candidates since 2008.

    me: So, you believe BB, GJ1.0, and GJ2.0 are all part of conspiracy? Who are the conspirators?

  146. Andy

    We obviously have no way of knowing for sure who all was in on what. It would not surprise me in Barr (CIA) and Weld (CFR) were/are in on it. Johnson may just be an unwitting dupe, do not know for sure, but Johnson appears to be less connected than the others. I would like to see more research into this.

  147. Thomas Knapp

    “the entity which is supported by our taxes and is supposedly our agent, the US government, owns that, and the rest of the public lands.”

    It claims it owns those lands and is our agent. But it also claims that Hillary Clinton is special and the laws don’t apply to her, that Lon Horiuchi was acting in self-defense when he murdered Vickie Weaver, Saddam Hussein had WMD and absolutely had to be removed from power, and all kinds of other ridiculous things.

    Come to think of it, I seem to recall that you have expressed doubt over its claims regarding who conducted the 9/11 attacks and why.

    “You and I both agree that government ought to be dismantled and shut down, so I think our real disagreement here is that I’m scared shitless of brown people who speak other languages and want Uncle Sugar to save me from them, while you aren’t and don’t.”

    Fixed.

  148. natural born citizen

    @knapp 1124 —

    Johnson going soft on Obama in 2012 made a kind of sense. 50 million people voted for Obama in 2008, and he wanted some of those voters who were feeling mild regret over that vote. Attacking Obama so viciously that the subtext or text reads “only a fukking idiot would vote for Obama” could turn off those voters.

    Going soft on Hillary in 2016 makes no sense. Anyone who voted for Hillary 3 or 6 months ago is going to vote for her again. Sanders voters, Cruz voters, Obama 2008 voters, Stein voters, Rand Paul voters…. none of those people like Hillary. 67% of the electorate says Hillary isn’t trustworthy. Proclaiming that Hillary is honest loses you 2/3 of the electorate right off the bat.

  149. Thomas L. Knapp

    Yes, you’re right that “going soft on Hillary makes no sense.”

    But neither does the idea that the LP candidates saying nice things about her helps her.

    Which means that Johnson/Weld continues its batting 1000 streak on the making no fucking sense metric. Huzzah!

    “Proclaiming that Hillary is honest loses you 2/3 of the electorate right off the bat.”

    No it doesn’t. Neither Johnson/Weld nor anyone else ever had 2/3 of the electorate to lose in the first place.

  150. robert capozzi

    aj, “would not surprise” doesn’t sound like plausible “suspicion of conspiracy.”

    Agree?

  151. robert capozzi

    nbc: Proclaiming that Hillary is honest loses you 2/3 of the electorate right off the bat.

    me: Have J/W said HRC is “honest”? WW said she was a “good kid,” iirc. I don’t recall the “honest” characterization. Who said that, and when?

  152. natural born citizen

    @Capo 1136/1242

    Johnson is a political entrepreneur. He hit the weed issue very hard in 2012 and he was rewarded handsomely for it with a $6 million sinecure in the weed industry.

    Weld comes along in 2016 promising a lot more $$$ from the Bushite/NWO crowd and Johnson is following the money again this time around. A lot bigger money.

    The idea behind the Weld campaign isn’t necessarily to “sabotage the LP” as Mr Andy (@1435) seems to think. It’s to stop Trump, to destroy Trump. The Bushite bankers would love President Hillary. They could make it work with Weld in office, too. (Or Biden.)

  153. natural born citizen

    @Andy 1435 —

    Barr tweeted out a condemnation of the Hillary non-indictment last night.

    Barr wanted the Clintons impeached, he wanted Bush impeached. Barr is not an establishment shill like Weld.

  154. robert capozzi

    nbc: Weld comes along in 2016 promising a lot more $$$ from the Bushite/NWO crowd and Johnson is following the money again this time around.

    me: Sorry, I wasn’t provided with the special tin-foil cap that lets me tune into this “fact.”

    Can you share your inside information on this matter?

