Change in meeting time for LNC meeting

The LNC meeting in San Diego on Saturday, December 6th, has been changed to start at 8:00 am, rather than the original starting time of 8:30 am.

Anyone planning to attend needs to make sure they note this time change.

LNC Financial Report leaked

Though as always I will not reveal my source …. since everything which goes wrong on the LNC these days seems to be automatically blamed on Angela Keaton, I’d like to be very clear in saying that Ms. Keaton was not my source for this leaked document, nor to my knowledge did she have any part in it having been leaked.

lnc-financial-package-2008-10-31-version-2

LNC Attorney Bill Hall’s memo to LNC

The LNC’s own longtime attorney, Bill Hall, seems pretty much fed up with their shenanigans according to his latest memo.  Here, read it for yourself.

bill-hall-lnc

A message from Wayne Allyn Root

Just after the presidential election, I sent a long e-mail message to Wayne Allyn Root with some suggestions for how he could prepare for a Libertarian presidential run in 2012. I had exchanged a few friendly e-mails with Root during the campaign, and he always replied quickly, so when I did not hear back after a couple of weeks, I wrote him a brief message asking for his reaction. This is his reply, in full, without edits:

As far as your suggestions i get 200+ emails per day…and dozens of calls…they all blur….all i remember is that you had good suggestions…I agreed with them…but to be honest…what they were…I do not remember anymore. My life is that busy nowadays.
As far as “likely candidates for LP”… I’m now the face of LP on FOX News…I offer the opportunity of a lifetime for LP. all other LP potential candidates offer “back to the past” (LP is invisible and meaningless).
Wayne Allyn Root
2008 Libertarian Vice Presidential Nominee

The LNC shows its true agenda

The Agenda for the December LNC meeting – which looks like someone has quite an agenda indeed – has listed 30 minutes for “Discipline of Angela Keaton”.

How strangely interesting that Angela Keaton was unaware of this item until the agenda was released. Quite the contrary, in fact, since she was under the impression that the “discipline” discussed at the last meeting was now moot.

There are several theories floating around about that agenda item, and one of them is that Angela is being disciplined for wearing a Boston Tea Party t-shirt. It appears that at least one LNC member snooped around her Facebook until he found the allegedly incriminating photo.  Why on earth would someone do that, unless they had a predetermined agenda?

Problem is, though I had seen the picture numerous times, to the point that I knew exactly which photo was in question even before I saw it, even I didn’t know it was Angela in the t-shirt, since the photo doesn’t show her head or face.  Honestly, I thought it was Miche modeling the t-shirt.  That being the case, how could it possibly be a breach of duty even if, arguendo, it is Angela?

The other theory is that during the last LNC meeting, Angela was given ten days to apologize, but she has not done so; and as a result, rather than the item being moot, it is being revisited.  I did not believe then that the LNC acted professionally or with the best interests of the LP at heart in their behavior during the last LNC meeting, and I still do not believe they acted appropriately.  

One thing is abundantly clear, and must not be forgotten: Angela Keaton is a two-term elected member of the Libertarian National Committee. She is the most active LNC member by far with regard to keeping the membership apprised of party actions and business.  As such, she is irreplaceable.  To even attempt to remove her yet again, will cause irreparable damage to the morale of many libertarians at a time when the LP can hardly afford to spread ill will.  

Last but certainly not least, this silly vendetta makes the LP look grossly unprofessional to those who are outside looking in.  We don’t see the major parties comporting themselves in this manner regarding strictly internal questions, because they know how damaging it would be not only to their personal reputations, but the reputation of the party they represent.  The LP doesn’t have a built-in constituency like the GOP and the Democrats.  The LP cannot afford behavior which makes them look like they’re coming apart at the seams from the inside, yet that’s exactly how this appears.

It is one thing when libertarians fuss and fight with each other.  It is something altogether different when the elected governing body is engaging in that behavior.

This is not how such internal problems – assuming it is a problem at all, and in my opinion it is not – should be handled.  Furthermore, I don’t understand why 30 minutes is being set aside for the LNC to publicly humiliate an elected representative, while far less time is set aside for far more substantive matters.

Frankly, I am disappointed.  I was under the mistaken impression that the LNC is comprised of adults. Instead they appear to be perpetually in kindergarten, where they put people in “time out” for alleged offenses, then keep badgering them until they apologize even when they don’t believe they did anything wrong.

Seriously, LNC, is badgering Angela Keaton worth 30 minutes of your meeting time, when your presidential candidate fell so far short of his pre-nomination promises that the end result was nothing short of humiliating? Is it worth it to burn up that time when you should be discussing the fact that your presidential candidate gave money to Republicans running against Libertarian candidates? Is it worth it so you don’t have to discuss your VP candidate’s racist comments in Reason Magazine?  Is it worth it to burn up that time when the LP is, financially speaking, the rough equivalent of the Titanic?  Or is burning up time the whole point, since “disciplining” Angela Keaton will eat up time more enlighteningly spent analyzing and discussing what went so terribly wrong with the Libertarian Party this election season, and what part the LNC played in that failure?

The LNC already ate up a great deal of its only pre-election meeting with “disciplining” Angela Keaton, when they had far more important things to discuss; and perhaps if they had spent their time doing what it is that they were elected to do, the election would have fared far better. How long is this vindictive agenda against Ms. Keaton going to continue? Why wasn’t this discussed on the LNC talk list, rather than dragged out into full public view? There is really only one possible reason for that, and that reason is to publicly humiliate Angela Keaton.

Why should anyone take the LNC seriously, when they repeatedly waste precious quarterly meeting time trying to remove an elected LNC member, rather than discussing the important issues which affect the party as a whole?  I find the LNC’s behavior on this subject to be extremely distasteful, and downright embarrassing.  

Nevertheless, Angela Keaton has every right to appear at that meeting fully prepared to refute the charges against her.  However, that will prove difficult since she has not been formally apprised of the specific charges against her, nor has she been apprised of the identity of her accuser(s).  

