World’s Smallest Political Platform: Why Not?

The World’s Smallest Political Platform:

“The Libertarian Party supports reducing the size, scope and power of government at all levels and on all issues, and opposes increasing the size, scope or power of government at any level or for any purpose.”

With all the controversy surrounding the changes made to the Libertarian Party platform at the 2006 convention, and the current movements towards a new platform, I must ask:  Why has the World’s Smallest Political Platform (WSPP) gotten so little support?  A petition for the Restore04 movement, which wants to bring back nearly all of the 2004 LP Platform, has approximately 230 signatures, while the online petition for the WSPP has exactly 17 signatures.

Of course, Restore04 has the advantage of being run by David Nolan, the founder of the Libertarian Party.  But why is there so little support for the WSPP?

The WSPP gives us the best chance to be a big tent party.  Instead of saying that you must have a certain policy outlook on specific issues to feel welcome in the LP, we give members a broad, overriding philosophical idea and allow them to form specific policy positions.  The WSPP allows for minarchists, constitutionalists, anarchists and every group in between to feel comfortable with the platform, while many aspects of the 2004 Platform do not.  After the Ruwart controversy and the impending Barr official announcement, unity is something the LP needs right now.  Tensions will be riding high at the convention, and one of the factions will walk out of the convention upset.  Adopting the WSPP may be one of the only ways to keep whichever faction becomes disgruntled from leaving the party. 

Also, the WSPP breeds consistent libertarianism.  From the front page of the WSPP website, Tom Knapp writes:

The WSPP does not require a patterned, formulaic, “evenly distributed” approach to reducing the size, scope and power of government. The program it drives can be opportunistic, utopian, or anything in between. What it does require of the organizations which adopt it is that those organizations’ members keep their eye on the big picture: Always reducing the size, scope and power of government, never increasing the size scope or power of government.

What could be better than that.  The WSPP breeds consistency, which is something the LP really badly needs right now.

So, for you Restore04 supporters, what is wrong with the WSPP?  Why can’t the WSPP get more support?  If a right-leaning libertarian like myself can come together and support a left-leaning libertarian like Tom Knapp on a platform proposal, the unifying aspects of the idea must be valid.

Cross posted at http://www.jeffwartman.com

Comparison of FEC candidate reports

Not to be confused with LNC numbers (in which they include funds sent to their wacky “Liberty Decides” contest, which should not be counted since it’s actually a donation to the LP and not to the candidate), here is information from the Uniform Financial Report, filed with the FEC, for each candidate for the Libertarian Presidential nomination.

Mike Gravel has has not yet made his April filing, so I have included his numbers from December.  Also, Daniel imperato appears to have a corrupted computer file, as explained in the notes, so his totals are not given; and Bob Barr had no exploratory committee as of 3/31 so his total for that date is zero.  Otherwise, all candidates are compared as of their March 31st FEC filing.

Mike Jingozian
Others $  13,090
Total   $228,525

George Phillies
Others $  16,727
Total   $198,254

Wayne Allyn Root
Others $  34,409
Total   $  59,410

Christine Smith
Others $ 16,244
Total   $ 16,244

Steve Kubby
Others $ 16,219 (inferred from previous filings))
Total   $ 16,219

Mary Ruwart
Others $  5,655
Total   $ 10,655

Bob Barr
Others $    0
Total   $   0

Mike Gravel
Others $447,880
Total   $521,396

Daniel Imperato:

Imperato filing appears to have a corrupted computer file.  His most recent report claims his receipts for the quarter ($39,574) are larger than his total receipts for the cycle ($12,500), which is impossible.

Becky Isais’ substantiation of Gravel compensation claims

Covered before on this blog, the Becky Isais claims for compensation from the Mike Gravel for President campaign appears to be more and more credible, though at first even I discounted them as possible dirty tricks from another campaign (after all, it certainly wouldn’t be the first time someone posted a negative comment on a blog about an opposing candidate, and as a result all hell broke loose).

After reading the many emails Becky sent to me, substantiating her claim, I can come to only one conclusion: she was indeed supposed to be paid for her work on the Gravel campaign, several people in the campaign knew it because it was discussed multiple times, and some of those emails were forwarded to Senator Gravel so there can be no doubt that he was aware of it as well. In fact, one of those emails states that the promise of “compensation” was made by Senator Gravel, in their presence.

The Gravel campaign, of course, previously released a statement saying that Becky was a volunteer, and therefore not entitled to any payment.

I leave it to each reader to reach their own conclusions about what happened, and why.

Don’t miss the special edition of LFV Live! at 6:00pm EST today. We will be talking live with Becky Isais, and she has some voicemails as well, proving her claim that she is supposed to be paid for her work on the campaign. Representatives of the Gravel campaign are, as I have previously informed the campaign by telephone earlier today, welcome to call in at (646) 478-4638, so they can give their side as well.

In the meantime, here are some of the emails she sent me, in chronological order. As you will see, these emails were exchanged with regard to this specific matter within the campaign; anything not directly related has either been redacted, or simply not included. I also have not included full email addresses, for the protection of the parties (from spam, if nothing else). However, it is important to note that these emails were being exchanged between official campaign email addresses.

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

Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 20:50:59 -0800
From: SStandley
To: cpetherick
Subject: URGENT!!
CC: beckynevada; senator.gravel

CHRIS,
Please see Becky’s email below and [redacted]

And, please get BEcky Paid-she is tireless committed and Mike made the promise face to face in front of me.

Thanks
Stacy

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Becky Isais
Date: Dec 11, 2007 1:10 AM
Subject: ???
To: Stacy standley

Hey Stacy

[redacted]
Stacy I have to constantaly nag to get anything done with the camapaign.
Honestly I am done, I will do my best till you get back but after that it’s all you.
I haven’t even been paid for last month.
[redacted]
I am at my wits end Stacy for real.

*********************
From: Becky Isais
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 4:32 PM
To: April Shapley
Subject: RE: weekend of jan 12

I’m stepping down April.
[redacted]
I have to beg to be paid my tiny 500 a month & that isn’t cool.
I have been sacrificing with nothing in return except excuses.
[redacted] lives here in Vegas you should contact him to keep things going here.

*********************
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 23:28:05 -0800
From: SStandley
To: cpetherick
Subject: Re: Becky from Nevada
CC: whitney; beckynevada

Chris,
Can you update me on the status of BEcky getting paid?
I have asked Rob to try and come up with an effective appeal to raise funds.
Have you heard back from him yet?

On Dec 20, 2007 8:06 AM, Becky Isais wrote:

Dear Chris,

I still haven’t been paid nor have I received a response to my begging to be paid. If you aren’t going to pay me at least have the couth to tell me so. I have sacrificed allot for the campaign. Please be professional with me & let me know if you don’t plan on paying me. I REALLY feel that I’ve been taken advantage of. It’s very sad to see how this campaign has been run.

*********************
Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 21:59:54 -0800
From: SStandley
To: beckynevada
Subject: Re: Becky from Nevada

Hi Becky,
You will get paid and you should cash the check-I am unpaid and that is my choice and my ability to contribute, but you, chris and several others came on board with a promise of compensation-so it will happen and you are entitled to it.

*********************
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 09:29:55 -0800
From: SStandley
To: cpetherick; senator.gravel
Subject: Becky [redacted] for Mike, and are we getting closer to paying her?

Chris,
Becky sent me the following. [redacted]

And, really importantly, Becky is still hanging out there with NO funds. Everyone is promising to get her paid, but nada.

Can we get this done-please?