  155. natural born citizen

    @Dance 1008 —

    Barr vs Weld on PATRIOT Act are two totally different scenarios.

    Barr killed the first version of PATRIOT (under another name) in 1995 under Clinton.

    Barr fought against the PATRIOT Act as well as he could in 2001. The only concession he was able to extract was a sunset provision on four of the most egregious provisions.

    It was those four expiring provisions — that would not have ever been set to expire at all without Barr’s work — that Weld was campaigning to keep and not let sunset in 2005-06. There is no excuse for Weld’s pro-police-state actions in 2005.

  156. natural born citizen

    Capo — you seem to have your tinfoil hat shoved up your ass.

    Fuck off.

  157. Magnus Dahlstrøm

    I am a Nordic American from South Dakota named Magnus Dahlstrøm.

  158. Magnus Dahlstrøm

    How about everything not in common usage like a reasonable person?

  159. natural born citizen

    Mr Charming Capo —

    I haven’t raped enough puppies to be as dense as you are.

    Could you please share your favorite puppy-raping techniques with me?

  160. Thomas L. Knapp

    “I am a Nordic American from South Dakota”

    Highly unlikely, if for no other reason than that Nordic means, by definition, someone from Scandinavia, Finland, Iceland or the Faroe Islands, none of which are anywhere near South Dakota.

  161. Andy

    There is infighting even with the establishment. So Barr said that Hillary Clinton should have been indicted. That is great, but there are reasons to say the same thing about people whom Barr supports, and Barr himself for that matter.

    Yeah, Barr was so concerned about the Patriot Act that he voted for it, and the sunset provisions he added only applied to some of the act, not all of it.

  162. Magnus Dahlstrøm

    You forgot Norway. Do some more research. Nordic Americans are the majority in large swaths of Minnesota and the Dakotas. That’s why our football team is the Vikings!

  163. Andy

    Using Johnson/Weld as some kind of Republican establishment tool IS damaging the Libertarian. We are here to spread the message of liberty, and to build the liberty movement, not act as some kind of play thing or battering ram for establishment Republicans.

  164. robert capozzi

    nbc: Could you please share your favorite puppy-raping techniques with me?

    me: I have nothing to add here, as I have no experience in this matter.

  165. Thomas L. Knapp

    No, I didn’t forget Norway. Apparently you don’t read English well, which may mean that you actually ARE Nordic: Perhaps the schools in Scandinavia, Finland, Iceland and the Faroes are so bad when it comes to geography that you honestly mistakenly believe that North Dakota is in one of those places. Or perhaps the schools in North Dakota are so bad that you don’t understand the difference between being Nordic and being an American. Kind of a coin toss.

  166. Magnus Dahlstrøm

    Nordic American . . . Plus you added Iceland which is also part of Scandinavia.

    Btw, Iceland has the highest average IQ of all nations.

  167. Thomas L. Knapp

    Right. So? Ørmen is in Norway. Norway is Nordic. North Dakota isn’t. You’re from North Dakota, not Norway. Therefore you are not Nordic, but North Dakotan.

  168. Magnus Dahlstrøm

    “Knapp” sounds fake, almost like you’re trying to antagonize Milnes since that was the name of one of the reporters he stalked.

  169. Magnus Dahlstrøm

    Pulease. I know west Tennessee is almost entirely black. That sounds very suspicious unless you mean Boston Celtic.

  170. NewFederalist

    “Iceland ceased to be part of Scandinavia when it ceased to be part of Norway in 1944.” – Thomas L. Knapp

    Actually it was a Danish possession until 1944.

  171. natural born citizen

    @1612 Knapp.

    You are from your mother’s vagina.

    Therefore, you are not American, but a pussy.

    Hope this helps.

  172. Magnus Dahlstrøm

    Greatest IPR comment of all times:

    natural born citizen
    July 6, 2016 at 15:19
    Capo — you seem to have your tinfoil hat shoved up your ass.

  173. Andy

    Magnus, how would you know that is the greatest IPR comment of all time if you are new here, unless of course you have been trolling here for years under different fake names?