What kind of kangaroo court does the LNC plan to hold in San Diego?  Again, it disgusts me, as it should disgust all libertarians.  It is an act of aggression against a woman elected by the membership, through its delegates.  This is not Ms. Keaton’s first term, so it’s not as if they didn’t know exactly who they were electing, or why they were electing her.  Ms. Keaton was elected to do exactly what she has done to get her into this predicament, which is to represent the voiceless within the LP through whatever means necessary.  That was the will of the membership.  Now, she is paying a heady price, and to what end?  What does the LNC stand to gain from her departure?  That is a question best posed to the LNC member behind the agenda item in question, as well as for any other LNC member who supports this action.

One thing is for sure.  This insistence by the LNC to continue its vendetta against Ms. Keaton will only harm the Libertarian Party, its members, and the libertarian movement as a whole.  Longtime respected libertarian activists are rebelling already; and without the activists, the LP may as well not even exist.

For the above reasons, I respectfully suggest that those who keep pushing this anti-Keaton agenda should be the ones disciplined, for openly engaging in a public vendetta against a fellow elected representative, thus causing serious harm to the party they are duty-bound to protect.

LNC Meeting Agenda

Libertarian National Committee, Inc.

December 6-7, 2008 Meeting Agenda

San Diego, California

 

Saturday, December 6, 2008 & Sunday, December 7, 2008
Call to Order	8:30 AM
Moment of Reflection	1 minute
Opportunity for Public Comment	10 minutes
Credentials Report and Paperwork Check (Secretary)	5 minutes
Report of Potential Conflicts of Interest	5 minutes
Approval of the Agenda	5 minutes
Standing Reports
Chair’s Report	20 minutes
Treasurer’s Report	30 minutes
Secretary’s Report	10 minutes
Wayne Allyn Root to Address the LNC	30 minutes
Discipline of Angela Keaton	30 minutes
Staff Report
Staff Reports	60 minutes
Counsel’s Report	15 minutes
Action Items Previously Submitted in Writing
	0 minutes
Reports Previously Submitted in Writing
Campus Organizing Report (Lark)	5 minutes
Various Regions	5 minutes per
Action Items Not Previously Submitted in Writing
Mission Statement (Hawkridge)	60 minutes
Goals (Lark/Dixon)	60 minutes
Executive Director Search (Colley)	10 minutes
Budget 2009 (Starr) (already submitted in writing)	120 minutes
Convention 2010 (Colley)	15 minutes
Convention Electronic Voting Demonstration (Mattson)	30 minutes
Bylaws Committee Report (Karlan)	10 minutes
LNCC Report (Hawkridge)	10 minutes
Policy Manual Amendment—Authorization of Lawsuits (Lark)	20 minutes
Policy Manual Amendment—Mail Ballot Reporting (Karlan)	10 minutes
LNC Meeting Video Recording & Archiving (Keaton)	15 minutes
Executive Session Minutes/Confidentiality (Fox)	15 minutes
LP News Content (Keaton)	15 minutes
Set LNC Meeting Dates for July orAug. & Nov. or Dec. 2009	15 minutes
Opportunity for Public Comment	10 minutes
Adjournment

LP Platform Committee Candidates

Barber, Chris
Carmany, Michael
Carpenter, Corey
Gordon, Stephen
Green, Stephen
Hauptmann, Joe
Hogarth, Susan
Holtz, Brian
Howell, John
Jacob, John
Mattson, Alicia
Mayer, Adam
Oakson, James
Power, Rob
Roland, Jon
Sink-Burris, Rebecca
Starchild
Stewart, Richard
Stewart, Scott

 

Do LFV readers have any thoughts on the candidates with regard to how well they would function in that capacity?

A bureaucracy of dunces

There are a lot of reasons why the District of Columbia needs a Libertarian Party. Here is a personal one — the strange saga of the $2,000.00 fine I was assessed by the Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs (dcra@dc.gov) for property I do not own, and the officious response of unelected bureaucrat Edries Jemal (edries.jemal@dc.gov) when I dared to question it.

None of the Many ZAPs Define Libertarianism

What ZAP advocates studiously ignore is that there is more than one Zero Aggression Principle, depending on what set of aggressors you have in mind, what constitutes aggression (http://libertarianmajority.net/free-variables-in-libertarian-theory), whether you think of zero as an implementable rule or an ideal asymptote, and (if the latter) whether you think that asymptote must only be approached monotonically.

Defining “libertarian” as fealty to one’s own interpretation of ZAP is silly and tendentious.  Words have meanings.  The dictionary tells us that, to competent speakers of English, “libertarian” means “one who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state”.  I accept that definition of libertarianism, even though I think the particular school of libertarianism that I favor is arguably superior to the other schools in terms of maximizing individual rights.  However, I’m not so doubt-stricken about that superiority that I need the LP to officially reassure me of it, or that I need to define other schools as un-libertarian in a desperate attempt to avoid clear-eyed comparisons of them.

“Direction” versus “principle” is a false dichotomy.  The BTP platform is entirely directional, but even it is not unprincipled.  The current LP platform is “directional” only in the sense that it leaves some ambiguity about how much of the state would remain in Libertopia. I heartily agree that directionally defining “more libertarian” as “less government” is not optimally principled. It’s indeed always more libertarian to minimize the role of the state, but not every function has a minimum of zero.

I’ve become steadily more radical during my involvement with the LP.  I began as a Friedmanite consequentialist minarchist, but now I’m a radical geolibertarian (http://ecolibertarian.org/manifesto).  I reject the quaint idea that radicalness can be measured as the inverse of the size of the bumper sticker that your worldview fits on.  In particular, I think that the anarcholibertarian interpretation of ZAP is insufficiently radical in three distinct ways.  First, it myopically focuses on how much aggression gets committed in your name, rather than how much aggression gets committed.  Second, it institutionalizes the non-policing of certain kinds of aggression — such as aggression involving non-excludable common resources, where negative externalities are too distributed and cumulative to be policed privately.  Third, it completely denies the existence of an entire class of aggression — monopolistic appropriation of ground rent.  Any one of these considerations would lead me to regard Rothbardian ZAPstentionists as insufficiently radical — i.e. as insufficiently opposed to aggression.  However, I’m happy to work with suboptimal libertarians like them, and I don’t need the LP to give me an intellectual security blanket by endorsing my school of libertarianism as better than theirs.  I’ve got a nanny state to destroy, and I’ll take all the help I can get.