Thanks
Stacy

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Becky Isais
Date: Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 8:30 PM
Subject: RE: [redacted]
To: Stacy standley

Hey Stacy,
Am I going to get paid any time soon? We are really really in need of it.
Thanks, Becky

*********************
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 11:47:57 -0800
From: SStandley
To: beckynevada
Subject: Chris is going to get $500 for you ASAP

HI Becky,
Chris and I have discussed getting you some funds.
He says he can send you $500 ASAP, which I said will help a lot.
Does he have your address?

*********************
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 16:19:04 -0800
From: SStandley
To: cpetherick
Subject: Fwd: BEcky’s address

Chris,
Below is Becky Isais’ address to make it easy for you.

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Becky Isais
Date: Feb 15, 2008 3:37 PM
Subject: RE: Chris is going to get $500 for you ASAP
To: Stacy standley

I’ve given it to him twice but just in case. [redacted].
Thanks Stacy.

Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 11:47:57 -0800
From: SStandley
To: beckynevada
Subject: Chris is going to get $500 for you ASAP

HI Becky,
Chris and I have discussed getting you some funds.
He says he can send you $500 ASAP, which I said will help a lot.
Does he have your address?

*********************
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 07:49:09 -0800
From: SStandley
To: cpetherick
Subject: Becky has not received the check?

Hi Chris,
Becky still has not received the check you told me would go out over a week ago. What’s up?

And, as I am sure you see from emails, she is still hard at work keeping our name in front of the NV delegation, in fact today-SAT. she is at the dem convention where we are airing Mike’s video at noon.

Please confirm that the check has gone out.

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

Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 10:16:37 -0800
From: SStandley
To: beckynevada
Subject: Check and [redacted]

Hi Becky,
I confirmed that the check is in the mail-no fooling-wait til Thursday to see it I am told.

*********************
Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 11:16:33 -0800
From: SStandley
To: beckynevada
Subject: Re: Check and [redacted]

HI Becky,

I did call Chris, and he swears that the order for your check has been given to [redacted], which is Mike’s personal bank-so just hang a bit longer-I really don’t think their is a deception going on, just slow banking.

On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 6:31 PM, Becky Isais wrote:

Still no check Stacy.
If I’m not going to be paid just tell Chris to be straight up with me.
If I’m not going to be paid it would be better to just be honest instead of stringing me along…..for 3 months.

Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 10:16:37 -0800
From: SStandley
To: beckynevada
Subject: Check and [redacted]

Hi Becky,
I confirmed that the check is in the mail-no fooling-wait til Thursday to see it I am told.

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

Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2008 11:48:38 -0800
From: SStandley
To: cpetherick
Subject: Still NO Check for Becky

Chris,
I am embarrassed now. Becky has not received her check, and now I am looking the guy who makes promises and doesn’t keep them;
What is going on?

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

Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 09:22:48 -0800
From: SStandley
To: beckynevada
Subject: Re: [redacted] fundraising

Hi Becky,
My last email to Chris got Mike’s attention, he called me last night and explained the problem-simply there is no money in the bank.

When Chris said he authorized payment-he did, but the bank will only issue checks if there is sufficient funds-and there weren’t.

Mike, swears that you will be paid, he is doing paid speaking engagements and book signings to raise funds.

On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 7:41 PM, Becky Isais wrote:

I still don’t have the check.

Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 09:07:20 -0800
From: SStandley
To: beckynevada
Subject: [redacted] fundraising

PS. did you get your check?-

*********************
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 10:23:25 -0700
From: SStandley
To: cpetherick; mgrant
Subject: Becky has reached the breaking point

Mike/Chris,
Please see the attached.

And, Please communicate with Becky and cc; me.

Becky Isais wrote:

From: Becky Isais
To: Stacy Standley
Subject:
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 09:31:58 -0700

Hey Stacy,
I hate to bother you with this unpleasant news.
I need to be paid & I feel I have no other route to go but to file a small claims suit.
It’s nothing personal it’s just business.
My family is in a very bad situation & I have been more than patient.
The campaign should’ve NEVER asked me to work for them if they couldn’t pay me.
I don’t know what else to do, I’ve got to think of my family right now.
Very Sorry, Becky

*********************
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 10:25:19 -0700
From: SStandley
To: beckynevada
Subject: Fwd: see what you can do about this.

Becky,
I sent this last week to Mike after he called me.
I really am at a loss as are you as to what more I can do.
I have forwarded your email of today to Mike and Chris.
I know you are hurting.
Stacy

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Stacy standley
Date: Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 10:35 AM
Subject: Good to catch up, and see what you can do about this.
To: mg

Mike,
I explained to Becky the funding situation and told her she was high on the list.

Here problem is, and I feel for her, Jose, her husband got laid off this week. So they are seriously in the dumps. If she can be a priority to get paid the $500 you will have really helped out someone who deserves it.

She is still on the front line with us here in Nevada.

*********************
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 08:31:43 -0700
From: SStandley
To: beckynevada
Subject: Mike will call you today

BEcky,
I talked with Mike last night. I explained the situation you are in, and asked that he try and come up with a way of paying you. He understands, and is working on it. There is no money in the campaign, so that is not an option, but he is going to try another route and he said he would give you a call.

He does want to honor his commitment and to help you out.
So hang in there.

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

Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 08:49:50 -0700
From: SStandley
To: cpetherick; senator.gravel
Subject: Becky has contacted me, and still has not been paid-any update?

Mike/Chris,

Becky got in touch with me today. She has not received anything, though the promises kept coming.
What is the status of her getting paid? She was promised, and did perform. I have no knowledge of the current status of the campaign, so I cannot enlighten her at all.

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

Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 11:29:23 -0700
From: SStandley
To: beckynevada
Subject: getting paid

Becky,
Mike returned my call on Sat. He is still committed to paying you, but there is no money. The office is shut down, no paid staff, and the phones are shut off due to non-payment. So he isn’t BSing when he says there is no money.

But, he remains optimistic that he is going to get federal funds and then he will get people caught up. Just so you don’t think you are the only one hanging, Mindi paid her own way to WDC and her hotel room to give a speech for Mike-she is owed alot for that and she is out of pocket.

All I can say is be patient, which is not easy when you need money, I know. I will stay on top of the campaign to ensure you get paid when the funds come in.

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

Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 18:17:38 -0700
From: SStandley
To: beckynevada
Subject: follow up to try and get you paid

Becky,
I am trying to get you paid, Mike has his priorities, and obviously staying on the campaign trail is his. Though this is not necessarily what you think he should focus on with limited resources.

What is the amount that you figure you are owed? I will try another tact at getting you paid and see what I can do.

Does ‘Joe Six-Pack’ care about the Federal Reserve System?

Over the course of the past two days, I have been in online discussions with our fearless leader, ElfNinosMom, and LFV newcomer, Jeff Wartman, about whether “Joe Six-Pack” — alias John Q. Taxpayer, etc. — cares about the Federal Reserve. Well, as luck would have it, CNN.com took a break from its riveting coverage of female bathroom habits and ran a story about a recent survey concerning the Fed.

Americans skeptical of Fed

Poll shows that majority of respondents are unsure about the central bank’s ability to improve the economy.

The findings:

• 17% of Americans are “not confident at all” that the Fed can stimulate the nation’s “shaky economy”
• 34% “not very confident”
• only 8% were “very confident” in the Fed’s abilities

Of course, it is the 8% that are most likely correct — the Fed almost certainly can “stimulate” the economy, just as a shot of heroin can stimulate a junkie. But, to me, these numbers show the nation does not have confidence in the cabal of central economic planners running the money system, and they’re starting to catch on to the scam.