  174. Magnus Dahlstrøm

    I’m not new. I just started using my real name like you always ask people to do.

  175. Andy

    Which fake name or names did you use before?

    I just did a people search for the name you are using now for South Dakota and North Dakota and nothing came up. I suspect that you are lying. Tell me what city/town you are in so i, or somebody else here, can verify that you are who you say you are.

  176. Magnus Dahlstrøm

    Moses Austwin, Freudian slip, Kareem Caliente, etc. Want my phone number to confirm?

  177. Thomas L. Knapp

    MD,

    Don’t let Andy — who for years has declined to post under his full name — bully you into telling him anything you don’t damn well don’t want to tell him. He’s probably just collecting the information for his job with whatever alphabet soup agency infiltrated him into the Libertarian Party. Maybe he gets a bonus for every subversive he adds to a database.

  178. Magnus Dahlstrøm

    I want to give him my number so he can give me a call and talk.

  179. Thomas L. Knapp

    Well, if that’s what you want to do. But wouldn’t it be easier to just masturbate in front of the television? I’m sure he has equipment that allows him to watch you do that.

  180. Magnus Dahlstrøm

    Let’s do this, Andy, send me an email and I’ll give you my phone number and we can talk. Do a *69 if you don’t want me to have your number. Just make sure you introduce yourself as Andy from IPR.

  181. Andy

    Tom, plenty of people here already know who I am, my name has been posted here many times, and quite a few regular posters here have either met or at least seen me in person. I was just at the freaking LP National Convention in Orlando, and I even got up on the stage as a candidate for LNC At Large and gave a short speech. It is not like I am or have been hiding, unlike like this fake “Magnus” ass clown.

    Anyone can give out a fake phone number. You could also get a disposable phone from 7-11, or use the phone from your government troll center from wherever it is you are posting.

    No, this is not good enough for me. I want in person. I think the poster is full of shit. I bet you are lying about your name, and i bet you have posted here under more fake names than you admitted to above.

    You are probably the same person who claimed to live in Florida but than ran away when I suggested going to the National Convention, or that I go to meet you wherever you are in Florida.

  182. Magnus Dahlstrøm

    No. I’m not that person but I was egging it on because it was so funny.

  183. Magnus Dahlstrøm

    I did say etc. above. So there are others but I don’t feel like wracking my brain.

  184. Cody Quirk

    “Dude, did you even READ THE FRIGGIN’ ARTICLE THIS THREAD IS ABOUT!?!?!?!?! I mean, holy hell, this is intellectual laziness at its most extreme.”

    Dumbass, I read it and not only does he NOT denounce and distance himself from the national platform, but several articles and radio broadcasts on his website shows that he is obviously a ultra-conservative on the social issues and in conformity with the platform, he even links his website to certain sections of the national platform that don’t have the sectarian language in them. At least he’s careful with what he talks about, unlike Riley Hood… Most of the time.
    So we should all go by this article as the sole source of his “libertarianism” and ignore all of his other articles and broadcasts, including the one about ‘depopulation’?
    Wow, you really have your head that far up there, eh?

    http://castle2016.com/depopulation/

    “No I really don’t. The states are free of course to regulate if their people prefer but I see no Constitutional role in such things except possibly to control the spread of pandemic disease or something of that nature.”

    I do give most constitutionalists credit for having the right, constitutional-oriented idea on addressing the drug issue; yet this is only one issue that not only does he fail to match the full libertarian viewpoint on drugs, but on that specific issue, Gary Johnson is still more libertarian then him!

    You lose the argument; GJ is the more libertarian one here.

  185. Andy

    No, post here online where you are right now, and I will go to where you are with a video camera and post the video to YouTube. I am currently in Pennsylvania, but I travel all over the country frequently and will likely be in some other state in the not too distant future. I want nothing that can be faked, and I want full disclosure for everyone here to see. None of this call me on a phone numbEr you set up just so you can fake it again. You are using a fake name and an IP anonymizer right now because you are a liar and a coward. You have lied so many times people should not trust anything you say.