Parental Rights Amendment

From ParentalRights.org:

DRAFT PARENTAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT FOR THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

SECTION 1
The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is a fundamental right.

SECTION 2
Neither the United States nor any state shall infringe upon this right without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served.

SECTION 3
No treaty nor any source of international law may be employed to supersede, modify, interpret, or apply to the rights guaranteed by this article.

A brief announcement

As some of you know, I had been publicly considering running for the Libertarian National Committee in 2010. After some very helpful consultations with current LNC members, I have decided not to run. The financial and time commitment would be more than I can handle. Also, while I would like to be useful to building the LP, I am relatively new to activism and the LNC is a bit high an initial aspiration. There are many other committed veteran activists — some of whom write and comment here at LFV — who would be stronger candidates. I hope some of them will run. Thanks to all who offered their support, encouragement, and advice.

Joy Behar thinks my sons are demented

Former public school teacher Joy Behar, who for some reason has a national television soap box (which she has used to call Roman Catholic priests drunkards and to accuse the GOP of trying to kill Sen. Tim Johnson), thinks my sons are “demented”:

Well, maybe she has a point…

Jason Gatties resigns as Boston Tea Party Chairman

Dear Freedom Fighters,

I would like to thank those who have expressed concerned over the illness in my family. Trust me, it does help. I also want to thank everyone who in this brief period of serving as chairman, supported my efforts. However, sometimes in life, there are more important battles and I’m at that stage right now. When I decided to run for the Chair seat, I could not foresee the issues that have popped up in my life personally over the past two weeks.

The Boston Tea Party deserves a Chairman who can dedicate 100% towards the cause. I’m simply unable to do that at this time. Family comes first and politics will always take a back seat to that. It is for this reason that I must officially resign as Chairman of the Boston Tea Party. I need to tend to family & more importantly, my pregnant wife. There is nothing more important to me than her health and I want to make sure that I can be there to hold her hand during this stressful period. She is very close to her family, but they live an ocean away, so hearing about someone she was close to dying of cancer is just a bit much right now. I’m all she has and I must be there for her.

I’m sure there will be those who will rip me for this decision and that is within your right to do so. However, I will never put politics ahead of family.

It was an honor to be elected your Chairman and I’m confident Douglass Gaking will be a fantastic Chairman, as he takes over my duties on a full time basis. The timing is just bad. I wish I could stick around and help this party grow, and perhaps I can in the future in some capacity, but right now just isn’t that time.

Thank you all so very much. Take care and keep fighting the good fight.

Jason Gatties

GM plans to invest $1 billion of US bailout money in Brazil

From Latin American Herald Tribune:

By Russ Dallen
Latin American Herald Tribune staff

General Motors plans to invest $1 billion in Brazil to avoid the kind of problems the U.S. automaker is facing in its home market, said the beleaguered car maker.

According to the president of GM Brazil-Mercosur, Jaime Ardila, the funding will come from the package of financial aid that the manufacturer will receive from the U.S. government and will be used to “complete the renovation of the line of products up to 2012.”

“It wouldn’t be logical to withdraw the investment from where we’re growing, and our goal is to protect investments in emerging markets,” he said in a statement published by the business daily Gazeta Mercantil.

Meanwhile, he cut the company’s revenue forecast for this year by 14% to $9.5 billion from $11 billion, as the economic crisis began to cause rapid slowdowns in sales. 

GM already announced three programs of paid leave, and Ardila added that GM Brazil “is going to wait and see how the market behaves in order to know what decision to take” with regard to possible layoffs.

For Ardila, the injection in Brazil’s automobile sector of 8 billion reais ($3.51 billion) recently announced by the federal and state governments of Sao Paulo “has already begun to revive sales,” which fell by 12% in October.

The executive said that the company will operate a “conservative” scenario in 2009 with an estimated production of 2.6 million units, and another more “optimistic” that contemplates sales of 2.9 million.

This year sales will reach 2.85 million vehicles, which represents a growth of 15% over last year.

Russ Dallen with EFE in Sao Paulo

Hat tip Brad Spangler

Cheney and Gonzalez indicted in Texas

From Houston Chronicle:

McALLEN — A South Texas grand jury has indicted Vice President Dick Cheney and former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on state charges related to the alleged abuse of prisoners in Willacy County’s federal detention centers.

The indictment, which had not yet been signed by the presiding judge, was one of seven released Tuesday in a county that has been a source of bizarre legal and political battles in recent years. Another of the indictments named a state senator on charges of profiting from his position.

Willacy County District Attorney Juan Angel Guerra himself had been under indictment for more than a year and half before a judge dismissed the indictments last month. This flurry of charges came in the twilight of Guerra’s tenure, which ends this year after nearly two decades in office. He lost convincingly in a Democratic primary in March.

Cheney’s indictment on a charge of engaging in an organized criminal activity criticizes the vice president’s investment in the Vanguard Group, which holds interests in the private prison companies running the federal detention centers. It accuses Cheney of a conflict of interest and “at least misdemeanor assaults” on detainees because of his link to the prison companies.

Megan Mitchell, a spokeswoman for Cheney, declined to comment on Tuesday, saying that the vice president had not yet received a copy of the indictment.

The indictment accuses Gonzales of using his position while in office to stop an investigation in 2006 into abuses at one of the privately-run prisons.

Gonzalez’s attorney, George Terwilliger III, said in a written statement, “This is obviously a bogus charge on its face, as any good prosecutor can recognize. Hopefully, competent Texas authorities will take steps to reign in this abuse of the criminal justice system.”