Thanks to government intervention, Joe Six-Pack’s six packs now cost what a case did a few years ago, and he’s mad as hell about it. Now is the time for Libertarians to champion honest money and economic liberty — not to cower from these “complicated” issues that “don’t matter to regular people.” People are being robbed on a daily basis, and they care plenty.

Police brutality in Philadelphia last night caught on tape

Introductions are in order…

I’ve been invited by the vivacious ElfNinosMom to start contributing here at Last Free Voice, and I suppose that a short introduction would be in order for my first post here.

Most of you already me, as I tend to frequent the main Libertarians haunts on the internet and in the Chicago area.  I’ve probably both aggravated you and made you laugh.  It’s how I am, especially with my personal politics.

I followed a very typical path to the Libertarian Party; I was a conservative Republican who believed in limited government and personal responsible.  I had a similar epiphany to the one described by Bob Barr:  I finally realized that if I wanted to work for limited government and personal responsibility, I’d have to join a political party which actually believed in those values, and it became increasing clear that the Republicans no longer were the party of Goldwater.

Ideologically, I tend to fall between the cracks of being labeled.  I can cite strong agreements with various schools of economic thought, and I’ve assembled a combination of the Austrian school, Chicago school and classical liberalism.  I would hesitate to call myself a student of any one economic “school”, but do agree there are certain areas in each “school” which have value:  the Austrians on money, Chicagoists on rational expectations, classical liberalism on an overriding, general philosophical value.

I’m looking forward to the vigorous debate that I know will come!

Also, check out my personal blog at http://www.jeffwartman.com

What counts as a legitimate ‘news’ story in the MSM

I guess I probably shouldn’t be surprised at the anti-intellectualism, unseriousness, and crassness of the mainstream media. But I really thought this article, highlighted on the front page of CNN.com, took the cake:

Beware of ‘The Tinkler’

I mosey into the ladies’ room, glance at the mirror, remind myself that fluorescent lights make everyone look as if they’re in the final stages of tuberculosis, and head for a stall. And then I see it: The seat, even the floor, is covered in little yellow droplets. The Tinkler strikes again.

Even worse are the Story “highlights”:

Women’s bathroom is defiled by The Tinkler

Columnist tries to figure out who’s guilty of peeing on seat

Decides she is “aggressively mean-spirited, mole-like cavewoman”

Writer yearns for modicum of civility, a touch of class, or supply of Lysol

As if this is an actual, legitimate news story! For example, the Story Highlights for a Myanmar cyclone piece were as follows:

U.N. has started getting food aid but so far it is only the first step of huge job

NEW: Survivor tells how wall of water left bodies in trees, bushes and streams

More than 22,000 killed and 41,000 missing, Myanmar radio reports

U.S. President Bush says Navy is ready to help if asked

There you go: The state of an individual women’s bathroom and a barely literate “journalist’s” opinion thereof is the given the same treatment as a humanitarian disaster in which more than 22,000 people have died. I should interject here that this wonderful story was brought to us by that benevolent Obama sponsor / former crack smoker, Oprah Winfrey, and her hubristically eponymous magazine.

We have an illegal, unjustified, and undeclared war that’s been raging for longer than WWII, in which innocents are being murdered on a daily basis, hundreds of billions of dollars are being destroyed, and wealth is being redistributed from American taxpayers to military-industrial complex barons, international bankers, and foreign governments — but we give a higher priority to office “tinklers” than any of that. I really do understand why Reverend Jeremiah Wright said “God Damn America!” Has there ever been an Empire quite so decadent?

I tried reading Susan Jacoby’s The Age of American Unreason and found it to be unpalatable liberal-statist garbage. But the general thesis that Americans are dumbed down by the government and its propagandists in the media and public school system (though Jacoby would balk at the latter of these being characterized as such) is right on the money. I find it harder to live among my peers with each day that goes by.

Sorry, Cheap Plug

I hijacked “Last Free Voice” for a moment to quickly plug my Blog Talk Radio Show. “Live From Court Street w/Jason & Cilla” returns live tomorrow at 6pm Eastern for a 90 minute episode.

Although we’ve had interviews in the past, we have nothing special scheduled this week per say. We will discuss “wacky” news, sports & entertainment. And, if you are a fan of underground music, you’ll hear the best underground rap & rock on our show.

I have discussed the possibility of either moving the show to LFV’s Blog Talk Radio account or perhaps uploading previous episodes, so we will soon decide what would be the best course of action. I do think offering a variety of shows on the LFV Blog Talk Radio account will be great for this website.

We generally don’t take live calls unless we are conducting an interview, however, feel free to tune in at http://www.blogtalkradio.com/livefromcourtstreet.

Bob Barr’s “emotional distress”

In 2002, Salon published an article detailing how Bob Barr filed a $30 million lawsuit against Bill Clinton, Larry Flynt, and James Carville, claiming “emotional distress”, on the same day he was championing a bill that would cap damage awards for pain and suffering (for everybody else, naturally) at $250,000.

As I’m sure you’ve already figured out, he didn’t win; the lawsuit was dismissed on the basis that he failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted; he appealed the dismissal, and lost again. The dismissal on appeal was even more embarrassing, since the court determined that he never even claimed the disparaging information to be false, or stated with reckless disregard for the truth, or with knowing disregard for its falsity.

Think about this for a minute. He was suing a man he had impeached and two alleged (but extremely unlikely) conspirators, unsuccessfully mind you, for causing him emotional distress; yet he still never once claimed that the dirt they dug up on him (and which Flynt eventually published) was even false.

I don’t know about you, but I find even the idea of that lawsuit incredibly amusing.  Can you say “frivolous”?  Or maybe the word I’m looking for is “paranoid”.  Either way, the word “disturbing” also comes to mind, given that an appellate court ruled that he had sued three people for $30 million, when all they had really done was exercise their First Amendment right to free speech.

By the way ….. it’s only 17 days until the convention, and Bob Barr still has not announced his intentions, and still is hiding behind his Exploratory Committee rather than subjecting himself to voter questions and scrutiny like the other candidates have already done. Gee, I wonder why.  LOL

Here’s an excerpt from the Salon article:

Jun 14, 2002 | When the news finally broke — because porn magnate Larry Flynt sent out his own press release — that Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga., had filed a lawsuit in March against Bill Clinton, pundit James Carville and Flynt for $30 million, claiming “loss of reputation and emotional distress,” the timing couldn’t have been much more awkward for Barr. That very day, he was championing a bill that would cap damage awards for “pain and suffering” at $250,000.

This week, at a hearing of the House Judiciary Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee, which he chairs, Barr heaped praise on a bill that would limit so-called non-economic medical damages to $250,000, saying “a national liability insurance crisis is ravaging the nation’s healthcare system.”

So how can someone who wants to limit awards for pain and suffering sue the former president and others for a whopping $30 million in emotional distress?

The depths of the former House impeachment manager’s disdain for the former president should not be underestimated. Of all the House managers, Barr was perhaps the most gung-ho in his desire to get Clinton. Back in November 1997, before the world had ever heard of Monica Lewinsky, Barr tried to bring impeachment charges against Clinton, alleging violations of campaign finance laws.

Now, Barr has quietly filed a suit against Clinton, Carville and Flynt for “participating in a common scheme and unlawful on-going conspiracy to attempt to intimidate, impede and/or retaliate against [Barr]” for his role as an impeachment manager in 1999.