  186. Cody Quirk

    Oh and the Johnson/Weld ticket is not only going to get a ton of votes, but they will far surpass Gary’s 2012 vote total.
    Sorry but your wet dreams are not reality here.

  187. Magnus Dahlstrøm

    What if we discuss this over the phone and you can record it and release it publicly if I don’t follow through. I’d really rather not post my address on here for privacy concerns but I will give it to you on the phone.

  188. Andy

    If you are too far away, I can get to wherever you are eventually, so long as it is in the contiguous 48 states.

    You could show up at a Libertarian Party meeting somewhere in this country and have somebody at the meeting video record you at the meeting, and that person can post the video to YouTube. Let us all know which Libertarian Party meeting you will be attending in advance, and I will contact the local chair of that meeting and we can arrange to record you at the meeting and then have the video posted to YouTube.

    Any answer that does not involve you showing up in person somewhere means you are full of shit. I do not want any answers that do not involve showing up in person with a video camera and having it posted online.

  189. Thomas Knapp

    You sure do want a lot, Andy.

    Why don’t you do all that wanting in one hand and shit in the other let us know which hand gets full first?

    Nobody owes you an explanation of who they are, where they’re from or why they’re here.

  190. Andy

    I am not saying that I am “owed” anything, I am just calling out a fake and a liar. I do not really give a rat’s ass about this person. They can drop dead of a heart attack for all I care, and considering that they area a troll, the world would probably be better off without them.

  191. Magnus Dahlstrøm

    If I give you my number will you call it and talk to me so that we can expedite this matter and determine where I can meet with you? What if we met at a Starbucks midway between you and me. Chicago?

  192. natural born American

    If Magnus identifies as Magnus, then he is Magnus. If you are denying Magnus his identity, you are being transphobic. Just ask the North Carolina LP.

  193. Andy

    “natural born American
    July 7, 2016 at 00:56
    Wow, Mr Andy is a hardcore stalker. Creepy!”

    No, I’m just a person who is fed up with internet trolls, particularly at this site.

  194. T Rex

    “Oh and the Johnson/Weld ticket is not only going to get a ton of votes, but they will far surpass Gary’s 2012 vote total.”

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH *snort* hahahahahaha

    That’s some funny stuff.

  195. Andy

    “natural born American
    July 7, 2016 at 00:57
    If Magnus identifies as Magnus, then he is Magnus. If you are denying Magnus his identity, you are being transphobic. Just ask the North Carolina LP.”

    LOL!

  196. T Rex

    “Nobody owes you an explanation of who they are, where they’re from or why they’re here.”

    So Andy is expected to post under his full name, but Magnus Dahlstrøm is considered a legitimate commentator?

    I like you as a third-party commentator Knapp, but come on now.

  197. T Rex

    I suspect Magnus Dahlstrøm has either watched an excess of Viking porn or is a Johnny come Lately to Odin worship.

    I like Scandinavia though. There’s some decent black metal out there. Burzum is good s**t!

  198. Cody Quirk

    “Now go back to sleep.”

    I’ve been wide awake the whole time, unlike you.

    Go back to your wet dreams.

  199. Magnus Dahlstrøm

    Andy has no interest in meeting me. He’s a liar. T Rex is a pervert. He probably doesn’t use his real name because it’s on the sex offenders list.

  200. Thomas L. Knapp

    “So Andy is expected to post under his full name [?]”

    By who? Certainly not by me.

    HE is the one likely not commenting under his real, full name — he doesn’t use his last name, and I suspect “Andy” is a shortening/nickname of his real first name — but constantly complaining about others not commenting under their own real, full names.

  201. George Dance

    natural born citizen: “Barr vs Weld on PATRIOT Act are two totally different scenarios.

    Barr killed the first version of PATRIOT (under another name) in 1995 under Clinton.

    Barr fought against the PATRIOT Act as well as he could in 2001. The only concession he was able to extract was a sunset provision on four of the most egregious provisions.