Willacy County has become a prison hub with county, state and federal lockups. Guerra has gone after the prison-politician nexus before, extracting guilty pleas from three former Willacy and Webb county commissioners after investigating bribery related to federal prison contacts.

(Click link above to read entire article)

The Fall of Ted Stevens

The word is out, and it seems official. Alaskan Senator Ted Stevens has lost his re-election bid after serving since 1968. This is pretty implosive for the Republican Party. Even if he won, it would have been the closest win for him. One would have to note how surprisingly close it was after he became a convicted felon not long ago.

I will not focus on the federal conviction, the man, or his corruption. I will instead focus on the dawning of a new political era. I don’t say this as a good thing, being a Libertarian stuck in the perpetual election ditch. Let me try to explain what I’m getting at.

In the past few years, We’ve had the same old, crotchety Senators filling in the role of leadership of the party in control. This being the position of President pro tempore. History buff’s, or idiots with a computer (Comrade Theodore), will know that President pro tempore is the highest official position in the Senate, right under the now-legislatively defunct Vice President. This is the order since 1981:

Strom Thurmond

John C. Stennis

Robert Byrd

Strom Thurmond

Robert Byrd

Strom Thurmond

Robert Byrd

Ted Stevens

Robert Byrd

Anybody notice a pattern? Now Strom Thurmond and John Stennis are dead, Stevens is facing prison time, and Byrd is 91.

The question isn’t what will happen now, but what will happen in the future. As the old guard passes on, who will the two parties choose as their standard bearer? The GOP lacks seemingly sane or sensible leadership and the Democratic Party (in the Legislative Branch at least) lacks guts or purpose.

These parties lack leadership, and they lack ideas that attract people to them. The next few months and years will shape how these parties will work and operate in the future. They will either thrive or fall. Either way, My Fellow Libertarians, this is the time to be on our toes.

Thanks for Reading,

-Mike

Nearly 4% of North Carolinians voted Libertarian

Shane Killian of the LPNC does some number-crunching to calculate the minimum number of voters in North Carolina who voted for at least one Libertarian. His full piece – with the explanation of how he got the numbers – is here, but I’ve copied the abstract below.

In 2004, I calculated that a bare minimum of 129,717 North Carolina voters cast a vote for at least one Libertarian on the ballot. I achieved this by taking the largest vote total for us statewide (Christopher Cole for Lt. Governor), looking at counties where a Libertarian received more votes, and adding those to the total after subtracting Cole’s votes for that county.

I just did that again for our 2008 totals. This time, it was Mark McMains, who ran for Commissioner of Insurance, who garnered the most votes statewide (153,515). Using the same method, I have calculated the minimum number of North Carolina voters who voted for at least one balloted Libertarian. Caveats and analysis are below the fold, but I’ll go ahead and give you the total:

167,854
Again, these are unique votes for at least one balloted Libertarian, and is a minimum. The real number is certainly higher, although there’s no way to tell by how much.

Liberty for America critiques spending, announces PAC

George Phillies’ Liberty for America newsletter (November 08 issue) discusses and critiques spending by the Bob Barr campaign, as well as by the LNC.

liberty-for-america-nov08

Liberty for America says that it is “not currently” a political party, and does “not currently” run or endorse political candidates, but is “preparing to offer positive political alternatives not available elsewhere”.  

The organization is currently accepting donations, as well as memberships at the rate of $15 per year, though currently its PDF-format newsletter is available free of charge.  Free newsletter subscription information is contained in the newsletter.

According to the newsletter, the Liberty for America PAC will soon be in place to financially support liberty-minded candidates.

The Liberty for America website is here.

Antiwar.com: Just Say No to Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State

Antiwar.com Action Alert         Say ’NO’ to Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State                      Quick Links                    Originial Antiwar.com Column by Justin Raimondo       Newsletter        Take Action  Donate          Dear Antiwar.com Supporter,   Please let the incoming presidential administration know that you demand real change in our interventionist foreign policy. A Secrectary of State Hilllary Clinton is not change but tacit approval for someone who supported the bombing of Kosovo, the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, and a renewed cold war with Russia.    Demand President Elect Barack Obama make a stand for peace by not appointing Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. You can easily let the transition team know your thoughts on this matter by calling 202-540-3000 or pasting the letter below into this form.     Dear President Elect Obama:   You sailed to victory on the promise of change and hope. For those of us who love peace, a change in foreign policy cannot come about by rewarding those who support and argued for the continued occupation of Iraq. You said we must not ”to bully it [the world] into submission – we must lead the world, by deed and example.”  Please allow your administration to reflect those values you so eloquently expressed.    President Elect Obama, we want change in the White House. We ask you to not to appoint Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State.    Respectfully,       [Antiwar.com Reader] For more information about this action item, media requests, donations or other information, contact Angela Keaton at 323-512-7095 or angela@antiwar.com.

Antiwar

BTP Chair Jason Gatties steps back from duties due to personal issues

I wanted to make everyone aware that I’m going to step away from my
duties as Chairman of the Boston Tea Party National Committee to take
care of some personal issues. There’s an illness on my wife’s side of
the family and we have very few details at the moment.

My wife, who is pregnant, is pretty stressed out and rightfully so.
She deserves my love and attention right now, as any good husband
would provide.

Vice Chairman Douglass Gaking will take over my duties for the time
being. Right now, there is no set time line for my return, but I hope
to resume my duties in the very near future.

Please keep my family in your thoughts.

In Liberty,

Jason Gatties
Chairman
Boston Tea Party National Committee

 

Positive thoughts and best wishes go out to Jason and Cilla Gatties (and their family) from everyone at LFV.  Please do not hesitate to let us know if there is anything we can do to help.  In the meantime, we’ll keep your place on LFV warm for you, until you are in a position to return.

Brian Doherty: Where the Libertarian Party went wrong

 With the nomination of former Republican Congressman Bob Barr, many in the Libertarian Party anticipated the LP’s most successful presidential campaign to date. In his definitive postmortem, Senior Editor Brian Doherty explains where the Barr campaign went wrong.

Read all about it here.