Behold: Bob Barr’s vast left-wing conspiracy.

The suit comes, however, as Barr has other things to worry about. Redistricting has placed him in a tough primary fight against Rep. John Linder, R-Ga. When asked on Thursday about Barr’s suit, Linder spokesman Bo Harmon offered a jab veiled in a no-comment. “A sitting congressman suing a former president for $30 million raises all sorts of serious questions,” Harmon said. “Until we know more about Congressman Barr’s state of mind on this, we’re going to refrain from commenting.”

Barr’s case is yet another bizarre coda to the impeachment saga. Among the documents submitted in the suit, filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, was a section of The Flynt Report, the 1999 document by the Hustler publisher that shone a spotlight on the private lives of the House impeachment managers and other moralizing Republicans. The report calls Barr “a twice-divorced family values cheerleader … who condoned an abortion, committed adultery and failed to tell the truth under oath” in a 1986 deposition.

Flynt’s report was one of the blows struck in a tit-for-tat mud-wrestling match between investigators in the Office of the Independent Counsel and their congressional allies and Democratic attack dogs during the halcyon days of the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Democrats pointed to stories like the ones contained in the report and to Henry Hyde’s extramarital affair to label Republican impeachment managers as hypocrites.

Barr has long talked of a conspiracy behind the attacks on him. At the time the Flynt Report was published, CNN’s Wolf Blitzer asked Barr if the White House was behind the smear campaign. “Most people can’t even deny that with a straight face,” Barr told Blitzer.

The suit is not the first time Barr has tried to sue Clinton outside the confines of Congress. The new civil suit is a reprise of a criminal case Barr brought in 1999 against the Executive Office of the President and the Justice Department, claiming the White House was keeping a dossier on Barr and that the congressman “was subject to attacks and threats of attack by persons in the media, including Larry Flynt, James Carville, [investigative journalist] Dan Moldea and others.”

The new complaint charges that the White House kept “files on [Barr] and routinely disseminated the contents of those files to defendants Carville and Flynt and others, including members of the media, in an effort to intimidate and impede” Barr’s investigation of Clinton. The suit also alleges that the White House kept an enemies list that included all 13 House impeachment managers; Rep. Dan Burton, R-Ind.; Sen. Tim Hutchinson, R-Ark.; Newsweek reporter Michael Isikoff; and Judicial Watch’s Larry Klayman, who is serving as Barr’s attorney in the case.

The suit, however, includes no evidence of such collusion.

Read the rest of this article here.

Did the Gravel campaign fail to compensate campaign worker? Gravel responds “No”

Today, a comment appeared on Third Party Watch from someone who used the name “Becky”, claiming that she was owed money by the Gravel campaign. The statement, linked here, is as follows:

If Mike is answering a call it’s not mine cuz he owes me $1000.00 for work done on his campaign. It’s been 6 months of begging & I’m fed up. ASK Mike Gravel why he thinks he can still fly around the country & claim he can’t pay his debts because he is broke. Mike Gravel has stolen from my family & I think the public needs to know he’s not the kind compassionate man he plays on T.V.

Clearly, this is a very serious allegation. Did Mike Gravel engage someone to perform work on his campaign, then plead poverty when payment was due?

I did as Becky suggested, and asked Mike Gravel by sending her comment to Skyler McKinley of the Gravel campaign, and requesting a statement. The campaign issued the following in response to Becky’s allegations (you can view the actual document by clicking isais-52608)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTACT:

J. Skyler McKinley

Mike Gravel for President 2008
703.652.4698
smckinley@gravel2008.us
www.gravel2008.us

Becky Isais worked tirelessly on behalf of Senator Gravel and this campaign as a volunteer operating within the state of Nevada. She helped coordinate effective events for Senator Gravel, and graciously offered help whenever the campaign visited Nevada.

As with all of our volunteers, Becky was told that, should the campaign have money beyond necessary operating expenses, she would receive some compensation for her efforts. However, no formal contract or sum was drawn up or agreed upon, nor was the campaign in a surplus of funds such that it could pay volunteers beyond expectations.

Becky Isais has already received $500.00 from the Gravel campaign for her work and expenses as a volunteer. As this campaign will continually have operating costs, and Becky has already been paid an adequate sum, her additional $1000.00 claim is not realistic, nor was it formally established at any juncture of Becky’s tenure with us. We encourage Mrs. Isais use the Nevada legal system if she feels she is owed money from our campaign.

While we understand Mrs. Isais’s situation, every campaign, be it national, state, or local, will have disgruntled volunteers. Becky Isais never signed a formal contract with the Mike Gravel for President 2008 campaign, nor was she ever considered a paid employee.

LP.org reports candidate FEC filings as of today

LP Candidate FEC Filings

LP Presidential Candidate FEC and Liberty Decides ‘08 Filings

Wayne Allyn Root
LD ‘08: $15,764.00
Individual: $29,988.00
Candidate: $4,421.90

Daniel Imperato
LD ‘08: $10,474.00
Individual: $0.00
Candidate: $0.00

Michael Jingozian
LD ‘08: $8,490.00
Individual: $13,090.79
Candidate: $0.00

Mike Gravel*^
LD ‘08: $895.00
Individual: $447,378.97
Candidate: $0.00

Steve Kubby**
LD ‘08: $1,280.00
Total: $2,951.22

Alden Link
LD ‘08: $885.00
Individual: $259.00
Candidate: $4,225.00

George Phillies
LD ‘08: n/a
Individual: $16,727.75
Candidate: $81,527.01

Mary Ruwart***
LD ‘08: $1,060.00
Individual: n/a
Candidate: n/a

Christine Smith**
LD ‘08: $2,460.00
Total: $16,244.00

Bob Barr (still in Presidential exploratory phase):
Total Reported by Candidate Web site: $53,163.64

Most Individual Contributions Raised: Root
Most Personal Money Invested: Phillies

*Numbers reflect previous campaign for President in different political party
**No electronic report available. Only total available is net contributions that do not separate individual contributions and candidate contributions
***No FEC report available
^Candidate had failed to file April Quarterly Report when data was compiled

(LD ‘08 totals current as of May 5, 2008. FEC Filing data taken from Election Cycle-To-Date totals from candidates’ April Quarterly filing. This information can be viewed at www.FEC.gov.)

Posted by Andrew Davis at May 6, 2008 12:52 PM

ENM responds:

Perhaps I am somehow confused, but in their wrap-up of “Most Individual Contributions Raised”, they list Root as the winner.  Yet, isn’t Gravel’s $447,379 a LOT more than Root’s $29,988?

I still have to respect the heck out of George Phillies for putting so much of his money where his mouth is, so I think he should wear the “Most Personal Money Invested” win as a badge of honor.

I still think “Liberty Decides” is both a rip-off for the candidates, and misleading to voters.  I have had to explain over and over again, to people across the net, that LD’08 has no bearing on a candidate’s actual chances of getting the nomination, because it’s nothing but a fundraising tool for the LP; and that if they contribute money to a candidate through LD’08, the candidate they choose doesn’t actually get the money.  Argh.

“Why George?”

Why George?

Why should we Libertarians choose George Phillies to be our 2008 Presidential candidate?

Fellow delegates to our National convention!

Why should we nominate George Phillies for President?

George is a Libertarian Centrist.  He isn’t Republican Lite.  He isn’t a radical.  He’s square in the middle of our party.  He isn’t the darling of any one faction, so he’s acceptable to all of us.  George will keep our party united.