    Yes, you’re right about the details. Barr opposed the Patriot Act from day 1, and his ultimate vote in favor was simply the price he paid to be on the conference committee and get those sunset provisions in. I was one of the people who dug into the story at the time and broke that news, BTW; and it may have played a part in getting Barr nominated, because (judging from the response) it convinced quite a few to change their minds about what happened.

    However, in terms of the Barr-bashers, that made no difference at all. Before that story broke, they were spreading around the net that “Barr supported the Patriot Act” – after it broke they simply continued saying the same thing. They had a narrative, and they stuck to it. Which is the point I was trying to make, when I brought it up.

    “It was those four expiring provisions — that would not have ever been set to expire at all without Barr’s work — that Weld was campaigning to keep and not let sunset in 2005-06. There is no excuse for Weld’s pro-police-state actions in 2005.”

    The thing is, Weld may – and I’m not saying ‘did’, since I haven’t dug into it – have had a good excuse for signing that letter; perhaps even, as in Barr’s case, one an open-minded libertarian could accept. But I’m not going to look for one, this time, simply because (as with Barr) I don’t think it will make a difference – those bashing Weld for supporting the Patriot Act will simply continue to do so, as if that never happened. So, unlike in 2008, I’m not going to waste my time trying to convince people who aren’t open to that, but who simply wish to promote a narrative.

  202. Thomas Knapp

    It’s been 8 years so my memory may be imperfect, but my memory vis a vis the Denver convention is that there was a LOT of “Barr fought for the sunset provisions” talk and little, if any, “Barr supported the PATRIOT Act” talk. In that particular area of civil liberties he had definitely proven his bona fides, having worked with e.g. the ACLU on privacy issues between 2002 and 2008.

    The criticisms I recall being made of Barr mostly related to DOMA, to his then-current statements on foreign policy and the drug war (he wrote favorably of Plan Colombia mere weeks ahead of the nomination).

    The only not entirely reasonable attack on Barr that I can think of was one I made myself (it was entirely accurate, but delivered absent extremely important context).

  203. Cody Quirk

    “Space Cadet Captain Coty Banks Quirk – another pervert.”

    Sounds like a maroon needs a hug; you should ask your bf Grundmann if he would give you one ;3

  204. Freudian slip

    “Sounds like a maroon needs a hug; you should ask your bf Grundmann if he would give you one ;3”

    I’m not Marlon Areola. He has the crush on Andy. Unless I’m mistaken he briefly joined ISIS to find a husband but I’m not sure how that turned out.

  205. Freudian slip

    “Sounds like a maroon needs a hug; you should ask your bf Grundmann if he would give you one ;3”

    I’m not Marlon Areola. He is the one with the crush on Andy. Unless I’m mistaken he briefly joined ISIS to find a husband but I’m not sure how that turned out.

  206. Magnus Dahlstrøm

    You don’t have it entirely right. Here’s the real story from Nathan Norman:

    “Marlon plans to go to Iraq to fight ISIS. He thinks this is a way to get out of his indecent exposure offense. I read at the Saturnalian that ISIS legalized homosexual marriage. I think that’s his real reason for going.”

  207. Thomas Knapp

    “What was that not entirely reasonable attack on Barr, Tom?”

    When I pointed out that he asserted a legal obligation on the part of the government of Georgia to provide child pornography on demand. And yes, he did exactly that.

    The CONTEXT was that in a somewhat controversial age of consent case (barely over 18 guy, barely under 18 gal), a newspaper had requested the evidence (cell phone photos of her performing oral sex on him) under a law which clearly required that it be given to them. Barr wrote a column in which he said that the law needed to be followed or changed.

  208. Be Rational

    Dahlström is a name with over 150 years of history in the parts of the US that were heavily settled by immigrants from the Nordic states of Europe. Descendants of these individuals can be called Nordic-American, or Norwegian-American or whatever, just like German-Americans and African-Americans.

    There is, at least recently, a Magnus Dahlström listed as living in South Dakota with evidence of this on Google.