LP Platform Committee application sample planks

Applications for the LP’s Platform Committee were due this weekend, and were to include three sample planks. Following are the three I submitted. A fourth ‘bonus plank’ follows, especially for Robert Capozzi.

National and Community Defense

A community of free people will act in their own defense and that of their neighbors without compulsion. We oppose any form of compulsory military service, including taxation to support a standing or wartime military.

Social Security

It is the right and responsibility of each individual to provide for his old age as he best sees fit. We therefore support the abolition of the compulsory, burdensome, and unworkable Social Security system. Those who have been victims of the Social Security tax and who can therefore rightfully expect some compensation for their effort should have a claim against government property.

Civil Disobedience

Obedience to unjust laws perpetuates injustice. Therefore, we support peaceful disobedience of all unjust laws.

Bonus Plank: Offensive Weapons

Weapons which cannot be used without extensive concomitant damage to civilian populations (often called ‘weapons of mass destruction’) are – whether controlled by individuals or by states – the tools of terrorism, and as such have no place in the arsenal of a free people. We therefore support a ban on ownership of such weapons and call on the U.S. Government to divest itself of such offensive weaponry. The U.S. Government’s nuclear, chemical, and biological arsenals should be dismantled promptly, and further government research into the production of such materials should cease immediately.

My Cabinet

With all the speculation about Barack Obama’s Cabinet, I thought I’d put together one of my own…

State: Ted Galen Carpenter

Treasury: Ron Paul

Defense: Karen Kwiatkowski

Attorney General: Floyd Abrams

Interior: Randal O’Toole

Agriculture: Norman Borlaug

Commerce: Calvin Coolidge

Labor: Stan Greer

Health and Human Services: Mary Ruwart

Housing and Urban Development: Sean Christopher Colon

Transportation: Wendell Cox

Energy: Rowan Sage

Education: John Taylor Gatto

Veterans Affairs: Adam Kokesh

Homeland Security: Bob Barr

Environmental Protection Agency: Fred Smith

Drug Control Policy: Keith Stroup

I do know Calvin Coolidge is dead, but since the sole function of the Commerce Department is to impede commerce, I want my secretary to be as inactive as possible.

A sucker sucked in

Well, my half-baked attempt to take a break has failed. Libertarian politics is just too damn entertaining for me to sit out, especially now that both baseball season and election season are over. Bob Barr (who I did ultimately vote for) didn’t do much worse than my team the Orioles, so I’m not too disappointed.

I don’t have much to write about at the moment, but I am resuming my claim to LFV contributor status. I miss hanging out with the cool kids, and I miss being called an idiot. (My sons aren’t old enough to start calling me that yet.) I’m happy to see Angela Keaton and Tom Knapp in the arena, though it’s weird having several friends running for president and having to decide which one, if any, to support. This must be what it feels like to be a senator. At the risk of angering everybody, I also have to say I’m still a fan of Wayne Allyn Root, which I’ll explain at some point in the future. I think the LP/BTP will have several good choices in 2012. (I’m hoping for a joint LP-BTP candidacy under the BLT label. Mmm… bacon.)

Speaking of candidacies, I will not be running for any public office any time soon. For one thing, I realized I have absolutely no desire to do so. For another, I couldn’t do so and keep my present job, which is a good gig that allows me a lot of time with my sons, whom we are homeschooling. If I do ever run for anything, it might be D.C. delegate to Congress. I am considering running for Libertarian National Committee in 2010 or 2012, but that’s a good ways off yet.

Is Executive Session Overused or Abused in the LNC?

Well, George Donnelly made an attempt to find out.

He posted his results here.

But I’ll respectfully disagree with his findings, in part because of what happened to Angela Keaton in September, but also because of what happened to three other highly-respected Libertarians back before the 2008 LP National Convention. A report has come out that at the spring LNC meeting, in Executive Session (ES), Aaron Starr, Shane Cory, and M Carling were bashing BetteRose Ryan, Tony Ryan, and Michelle Poague because of Shotgun Willie’s co-sponsoring of the Convention in Denver.

Now, to be clear on the disclosure, I will quote myself from the past:

“I’ve known BetteRose Ryan for years. Ditto her husband, Tony, and her sister, Michelle Poague. I consider them my friends. They are great people, first class all around. BetteRose and Tony have both served the LP with distinction in both LPCO (BetteRose as state chair and predecessor to my state chair, John Berntson, Tony on the LPCO Board with me), and as LNC representatives (BetteRose as at-large, and Tony currently in a region). Michelle has also served on the LPCO Board in 2003-4. I was busy being a dad at that time as my son was born 4 days after the 2003 LPCO convention, which I helped organize, following the BetteRose “Cookbook” for conventions. I stepped down from the LPCO Board at that point for exactly that reason–parenting called.

“Shotgun Willie’s is the premiere club in Denver metro, in the unincorporated Glendale district. A lot of the girls there are LPCO activists, including Michelle. They co-sponsored the LPUS Convention. To Coloradoans, we know them as the “Glendale Ballet”, and they have been mainstays in the LPCO, especially at election night parties, for years.

“If the Starr Chamber is pissed over the Glendale Ballet at the LPUS Convention, then perhaps they ought to untwist their prude panties and go to a show. I’ve known that outfit for years; it’s high class, and they are regulars on the LPCO circuit–hell, an institution, even!–and not just for sex appeal either–some of them are bona fide party activists! That and BetteRose Ryan, Tony, and Michelle are all well-known as class acts bar none, which seems to be lost on the Starr Chamber, since they seem to lack it. The Glendale Ballet is what the LP is all about–free enterprise, free expression, and free minds and bodies.”

It should be noted that the “Cookbook” was used to make Denver as successful as it was.

This case illustrates a clear abuse of the Executive Session by the previous LNC.

But while that points out problems, the bigger question remains as to what the scope of the Executive Sessions should be. I’m not referring to what is written in the revered and until-recently mysterious LNC Policy Manual (of which I do have a current copy, thanks to Rachel Hawkbridge). I’m referring to general principles. I would posit that the answer to my own question is “Yes.”