George has the realistic campaign objective: Use the campaign to build the party.  He does that by doing what winning campaigns do. Organize. Advertise. Mobilize. He’s telling his volunteers to stay with us after November.

George is a long-time activist.  He’s not a newcomer with evolving stands on the issues. His Libertarian Congressional run was in 1998.  He was national volunteer coordinator for Michael Badnarik.  Now he’s Chair of his state party.

George’s campaign is up and running.  He has $100,000 in the bank, ready to go when he wins.  He’s already advertising on the radio and the internet.  His press releases reach 17,000 media outlets.  His campaign
staff is hard at work.

George put his money where his mouth is. He put $100,000 of his own money into his nominating campaign.  He’ll give a second $100,000 if nominated.

George gave Libertarian activists the respect we earned. We all need time to study candidates before going to Denver.  George declared two years ago, not two months or two weeks before our Denver convention.

Paid for by Phillies 2008.

Phillies “Sensible Answers To Tough Questions Part 2: The Environment”

George Phillies for President 2008

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Sensible Answers to Tough Questions, part 2:  The Environment

Global warming is now widely accepted as a fact within the scientific community.  What is not yet accepted is the extent to which the planet will warm and the impact that it will have.  What will Libertarians do about this issue?

Ruwart: When our weather reporter’s can’t get tomorrow’s temperature right, it’s difficult to believe that global warming can be predicted, isn’t it? (This sentence should be told lightly, as a joke, to elicit agreement.)

As you mentioned, we really don’t know what the effect of global warming might be.  High temperatures and CO2 stimulate crop and other plant growth, so global wamring could actually be good for us.  Any action we take has to be based on the facts, and we just don’t have those yet.

In a libertarian society, if a chemical such as CFC caused a problem, victims could sue the manufacturer for damages.  The high cost of restitution would be apssed on to CFC consumers, driving up the price. People would turn to cheaper alternatives and CFC production would be automatically curailed.

People could sue before actual harm was done, so long as they could convince a judge or jury that CFCs actually posed a threat.

Phillies: Research on climate and climate change represents an enormous effort by thousands of people.  Vast computer facilities exist primarily to study climate change.  Billions of dollars are spent to deploy specialized earth satellites and other scientific instruments to study our atmosphere.   Polar expeditions set forth, at significant risk to the lives of participants, to examine arctic ice conditions.

What about the question “When our weather reporter’s can’t get tomorrow’s temperature right, it’s difficult to believe that global warming can be predicted, isn’t it?” For almost all academic scientists, the reward of scientific research is almost entirely the personal satisfaction of untangling a scientific puzzle. If there were no hope of predicting climate accurately, wouldn’t real scientists have noticed, and transferred their work elsewhere?

The answer, of course, is that it is actually almost infinitely easier to predict climate than it is to predict the weather. Why?  It’s actually very simple.  To predict climate, you only need to predict odds accurately, and it’s much easier to predict odds than to predict results.  If I roll a quality Las Vegas die, the odds are very exactly one in six that I will roll a “two”.  If I roll that die 600 times, I will roll “two” a hundred or so times.  If you try to predict whether you will roll a “two” on your very next roll, well, that’s a lot harder, isn’t it?  For the same reason, predicting climate is a lot easier than predicting weather.

In dealing with pollution, litigation can make sense if there is a single source that does a lot of damage to specifically identifiable people.  If the local power company decides to save money on disposing of clinker ash by dumping ten tons of it on my front lawn, the responsible party is identifiable, the repair costs are identifiable, and the responsible party’s pockets are deep enough to support litigation.

In the global warming case, the responsible parties are everyone mining or using any fossil fuel or any process that vents methane into the air, the persons damaged include almost everyone, and the cost of assessing responsibility is astronomical. You have around the world several billion damaged parties, each with different facts of their cases requiring separate adjudication, against a similar number of differenced defendants.  That’s trillions or potential lawsuits.  Where do you find the lawyers? Furthermore, for most of the injured parties, money is not the issue.  They don’t want money, they want an ozone layer.  For this sort of diffuse case, the litigation-restitution approach is completely unworkable.

How do we deal with global pollution? (page 30)

Ruwart: Thankfully, most pollution does more local than international damage, thereby discouraging polluters.  For example, governments try to prevent Chernobyl-type accidents because their local population is put at greater risk than the international community.  The country that polluted the oceans enough to cause global damage, for example, would destroy its own fishing first.  The country that polluted its own air enough to disturb other nations would asphyxiate its own population in the process.  Thus, global pollution is a highly unlikely event.

Phillies: While our understanding of atmospheric chemistry and its effects on meteorology has advanced considerably in the last decade, it remains clear that individual countries have created and are creating global atmospheric pollution.

A simple example of global atmospheric pollution is supplied by the chlorofluorocarbons, substances that are nearly inert and harmless on the ground.  These safe, harmless materials were once manufactured all around the world.  When transported to the stratosphere and brought in contact with stratospheric ice crystals, these substances had a catastrophic effect on the ozone layer near the poles.  The effect is only now coming under control, as a result of rigorous planet-wide treaty restrictions on CFC production.

Similarly, there is massive evidence that the current global changes in climate are being driven in considerable part by man-made releases of carbon dioxide and methane.  The huge increases in energy consumption in China, India, and Russia lead to matching increases in production of carbon dioxide.  Fortunately, there is appreciable evidence that natural law will do what legislative law has not, namely the supplies of oil and coal will be exhausted before atmospheric carbon dioxide reaches levels vastly higher than those now encountered.

In the atmosphere, levels of carbon dioxide and methane are essentially never harmful to local populations.  However, rising ocean levels are causing property protection questions along the coast.  An increase of a foot or two in sea level is really bad if your home started a foot or two above sea level.

For more information on Phillies and the Environment, please visit www.ChooseGeorge.org.

To support the George Phillies campaign, please visit http://ChooseGeorge.org/donation today.

To arrange an interview or obtain a short quote from the candidate, contact:

Carolyn Marbry, Press Director pressdirector@phillies2008.org
(510) 276-3216

George Phillies for President 2008 http://ChooseGeorge.org

LP/Green ballot access lawsuit in NC goes to trial

From the Greensboro News-Record:

By JOEDY McCREARY
Associated Press Writer

Monday, May. 5, 2008 6:44 pm

RALEIGH (AP)- A Libertarian candidate for governor testified Monday that state law makes it “effectively impossible” to conduct a grassroots campaign in North Carolina.

Mike Munger, a Duke University professor, testified during a civil trial that could determine whether state laws are too stringent and unfairly limit the ability of third parties to get on the ballot.

The Libertarian and Green parties filed a lawsuit that claims state laws that define a political party are onerous and violate party members’ rights to free speech and association. The law also affects how party candidates can be included on ballots.

State attorneys defend the law, saying legislators approved rules that maintain the integrity of elections by requiring a political party to demonstrate it has adequate support from voters.

Under the law, a party must collect nearly 70,000 voter signatures to receive official party status. Party leaders said that’s one of the highest thresholds in the country. If the party’s candidate doesn’t get 2 percent of the vote for president or governor, the party must start over. The requirement had been 10 percent until the rules were changed in 2006.

The Libertarian Party has surpassed the signature requirement for all but one presidential election since 1976, state attorneys argued in court filings. The Green Party has never met the petition standard.

Special Deputy Attorney General Karen Long cross-examined Munger, who acknowledged only four Libertarian candidates have been chosen for the state House, which has 120 seats, and three Libertarians ran for Senate, which has 50 seats, for this year’s election. The party would be able to offer more candidates if it qualifies for the ballot by this year’s petition deadline.