    Time to move on to some other imaginary conspiracy …

    ***************

    https://geekdad.com/…/16-year-old-intel-isef-winner-talks-screen-time-sleep- cognition-and-her-love-of-science/?Cached
    29 May 2013 … … Rahman, from Brookings High School in South Dakota took home top prize in
    …. Magnus Dahlström, Nerdvana, David Michael, Gerry Tolbert, …

  209. Andy

    Great, if this person is really one of these people, they should have no problem attending a Libertarian Party of South Dakota meeting where they can be recorded on video.

    It is clearly apparent going by comments that “Magnus” made that they the same person, or among a group of people, that have been trolling here for years. Look at the writing style and the content and compare it to old troll posts here.

  210. langa

    langa, I have already answered your question about immigration multiple times, and that is there is no right to move on to land that is already occupied by occupied by other people. … Mass immigration as it exists today WOULD NOT be happening in a stateless society.

    And I have pointed out numerous times that just because someone has the right to prohibit something on their private property doesn’t mean the government has the right to prohibit that same thing on “public” property. For example, I can prohibit people from bringing guns onto my personal property. Does that mean that the government can prohibit people from having guns on, for example, “public” highways?

    According to libertarianism, there should be no “public” property. But as long as there is, the only rules governing such property should be those that prohibit violations of the NAP. So, the government can prohibit people from using guns to commit crimes, such as murder or armed robbery, that violate the NAP, but they cannot legitimately prohibit the simple possession of guns, since the act of buying a gun does not, in and of itself, constitute a violation of the NAP. The same goes for immigration. The state can prohibit immigrants from committing crimes, but they cannot legitimately prohibit the simple act of crossing the border, since that action, in and of itself, does not violate the NAP. What is so hard to understand about that?

  211. Be Rational

    Re: Mass Immigration by those dangerous foreigners:

    In America …

    Suppose some of the current landowners invite some of these dangerous hordes of immigrants to visit them, to live in apartments they’ve constructed and own on this land that they own, free of charge or as renters …

    Suppose that some other landowners with businesses offer these hordes of dangerous immigrants employment to earn the means of supporting themselves …

    Suppose other landowners with businesses sell these hordes of immigrants the means of sustaining themselves in food, clothing, services, private schools, utilities …

    Where’s the problem? As a Libertarian, I don’t see it.

    Sure, I see the problem with governmentally provided services paid for by tax dollars, but that’s not an immigration problem. Those services should be privatized. But, again, that’s not an immigration problem. That’s a problem with socialism, especially at the level of local government which should be completely abolished.

  212. robert capozzi

    L: Does that mean that the government can prohibit people from having guns on, for example, “public” highways?

    me: Yes.

  213. Magnus Dahlstrøm

    “if this person is really one of these people, they should have no problem attending a Libertarian Party of South Dakota meeting where they can be recorded on video”

    I live about 30 minutes from the closest town. I’m not going to drive hours just to make a dumb video for you. If you will meet me there I will go but otherwise I will not. Frankly you’re just drawing this thing out because it can easily be resolved by a phone call. I have the answers to the questions you ask. Don’t you want to know who Robert Milnes really is? What the purpose of the Plas Place is? Surveillance? You got to call me.

  214. Andy

    So you claim that you live in South Dakota, but are too far away from any LP meetings in South Dakota to attend them, but you claim you will travel to Chicago, and you want me to drop everything and run off to Chicago, and you expect people to believe this obvious cock and bull story?

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  215. Magnus Dahlstrøm

    No. All you have to do is call and there will be a resolution. It was you who said you wanted to meet up. I’m game but I’m not going to waste my time at a meeting if you’re not there. I am willing to go to Chicago for your convenience you asshole. You are obviously a troll because I do what you want and it’s never enough. Why are you afraid of talking on the phone?

  216. Andy

    One more time, dumbass. Appear in person, on video, or shut the fuck up. Do I have to repeat myself? Are you fucking retarded? I assume you can understand basic English, or am I giving you too much credit?

  217. Magnus Dahlstrøm

    This really escalated too far. I’m sorry. Aren’t you interested to know all I stuff I mentioned?