In my own experience in both political and business management circles, the types of meetings that are Executive Sessions by any name tend to revolve around exactly two types of situations: personnel decisions and legal issues. 90% of all Party activities are neither of those; therefore Executive Session shouldn’t apply to them. That includes using Executive Session to bash longtime and well-respected Party members.

“So, Seebeck,” someone will undoubtedly snarkily ask, “How would you make it better?” I’m glad you asked.

In the case of the limited public meeting times the LNC has at present (different discussion), the use of ES should be even LESS than what it is. I’ll be the first to admit that a goal of no ES at the public meetings is not logical nor feasible. But, the ideals of minimal and proper use is not, and in fact should be the goal. Most ES issues can and should be resolved ahead of the public meetings. Doing so is not difficult, whether it be by a simple private email list, teleconference, videoconference, or something web-based such as Yahoo Messenger or NetMeeting. The LNC meetings are for the public membership as much as it is for anyone, and that focus should be respected.

As for the proper use, it should be noted that the bovine biosolids (I’m trying to be polite here!) that happened at the September LNC meeting were a direct result of improper use of the ES, both in the ES that Angela Twittered about and the subsequent ES where the attempt was made to expel her without giving her the chance to defend herself. LNC members are elected by the delegates, and they are not hired staff. As such, there is no personnel matter there that falls under ES purview, Policy Manual be damned. If the delegates decide to remove a LNC member, they can do so, and it is relatively easy for the LNC to ask the delegates to do so–all it takes is a delegate list and a mass mailing/emailing with a deadline attached. LNC Regional Representatives can already be recalled by their respective state affiliates. The LNC needs to remember that there is a huge difference between elected members and hired staff. HR can’t fire the Board of Directors; only the stockholders can. We, the delegates, are those stockholders.

Also, every person has the legal right to disclose any part of an ES that pertains directly to that person. It’s called an implicit waiver of confidentiality, and every person has that right in all cases.

So the solution for the LNC is rather simple to implement, once people get past the mental blocks of paranoid secrecy: Get most of the ES work done prior to the public meeting, and keep the scope limited to what it is supposed to be about and nothing more. They might even find the public meetings themselves are more productive uses of their time.

It’s that mental block thing that appears to be the problem.

On a related side note, I’m not certain if the BTP policy of no ES is the right answer, but I applaud them for trying it. Whether they succeed or not remains to be seen.

So, LP Bylaws Committee, here is your mission, should you choose to accept it: Propose a Bylaws change for St. Louis 2010 that makes elected LNC members removable from office only upon a 2/3 LNC vote on a resolution of the LNC to ask the delegates from the last convention to remove the member by a 2/3 delegate vote. The resolution should require a deadline to vote, and the ability to vote in a secure manner.

If the LNC plays that right, it can also serve as a model for secure voting to use elsewhere, like in regular elections, perhaps. That could be a nice political feather for the LP should they wisely choose to go that route.

In the meantime, LNC Chair Bill “Where’s My Gavel?” Redpath better rein in the improper use of, and entrance into, Executive Session. We The Delegates will be watching, especially next month.

One Final Note: All LP members are strongly encouraged to attend the next LNC meeting Dec 6-7 in San Diego. I know that quite a few are coming out for it. I will be there myself.

Mike Says: Join Marriage Forward

Hello LFV,

This election cycle brought about a failure in marriage initiatives across the country to legalize same-sex marriages. The people of the several states did go out of their way to define it as a man and a woman, though.
In California, it was banned with 52% of the vote.
In Arizona, 56% of the vote.
In Florida, 62% of the vote.
(Source: USA Today)

One thing that gay rights supporters did learn across the country is that the opposition is well-funded, well-operated, and uses mob-like tactics (threatening to label businesses as “pro-gay” if they didn’t donate to them). On our side, we do what we can, but it’s nowhere near as organized as the anti-gay marriage crowd.

I, in my naivety, underestimated the overall public opinion towards marriage equality. We still have work to do until more than two states allow gay marriages. What will ensue now is a campaign of education, as it seems we start from scratch.

I recently found this site, marriageforward.com. It’s stated as:

“The Civil Marriage Alliance is a new grassroots organization devoted to achieving civil marriage equality by aggressively reaching out not only to gay people, but to all people.”

This is different then other gay organizations that align with parties, such as Outright Libertarians (which I’m a part of). This group is out to unite all people, gay or straight, behind the cause of equality.

The five-point plan is the back-drop of the campaign:

1 . A greater focus on including straight allies in the fight for civil marriage equality.

2. Increased emphasis on engaging minority and underserved communities on gay rights issues.

3. Better utilization of new media to build a national network of people—gay and straight—who can present a show-of-force on gay rights issues simply by virtue of standing up and being counted.

4. A national public education campaign designed to preemptively guard against misinformation campaigns like the one launched against gays in California’s Proposition 8 campaign.

5. An effort to jumpstart a national conversation about the civil nature of marriage.

To Libertarians: This isn’t the “get the government out of the marriage argument” that I myself support, but it’s a start.

To learn more about the five planks, go to marriageforward.com
Sign up there for future updates and to help us gain strength in numbers.

Thanks for reading,
-Mike

Knapp address 2012 candidacy on MySpace

Fellow libertarians,

I initially planned to announce my 2012 candidacy for the presidency of the United States on April 6th, 2009, from the steps of the Old St. Louis Courthouse (history buffs shouldn’t have too much trouble figuring out why), and I still intend to conduct a campaign event of some kind at that time and in that place.

I see, however, that others are already lining up with formal announcements or at least clear indications of their own intent … and when a fight’s brewing, I prefer to get in early.

It is therefore my distinct pleasure to announce that I will seek the 2012 presidential nominations of the Libertarian Party and the Boston Tea Party.

Why run for president — and why, especially, for the presidential nominations of two parties which together usually account for less than one percent of the popular vote in presidential elections?

I could give you lots of reasons, but I’m going to stick with three for the moment: There are some hard truths that need to be told, I’m interested in telling them, and they’re most effectively told from a bully pulpit.