Munger also admitted that since 1992, Libertarian candidates had enough signatures to get on the ballot but did not win any state elections. A party spokesman said later Monday the party has won nonpartisan elections.

But the lawsuit, filed in September 2005, said the Libertarian Party has paid more than $100,000 to hire solicitors to collect signatures along with volunteers for a successful petition. The process and money drain favors the state Republican and Democratic parties.

The signature deadline for this year’s general election is June 2.

Barr still “exploring”, with convention just 18 days away. Why?

The LP Convention is in 18 days.  Will Bob Barr announce that he is running for President, and if so, when does he plan to do that?

I’m beginning to believe that his real intention is to wait until the last possible minute to announce - possibly even at the convention itself - so libertarians don’t have time to subject him to the same level of scrutiny which the other LP presidential candidates have endured.  After all, Barr does have a long history of doing things which are very, very unlibertarian.

Recently - while sitting on the LNC - he sent out a letter asking people to help him defeat Hillary Clinton by buying his “Barr Report” for $50, and nowhere in that letter did he even once use the word “libertarian” when describing himself (though he did call himself “conservative”, and the envelope called him “Republican”).  He has continued to use his Republican PAC, and he has continued to support Republican candidates even when there is a Libertarian opponent.

Clearly, he would face a lot of very serious questions about his activities while sitting on the LNC - not to mention all the questions about his actions while a Republican in Congress, from wasting $80 million on the failed Clinton impeachment, to his authorship of the Defense of Marriage Act, to his support of the Patriot Act, among other things - were he to announce anytime before the last possible minute.

Personally, I suspect that fear of scrutiny is why he is still hiding behind his “exploratory committee”, and for that reason I have completely discounted him as a serious LP presidential candidate.  Any candidate who has not announced their candidacy at this point, with the convention only a little over two weeks away, is not worthy of the level of trust one must put into a Presidential nominee.

Ride and accommodation sharing at the LP Convention

I have started a forum topic for discussion of the LP Convention on the beta website, for delegates who need to share rides and/or accommodations in order to attend the convention, as well as those willing to help fellow delegates in need of that kind of assistance.

I have broken it down into two categories: one for transportation, and one for accommodations, as well as a category for general convention discussion.  If you need help with both transportation and accommodations, I would suggest you post on both categories, since you may need to get that help from two sources.

You will of course need to register before you can post, just like with any forum.

George Phillies on School Prayer

George Phillies for President 2008

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Real Libertarians Support Freedom of Religion

Worcester, Mass, May 1:  “It’s for our children,” Libertarian Presidential candidate George Phillies explained.  “No one has ever suggested that students are not free to pray.  Do they?  Just watch what happens when I hand out an exam.  I’ve even found prayers jotted next to answers.  However, students should be free to follow their own faiths, not have their teacher’s faith crammed down their throats.  That’s why the First and Fourteenth amendments forbid public schools to force their students, while in school, to say the prayers of a particular sect. With younger students, this is especially important.   When the teacher speaks, most students are sure they must obey.  When a public school teacher leads a prayer, his students are coerced to follow.

“A decade ago, Congress tried to overturn our Constitution’s protection of our children.  On June 4, 1998, Congress narrowly rejected the Istook School Prayer Amendment to the United States Constitution.  The Istook Amendment guaranteed “… the people’s right to pray…on public property, including schools”.  Kentucky Congresswoman Anne Northrup saw the truth:  Teachers are people, and their right to pray out loud in front of their class would be protected by Istook, so this amendment allowed a teacher of one faith to coerce children of other faiths to utter prayers from his faith.  Northrup courageously voted against the Amendment.

“That sounds dead and buried, doesn’t it?” Phillies asked.  “Fast forward a decade to the 2007 Kentucky Republican Governor primary, Ernie Fletcher vs. Anne Northrup.  Rural Kentuckians receive a Robocall ad for Fletcher, attacking Northrup for this long-forgotten vote.  And who recorded that call?  Former Republican Congressman Bob Barr.  Or, it being 2007, sitting Libertarian National Committee member Bob Barr.Protecting school children from coerced prayer should be the libertarian stand.  Barr supported an opposing view.

“Support for school prayer is not the conventional libertarian position,” Phillies said. “Certainly, it’s a position I reject.Public schools should not be turned into religious indoctrination centers.  Real libertarians don’t believe children should be obliged to pray to someone else’s god.  But young children cannot make an informed decision to consent to pray. If their teacher leads a prayer, most of them will follow. “I am delighted to welcome Bob Barr to our party as a member, but his position on this topic, while on our National Committee, is not the position of most Libertarians that I know.  Now Barr is trying to decide whether to run for our Presidential nomination. I urge Libertarians to look carefully at his long legislative record.”

For more on the Robocall ad:
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=18556

‘Northup, who served in Congress for 10 years before losing the seat to a Democrat last year, voted against a 1998 resolution that called for a constitutional amendment that would have allowed voluntary school prayer. One of the co-sponsors of the resolution, former U.S. Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia, took Fletcher’s side in the squabble.

“This amendment, if adopted, would have allowed voluntary school prayer,” Barr said in a recorded statement the Fletcher campaign used in phone calls to Republican voters over the weekend. “Unfortunately, Anne Northup was the only Republican congressional member from Kentucky who
voted against the school prayer amendment.

At a campaign stop in Liberty yesterday, Northup said she voted against the resolution because it would have allowed teachers to lead the prayers, which meant adults of one religion could have been in a position to lead children of another religion in prayer.’ The text of the Istook School Prayer Amendment:

http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r105:13:./temp/~r105YkGGVg:e297755:

105th Congress, June 4, 1998
Text of H.J. Res. 78

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

`To secure the people’s right to acknowledge God according to the dictates of conscience: Neither the United States nor any State shall establish any official religion, but the people’s right to pray and to
recognize their religious beliefs, heritage, or traditions on public property, including schools, shall not be infringed. Neither the United States nor any State shall require any person to join in prayer or other
religious activity, prescribe school prayers, discriminate against religion, or deny equal access to a benefit on account of religion.’.

To support the George Phillies campaign, please visit http://ChooseGeorge.org/donation today.

To arrange an interview or obtain a short quote from the candidate, contact:

Carolyn Marbry, Press Director pressdirector@phillies2008.org
(510) 276-3216

George Phillies for President 2008

George Phillies: “We Can Politely Disagree”

George Phillies for President 2008

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

We Can Politely Disagree:
Sensible Answers to Tough Questions, Part 1

Having urged civil disagreement between candidates, I now enumerate a few points where Mary Ruwart and I take different stands on issues. The following are issues that have significant national interest: The National debt. National defense.  Climate Change. Pollution.  Our answers differ a great deal.  Which do you prefer?  That choice is up to you.

Dr. Ruwart describes herself as being from the libertarian wing of the Libertarian Party.  I view myself as being from the centrist wing of the Libertarian Party:  I’m not Republican Lite, and I’m not an anarchist.

#1 What is the Libertarian response to handling the National Debt?

*Ruwart* (pp. 91-92, Short Answers to the Tough Questions by Mary J. Ruwart): The national debt represents loans to government secured by its willingness to tax (steal from) its citizens.  Thus, some Libertarians view buying government bonds as encouraging a thief and
have no qualms about repudiating the debt.  Others believe that government property (including over 40% of the U.S. landmass) should be liquidated to repay the debt, wholly or in part.