  218. Andy

    “Magnus Dahlstrøm
    July 10, 2016 at 00:41
    This really escalated too far. I’m sorry. Aren’t you interested to know all I stuff I mentioned?”

    You are the one who escalated too far, asshole. You have been pulling bullshit here for a long time. No go do the world a favor and kill yourself.

  219. Magnus Dahlstrøm

    Look Andy. I like you. I think you know that. The record shows that you started all this when you accused me of being a troll. Sure, I troll. It’s funny. I’m not getting paid for it but I’ve been around the block. I’ve been on many sites. I know about the stuff you’ve talked about on here for years. I just want to talk to you. I’m on your side.

  220. Andy

    “Magnus Dahlstrøm
    July 9, 2016 at 23:13
    No. All you have to do is call and there will be a resolution. It was you who said you wanted to meet up. I’m game but I’m not going to waste my time at a meeting if you’re not there. I am willing to go to Chicago for your convenience you asshole. You are obviously a troll because I do what you want and it’s never enough. Why are you afraid of talking on the phone?”

    So you will travel from South Dakota to Chicago, Illinois, but you can’t travel to a Libertarian Party meeting in South Dakota?

    Yeah, your story is really believable……NOT!

  221. Magnus Dahlstrøm

    I can travel to a meeting but only if you are there. Just so you know what a good guy I am, I actually have your number. It’s listed on Vernon’s hate blog. I choose not to call out of courtesy to you. I await your call.

  222. Thomas L. Knapp

    “So you will travel from South Dakota to Chicago, Illinois, but you can’t travel to a Libertarian Party meeting in South Dakota?”

    How would he travel to a Libertarian Party meeting? How would he even know when and where one was? The Libertarian Party of South Dakota’s entire web presence is a page at lp.org with the note “This is the temporary website of the Libertarian Party of South Dakota.”

  223. Thomas L. Knapp

    Thanks for finding that, Jim.

    Now if Magnus wants to cater to Andy’s bullshit, he knows where to go to do so (I’m leaning more and more toward the idea that Magnus IS Andy, though).

  224. Andy

    I think it was this troll, or somebody connected with this troll, that was responsible for a bunch of harassing prank phone calls to Paul and myself last year.

    I am not playing your game. Show up in person at an LP meeting and identify yourself on video, or shut up and die, or better yet, just shut up and do the world a favor by committing suicide.

  225. Andy

    I suspect that this troll has been to LP meetings before, and my top suspect right now used to be a Libertarian Party State Chairman.

  226. Andy

    Well you are leaning in the wrong direction on this issue then, Tom. Ask Paul about this if you do not believe me.

  227. Andy

    I have a hunch that “Magnus” already knows about all of the harassing prank phone calls Paul and I received last year, since he probably had something to do with them.

  228. Magnus Dahlstrøm

    If I’m such a terrible person why have I not prank called you since you accused me of being a troll? I have your number. Vernon made it public.

  229. Thomas L. Knapp

    Andy,

    How would I know that Paulie wasn’t lying for you? Or that you didn’t have him fooled as well?

    I was thinking a few minutes ago about the time you described an argument between yourself and Lee Wrights, in terms that made it clear that that argument would have taken place a few feet from me at the 2008 Libertarian National Convention. Which established to me that either it never happened or that it happened at a different time and place than you said.

    Then it occurred to me that you’ve referenced having attended several of the same Libertarian National Conventions that I have, and yet I’ve never met you (I think I may have seen someone who was identified to me by someone else as you once, but I’m not sure).

    I wonder if you actually exist, and if so whether your real name is Andy, Magnus, Robert Milnes, Nathan Norman, or perhaps all four.

  230. Magnus Dahlstrøm

    I am not Angry Anal Andy (as his friends call him).

    I am not Nathan Norman. I am his follower.