Among those those hard truths are that the political wing of the libertarian movement will never make substantial progress toward its goals so long as it clings to the apron strings of the failed movements and parties of the past, remains in orbit around the present political “center,” or falls prey to cargo-cultish notions of what constitutes “serious” politics.

If we want a libertarian future, we must create that future, not hope that our political opponents drag us along to it. They won’t. They’re not going in the direction we want to go in, they have no desire to go in the direction we want to go in, and to the extent that they’re interested in us at all, they regard us either as fuel to be consumed or ballast to be dumped overboard at the earliest opportunity. I don’t blame them. We haven’t yet given them reason to regard us as a true threat to their power. It’s time to change that.

As my friend and mentor L. Neil Smith once observed, “great men don’t move to the center, they move the center.” It’s a big center, folks. Moving it will require a long lever, with us at the far end. I don’t claim to be a great man … but I hope to be part of a great movement, and to help that movement get further out on the lever and put some weight on it.

Insofar as cargo-cultism and “seriousness” are concerned, rest assured that I have nothing against suits and ties, friendly media interviews and the other requirements of realpolitick. What I do oppose is the absurd notion that waving around “mainstreamism” like some kind of voodoo fetish will magically boost us to competitive stature versus our older, more established opponents. It won’t.

The future of the libertarian movement, if it is has one, requires a principled populist approach rooted in class theory. Not the theory of the socialists (labor versus capital) or of the liberals and conservatives (ad hoc identity politics adjusted to appeal to society’s phobias du jour), but rather the theory of the productive class (those who make their living through work and voluntary exchange and cooperation) versus the political class (those who siphon off as much of that productive activity as they can get away with, using the coercive apparatus of the state, for their own ends).

For these reasons, the first phase of my campaign will largely be internal to the parties and the movement; as we move on, it will become more outwardly focused, of course, but first things first.

My fundamental goal in seeking the nominations of the LP and the BTP is not to achieve those nominations or to be elected President of the United States. It is to help the libertarian movement outfit itself for a journey yet to begin — a journey which that movement has stood stock still at the starting point of for nearly four decades now. If I achieve that goal, the nominations and the election results are of secondary importance, as I’m certain others are at least as qualified as I am to march at the front of the column. If I do not achieve those goals, then the nominations and the election results will resemble John Nance Garner’s description of the importance of the Vice Presidency of the United States: “Not worth a bucket of warm spit.”

I look forward to an exciting campaign, and I humbly request the support of all who value the future of freedom.

Yours in liberty,
Thomas L. Knapp
Knapp2012.Com

Tom Knapp to seek 2012 LP/BTP Presidential bid

You heard it here first, folks, when LFV posted about the Knapp2012 domain. 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
11/11/08
POC Thomas L. Knapp
admin@knapp2012. com
314-750-6993

WHEN THE GOING GETS WEIRD, THE WEIRD RUN FOR PRESIDENT
Knapp announces 2012 candidacy

While most Americans are still catching up on their rest from a
hard-fought presidential election, one group of individuals is already
on the march: Those who aspire to election in 2012.

Among them is Thomas L. Knapp, who announced his candidacy for the
presidential nominations of the Boston Tea Party and the Libertarian
Party Tuesday evening.

“I initially planned to announce my 2012 candidacy for the presidency
of the United States on April 6th, 2009,” said Knapp in a
Internet-distribute d announcement. “I see, however, that others are
already lining up with formal announcements or at least clear
indications of their own intent … and when a fight’s brewing, I
prefer to get in early.”

Citing ideological drift in the Libertarian Party, Knapp, 42, founded
the Boston Tea Party in 2006 and served as its vice-presidential
nominee this year — while also running for Congress in his home state
of Missouri as a Libertarian Party candidate. He hopes to bring the
two parties closer together with his presidential campaign. “The LP
has a lot of installed plant — ballot access, seasoned activists, the
things that any party requires to be successful,” he says. “What we
lost track of were our principles — but the BTP has been keeping
those alive and will hopefully be happy to share them back.”

Knapp’s campaign organization is embryonic but already in existence.
He’s appointed Darcy G. Richardson, a noted political historian and
veteran of numerous third party campaigns, as his campaign’s chief of
staff. Also on board is Nick Galindo, an experienced campaign
treasurer.

His chances? He’s realistic: “We’ve got a tough row to hoe before we
reach political success,” he says. “Much of my campaign will be about
correcting mistakes the freedom movement has made in the past and
positioning us to move forward further and faster.”

-30-

Campaign Site:
http://www.knapp201 2.com

Boston Tea Party:
http://www.bostonte a.us

Libertarian Party:
http://www.lp. org

Keaton/Shinghal to seek presidency in 2012

Gawd (sorry-was home in NOLA all last week), I didn’t want to do this but the timing may be perfect and I want to show that I can be as opportunistic as Barr/Root.

I’d like to officially announce the Keaton/Shinghal 2012 ticket. We already have some support on our Facebook page and we have BIG fundraising plans. The unofficial plan is called ‘Stripping across Texas’ but we’re not like most strippers; we know we’ll have neither diploma nor presidency in the end and we don’t plan to sell it that way. With that plan in place alone, we guarandamntee that we can out raise Barr/Root by at least $100k. 

Now, I know that y’all might be worried about qualifications. Well, I haven’t any except the abilities to balance a checkbook, drink like a fish and well, never mind. Let’s just say that of all the men in my past I only count on 3 not voting for me. Keaton has a Masters in Poli-Sci and a law degree. (That’s why she’s the top of the ticket- that and Knapp came to our room in Denver and found her awake before I.) As far as media goes I think that perhapsreason might do us a solid and cover us in a non-judgmental way. Angela does have some rather racy pics on the web and , I have the support of many from the cult of Ron Paul. (Disclosure crap makes me admit that I’m part of that cult…)

There are 3 things about Keaton/Shinghal 2012 that set us apart from many others who might seek your delegate vote. They are: 3) We’re both married to reputable men who are fastidious about their standings in the eyes of their peers and government. In other words, there will be nothing of substance to block our run in the eyes of the state. 2) We’ve no small children- retarded or otherwise- to occupy our thoughts on the campaign trail. 1) We’re fucking Libertarians and we can make the most hostile people friendly in a face to face because we follow the guiding light of our political philosophy and all religions and that’s the Golden Rule.