*Phillies*:  Three choices for solving the national debt are paying it, selling assets, and repudiating it.  I  say that we should eliminate the National debt by paying it.

Can we? It’s exactly like paying off a house mortgage.  If you want to pay off a mortgage over 30 years, your monthly payment on the principal starts near a tenth of a percent of initial debt.  We have nine trillion
dollars of national debt.  A budget surplus around $100 billion a year and constant future payments makes our funded national debt go away by 2040.  What about alternative solutions?

Sell Federal lands?  That won’t work. Why?  America has around a billion acres of Federal land.  Parts of that land, such as the Grand Canyon, simply will not be sold. To pay off the national debt by selling the rest, we’d need to clear around $10,000 an acre.  In contrast, in eastern Kansas and Western Missouri, real estate ads show farmland for one or two thousand dollars per acre.  Selling all our Federal lands might raise, being optimistic about central Alaska, perhaps a trillion dollars, ignoring what happens to real estate prices if 40% of our land area hits the market. A trillion dollars is barely a tenth of the funded National debt.

Repudiate the national Debt?  Ask yourself: What happens next? Huge numbers of Americans bought T-Bills for their retirement. Their retirement savings are wiped out. Foreign governments hold dollar reserves in Treasury bonds. The value of the dollar vanishes.  Banks hold financial reserves in Treasury bonds.  Those banks are insolvent; their doors close. The economy collapses.  Furthermore, no one — neither foreign governments nor our own citizens would be willing to lend the U.S. money again since by this point we would have established that we renege on our obligations.

My good friend Mike Badnarik always  asks: ‘Is it Constitutional?’ No, repudiation is not constitutional. The 14th Amendment says so.   And the opposition parties chant ‘Repudiation is Theft’.

#2:  Libertarian National Defense

*Ruwart*: Free trade is the best national defense we could ever have. No country bombs their trading partners.  (page 77)

*Phillies*: A real defense requires real defenses. Trade is no defense.   Countries that trade with each other go to war regularly.  A few examples:

Consider the Latin American countries attacked and occupied, sometimes repeatedly, by their major trade partner, the United States. World War I was fought between countries that had traded substantially with each other. In 1937, Japan invaded major trade partner China.  In 1941, when Germany invaded Russia, and 1945, when Russia invaded Manjukuo, each country attacked a major trading partner.  In 1943, Italy declared war on Germany, which had been not only its largest trade partner but its primary military ally.

National defense requires a real national defense policy, such as the national defense policy that I have previously proposed at http://choosegeorge.org/peace .

To support the George Phillies campaign, please visit http://ChooseGeorge.org/donation today.

To arrange an interview or obtain a short quote from the candidate, contact:

Carolyn Marbry, Press Director pressdirector@phillies2008.org
(510) 276-3216

George Phillies for President 2008 http://ChooseGeorge.org

First Episode of “Last Free Voice Live”

The first (test) episode of Last Free Voice Live is now available online. It’s 30 minutes long, and it’s just me jabbering about our new website, my opinions on the LP Presidential candidates and the resignation of Shane Corey, among other things including the fact that I felt like I had the Ebola Virus while recording it, LOL.  I’m happy to say It went well, with no major technical glitches.  I just winged the entire thing and didn’t bother to use my “interview voice”, since it was only a test episode to make sure the blogtalk account works.

Yeah, I probably should have used my interview voice, since I do sometimes talk rather fast in “real life”, but I felt like reconstituted hell and just wanted to get the test episode done so I could crash on the sofa again, LOL.

Now that I have a pretty good feel for how it works, and have confidence that it will work reliably, I’ll start scheduling real shows with predetermined schedules, specific topics and interesting guests; of course, regular episodes will be longer than 30 minutes.  I will post a description of each episode (including date and time) right here on the blog, as well as on our blogtalk page.  If you have a blogtalk account of your own (you don’t have to do shows to have an account, that’s an additional process) make sure to add LFV Live to your “friends” list.  Also, with an account you can subscribe to the episodes, and even schedule email or text message reminders, so I would suggest we all get one.

We were discussing in another thread what days and times are best for people to listen in (since there will be a call-in opportunity as well, so listeners can ask questions of our guests).  I’d still like to have some input on that issue from everyone, so we can come up with a regular day and time each week for the main “Last Free Voice Live” show.

In addition to the main show (which will not necessarily always be hosted by me, since I am open to other contributors taking their shot at hosting it as well), each of the LFV contributors can host their own LFV Live episodes at other times during the week; you can discuss pretty much whatever you want, content is up to you and all you need to do is contact me so I can set it up for you.  Or, if you’d prefer to be a guest (or can recommend a good guest), by all means, let me know.  :-)

A review of Ron Paul’s The Revolution: A Manifesto

Dr. Ron Paul’s The Revolution: A Manifesto is a concise (167 pages) and convincing argument for a return to America’s libertarian principles. During his campaign for president, Dr. Paul established a very diverse following: Republicans, Democrats, Greens, and “even some anarchists,” he would joke. In truth, many people were drawn to him due his obvious sincerity — a breath of fresh air! — even if they did not fully agree with or understand his ideology. Now they will understand and become Austro-Jeffersonians, one and all!

The first chapter, “The False Choices of American Politics,” demonstrates why those Ron Paul supporters who do understand his message cannot bring themselves to vote for either McCain or Hillary/Obama, or even to really care who among them wins: There is very little (if any) substantive difference between them. They may disagree about when and where to use foreign intervention, but never over whether it should be used at all. They may disagree over how fast interest rates should be cut by the Fed, but never over whether the Fed should exist. You get the idea.

Chapters 2 and 3 are titled “The Foreign Policy of the Founding Fathers” and “The Constitution,” respectively. Here Dr. Paul challenges his neocon and liberal opponents to openly condemn the wisdom of the founding fathers, which they do with their actions, or else follow it. The framers of the Constitution were far from unanimous — there were bitter disputes among so-called “Federalists” (Hamiltonian nationalists) and “republicans” (Jeffersonian decentralists) — but today’s neocon/liberals reject the wisdom of both parties, taking an expansive view of their powers that even Hamilton himself would have seen as excessive.

Chapter 4, “Economic Freedom,” may be an eye-opening one for many readers. First, there are the liberals who were attracted to Dr. Paul’s campaign, who may for the first time be presented with a contrast between the true Austro-Jeffersonian libertarian brand of capitalism and the inflationist, Kudlow & Company / Forbes magazine variety. Secondly there are many “paleoconservatives” I met who supported Dr. Paul but were under the mistaken impression that he was against free trade — nothing could be further from the truth! In fact, as Dr. Paul points out here, he is 100% in favor of unilateral, unconditional free trade and 100% against quotas, sanctions, embargoes, duties, and protective tariffs. He does oppose phony “free-trade” deals like NAFTA and the WTO (joining many liberal Democrats in doing so, but for different reasons) not because they “steal American jobs” (they don’t), but because they limit trade too greatly. Furthermore, they erode constitutional sovereignty and work for the benefit of politically connected elites, something with which libertarians, paleocons, and liberals can all agree.

All three constituencies will also cheer Chapter 5, “Civil Liberties and Personal Freedom.” Here the contrast between Jeffersonian libertarianism (once considered “liberalism” before that philosophy was given a bad name in the early twentieth century) and the so-called “conservatism” of the neocons and post-WWII New Rightists is perhaps at its greatest. Ron Paul supports the Constitution and the limits it places on government — which makes him a “blame America” leftist among the neocon punditry, all apologists for the liberal Wilson/FDR/Truman/LBJ foreign policy, by the way.