    Obviously I am not Robert Milnes (even though there’s more to him than others know)

  231. Krzysztof Lesiak Post author

    “Andy Jacobs, a Cumberland County volunteer from the Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania whose arms were filled with American-flag clipboards, buttonholed passers-by in an attempt to gather signatures to get his party’s various state and national candidates on the ballot in November.”

    http://lancasteronline.com/news/local/celebrate-lancaster-crowd-chows-down-at-food-trucks-along-queen/article_225b842e-3a58-11e6-9d5e-3fe879f8d897.html

    I believe there was a picture of Andy in the “Libertarian Zone” article he wrote.

  232. Thomas L. Knapp

    Krzystof,

    I’m not seriously suggesting that Andy Jacobs does not exist, or that the person posting as “Andy” here on IPR is not Andy Jacobs.

    I’m trolling a guy who demands that everyone else fully identify themselves to his satisfaction while, for years, even when asked about it, continues to just be “Andy” who most of us do not know, have never met, and could probably not answer the question “what is that guy’s last name.”

    I strongly suspect that “Magnus” is actually “Nathan Norman” (a reliable source has stated to me as fact that that’s the case, but I haven’t asked on the basis of what evidence). But “Andy” is a hypocrite. When he starts posting under his real full name and being willing to go prove his existence and identity to anyone who demands it, THEN he won’t be.

  233. Andy

    Krzysztof, funny that you are posting that link here now, when this happened back on June 24th, and I just forwarded the link to five current LNC members, two LNC office staffers, one current LP of PA State Committee member, one past LP of PA State Committee member, and Paul, a couple of days ago.

    How did you get this link? It could come up in a search, but you have had to had a reason to look for it.

  234. Andy

    Tom, everyone is a suspect, including yourself. How do we know that you are not lying?

  235. Krzysztof Lesiak Post author

    Thomas, I see. I rather often have trouble detecting stuff like this. Your comment was pretty funny, anyway.

    Andy, the link above was forwarded to the IPR email group by Paulie.

  236. Andy

    OK, that explains how you got the link. I thought that Paul might do that, but he never confirmed to me that he did.

  237. Andy

    I have already proven my identity and exsistance on multiple occasions, and I have posted under my full name, and my full name has been mentioned here multiple times.

    I was just at the LP National Convention in Orlando, and I announced in advance that i was going to be there, and it is not like I was hiding there, as I ran for an internal party office and got up on stage and gave a speech. Lots of regular posters here have met or seen me in person.

  238. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Tom, everyone is a suspect, including yourself. How do we know that you are not lying?”

    In general? You don’t.

    With respect to any particular statement? Specific statements might be proven true or false with reference to specific evidence.

  239. Magnus Dahlstrøm

    Remember when Andy got arrested in April of last year? I have some information about how the trolls were able to report this information immediately. Give me a call. I’ll let you know.

  240. Thane Eichenauer

    I was able to see and hear Andy Jacobs at a Maricopa County (Arizona) Libertarian Party meeting years ago. I didn’t get to talk with him but I could identify him by picture. As for using his full name so long as he sticks with “Andy” I am happy.

  241. Andy

    “Magnus Dahlstrøm
    July 10, 2016 at 11:39
    If I’m such a terrible person why have I not prank called you since you accused me of being a troll? I have your number. Vernon made it public.”

    You and “Vernon” are likely the same person, or you work with him/her at the same government troll center.

  242. Andy

    “Magnus Dahlstrøm
    July 10, 2016 at 15:06
    Remember when Andy got arrested in April of last year? I have some information about how the trolls were able to report this information immediately. Give me a call. I’ll let you know.”

    Yeah, because you probably one of them. It probably came from whatever government trolling operation where you work.

    Now go shove your sock puppet up your ass.

  243. Andy

    “because you probably one of them. ”

    Should read, “because you are probably…”

  244. Cody Quirk

    Awww, is someone butt-hurt that I insulted your bf?

    Keep it up because I will use your comments for an upcoming article about Darrell Castle supporters online, Mr. ‘Pyramid Pile of Penis’ 😉

  245. Cody Quirk

    At least I have a wife, and I get laid on a regular basis, unlike you and Grundmann… Oh wait, I take that back; you’re the receiver ;3

Leave a Reply

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