But the best and most important chapter, without a doubt, is Chapter 6, “Money: The Forbidden Issue in American Politics.” Here Dr. Paul expertly details the operations of the Federal Reserve System in stunning clarity — no conspiracy theories or half-truths that often further obfuscate discussion of the secretive monetary authority. The Austrian (and true) perspective on the Fed is not to be horrified that the Fed isn’t a government agency (it is, even if indirectly), but to be outraged that all banks are essentially arms of the government. We don’t need the government to have even more control over the money supply, we need it to have no control whatsoever (the exact opposite of what sources like Freedom 2 Fascism seem to suggest). What’s more, Dr. Paul doesn’t spread the myth that the Fed somehow profits as an entity when it creates money (its profits go to the Treasury), but instead, politically connected individuals and businesses profit at the expense of working-class and poor families. You see, the effects of inflation are not uniform — the Fed System works as a wealth redistribution system from poor and middle-class to the rich and politically connected. How so? Buy this book and find out!

Finally, the book ends with the self-titled seventh chapter in which Dr. Paul lays out a moderate and realistic course that could be accomplished over one or two presidential terms. I’m tempted to share this blueprint for you here but I don’t want to discourage anyone from buying the book. Instead, I’ll use the last few words of this review to lament the fact that this blueprint will certainly not be implemented by the next president. Perhaps a young man or woman who volunteered for Ron Paul’s campaign in 2008 will work his or her way up through the political establishment and be swept into office, with a like-minded Paulian Congress, sixteen years from now (just as Reagan followed sixteen years after Goldwater — not that either of these two are to be looked at as heroes. . .). We can only hope that the Republic can endure that long!

P.S. If you like my review, please go to Amazon and give it a “helpful” ranking. It is currently one of the featured reviews.

LFV Exclusive…….

First of all, it’s great to be back at the “new and improved” Last Free Voice. I like what Elfnino’s Mom is doing to the site and hopefully she’ll let me stay here as long as she can stand me. Face it, she did endorse me but due to financial reasons I had to terminate my campaign. Maybe I’ll try again in eight years!

Now that I am no longer a candidate for office and will be graduating next Saturday (party at my house, B.Y.O.Beer, if you’re in the area, you’re invited), I’ll just give you my opinion on all the serious candidates (yeah I’m excluding those like Milnes, Burns, Hollist, Imper-wacko, Link and other not-so-serious candidates).

Now who can I ridicule, I mean, talk about first. Let’s talk about Christine Smith. I think she’s crazy personally. I contacted her early in her campaign and she seemed like a nice person until she stopped calling or e-mailing me. Then again she doesn’t return e-mails to anyone. Steve Gordon has tried to get an interview with her for TPW. I think Tom Knapp has tried for Rational Review. Even her supporters can’t get a hold of her. What a way to blow off your base support by ignoring them. Great campaign strategy! She may have enough support to make to the debate in Denver. Out of all the candidates who would have an easy time to get to Denver, it’s her, even though she failed to make it to her own state party’s convention. Good luck Christine, run for Congress next time. Besides, I think she’s threatened by Mary Ruwart’s celebrity status.

Next is Mike Gravel. I’m glad to see a former Senator in our party even though he’s been out of office for 25+ years. He brings to the party a lot of passion. He’s not going to be our Presidential candidate. He’s supports the “fraud tax” and universal health care but he’s anti-war, anti- drug war and anti-Income Tax. He needs some grooming in our party.

Next is George Phillies. I like George, he’s a nice guy, not Presidential. He should be running for an at large spot on the LNC. George and I worked on Russo’s and Badnarik’s campaigns back in 2004. I have to say this much: George’s campaign is better organized than the others and I’m impressed. Now the big problem I have with George is that it seems like he has no respect for pro-life Libertarians and that he favors the continuation of the Federal Reserve and the Inflation Tax. Run for LNC in 2010, I will vote for YOU!

Next is Mike Jingozian. Mike is a nice guy, I spoke with at length in Kansas City. Very smart business man; a man with a plan! Unfortunately, Mike, you would be a great Gubernatorial candidate in Oregon. I can’t say much about Mr. Jingozian but I think his time is not now, maybe 2012.

Next is Bob Barr. Bob would be my third choice right now. There’s a huge problem why Bob Barr isn’t higher. He supports the “fraud tax” and he doesn’t fully agree with decriminalization of drugs. Bob, just answer the questions, we Libertarians have been trying to get you to answer since your grand announcement. Please re-clarify your stance on these issues or DON’T RUN FOR PRESIDENT!

Next is the oh so arrogant Wayne Allyn Root. I dislike him; he’s like a used car salesman selling a lemon. He’s just another conservative trying to hijack the LP. A Root nomination will effectively destroy the LP. Mr. Root can not see that the LP is NOT a wing of the “Torture” party. Libertarians aren’t conservatives and if you can’t see that, just leave the party-wait I’ll help you pack your bags.

Next is Steve Kubby. Before I jumped into the VP race, I supported Kubby. Kubby would be my second choice right now but I hope he doesn’t let his ego get the best of him and run for VP. Besides Tom Knapp would kick my ass if I didn’t say something nice about Kubby.

Finally, there is Mary Ruwart. I’m endorsing Mary because she’s the best candidate for the party. She will bring members into the party that will last. She’s the type of candidate that would be able to bring in the younger people, more women and possibly minorities into our homogeneous party. She’s not loud nor shy. She’s angry but soft-spoken. She’s articulate and principled. It’s just too bad I won’t be able to make it to Denver to cast me vote for her. I’ll be glued to C-Span all weekend though watching our convention but it’s not the same. At least if Mary is our nominee we will have our party intact and to me that’s what’s important.

The shamelessness of the neocon business press

Investor’s Business Daily is a great paper for monitoring the financial markets. It’s also great for monitoring the deranged hysteria of the right-most Fascist fringe of the neoconservative movement.

Wednesday’s editorial page featured an absolutely shameless hit-piece against the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Although I do not agree with Rev. Wright’s racially collectivist views, his foreign-policy outlook seems right on the money, at least from what I’ve read and heard. But IBD characterizes Wright’s politically incorrect truth telling as “lying.” Apparently, anything said against the Regime qualifies as a “lie” — regardless of whether it is factually accurate or not. Ignorance really is strength!

From the article:

It’s a lie that the U.S. government pumps drugs into the black community to entice black men into prison. . .

Really? So agents of the U.S. government, i.e. the FBI, don’t sell drugs as part of undercover operations? Is that what IBD is alleging here? With a straight face? Come on! But of course, the federal government’s “pumping” operations go much deeper than that. Even if widely documented accounts of the CIA drug trafficking can be denied, it cannot be disputed that the U.S. government’s unconstitutional prohibition of illicit drugs results in reduced supply, higher prices, greater profits, and stimulated demand.

I guess one could quibble over what the definition of “pumping” is. But can you believe that IBD actually had the audacity to go here?

Wright added another lie — that if we wanted to know if Saddam Hussein was using chemical and biological weapons, all we had to do is check our sales records: “We sold him those biological weapons that he was using against his own people.”

I know plenty of neocons who don’t even deny this fact — even neighborhood fascists who still claim Saddam had WMDs buried in the desert! One has to truly be oblivious to reality to characterize the above as a “lie.”

Now how about this one:

“We have troops all over the world, just like Rome had troops stationed all over the world. That notion of imperialism is not the message of the gospel of the prince of peace, nor of God, who loves the world.”

What is IBD saying when they say the above is