Antiwar.com: You have a choice!

They’re Bailing Out the Banks
With Your Tax Dollars.
But you have a choice!

Nobody asked you if you wanted to bail out the banks. The powers that be in Washington, D.C., just went ahead and did it. They wrote a check for almost $1 trillion to the biggest financial institutions in the country, saving them from their own disastrous investments. Andyou get the bill.
But it doesn’t have to be a total loss. You can direct some of your tax dollars to a worthy cause. Instead of rewarding the greed and hubris of “businessmen” whose only assets seem to be their friends in Washington, you can send your tax dollars to work for peace. 
Unlike the hundreds of billions going to the banks, yourtax-deductible contribution to Antiwar.com is a good investment: it will keep you informed about the world you live in, warning you of the dangers to peace just around the bend. 
Since the mid-’90s, Antiwar.com has been the place to find out what’s really going on in hotspots around the globe. And since our beginning, we’ve depended on the generosity of our readers to keep us online.
Now hard times have hit all of us, at the very time when Antiwar.com is most essential. Our fight for a noninterventionist foreign policy is making some real gains, for the first time in years. But with charitable giving down, we are feeling the pinch. We need your help, and we need it now.
The choice is yours: would you rather give your hard-earned dollars to the big banks and the war profiteers, or to Antiwar.com?

Don’t delay.

Sorry for the interruption.
Continue to Antiwar.com

 

Contact akeaton@antiwar.com or call 323-512-7095 for more information.

“Vortex” is Back”

I would like to apologize for going on hiatus when my work was needed the most.  I have had a number of personal issues that required my time.  I also had the misfortune of having my computer break down at the most inopportune time.

The “Vortex of Freedom” Radio Show will be returning this Saturday at its new temporary time – 10:00PM Eastern.  I had an impromptu show last night on BlogTalk radio.

 

The 2008 Elections – Pardon Me While I Puke

I will give my insight to the 2008 elections and offer hard evidence into why America was duped once again by both parties and the corporate media.

Saturday 10PM Eastern  Call-in number: 347-215-7969

Deadline looming for Platform Committee applications

According to LNC At-Large Representative Angela Keaton, the Platform Committee will be chosen at the San Diego meeting.

It is very important that interested parties send their applications to both Robert Sullentrup (rwsully at att.net) and Rachel Hawkridge (LPWA.com1 at gmail.com) so that they will be forwarded to the entire LNC list, which includes Kraus and any other relevant staff. You may also copy Angela Keaton as well, and she will check in by the end of the week.

The original announcement:

The Libertarian National Committee is looking to appoint ten people to serve on the Platform Committee in preparation for the 2010 Libertarian National Convention.

Committee members will be expected to expend an appreciable amount of their time in the months leading up to the Convention; and due to the anticipated amount of work, they will be expected to incur considerable travel costs, at personal expense, for meetings prior to the Convention, in addition to attendance at the Libertarian National Convention in 2010.

So that members of the Libertarian National Committee can determine who might best fill seats on the Platform Committee, each applicant is requested to draft and submit via e-mail three proposed or modified platform planks to platform@lp.org no later than November 16, 2008.

War, oil, economic chaos, enriched uranium, and more war

Donate to Antiwar.com
Today at 2:57pm

Thoughts on What’s Coming

Dear Friend of Peace,

My name is Michael Seebeck. I’m a happily married father of two, dedicated peacemonger and libertarian activist. My wife and I are the Legislative Analysts for the Libertarian Party of California. We recommend courses of action for lobbying, a role can be referred to informally as ”Team Seebeck, Bill Monkeys.”

Part of that role also means being able to connect events and courses of action to determine the consequences of legislation on the public. It also carries over into how I view the news, and lately I really don’t like what I see:

Economic Chaos. Potential War with Iran. Energy Prices. Recession. Russia. Pakistan. Iraq.

What do these all have in common? A pretty grim picture.

Let’s examine the links between these things. You may want a scorecard for this.

Consider the following facts:

Oil had peaked at $147 (7-11-08), and now is at $61 (as of 11-10-08). That’s a 51% drop in three months, and the drop had no end in sight.

World stock markets have tanked in the past four weeks, with trillions of equity and investments being lost.

Iceland faced default on its national debt. (Iceland???)

Iran is still enriching uranium, and the West still claims they are working towards a nuclear bomb. IAEA says otherwise.

Israel is bleating the war drums loudly.

The now multi-trillion-dollar bailout did nothing to help the market or the consumer.

Russia is on the rise from being flush with petroleum money and is revamping their army, navy, air force, and infrastructure.

The Pakistani people are getting agitated against U.S. efforts to track down and kill al-Qaeda in Waziristan.

Iraq is supposedly winding down, but troops aren’t coming home yet.

Afghanistan is heating up, and there is little chance of improvement there.

Unemployment and foreclosures are still on the rise in the U.S. as the recession continues and takes its deepest dive yet.

What does this all mean?

In a word, war.

Yikes!

What can we do?

We must be an organized and concerted effort to pressure our leaders to exercise proper leadership, not to just beat the drums of war because of campaign dollars or market profits for cronies, but instead to work with the world to forge peace as a means to develop prosperity, to turn around the negative attitudes and get nations to work on peaceful mutual interests and trade without foreign entanglements.

That effort starts with the grassroots of the world, from the bottom up, to get the leaders, elected or not, to do the right thing, not only for their own people, but for all people.

It starts with US: We, the people, who opposed war with Iran by a 4-1 margin a year ago and by an even more resounding 93% in June.

Antiwar.com is leading the charge to educate and inform the public, to get our leaders to actually lead, to wage peace and work for a better tomorrow.

With your donation, they can continue this fight, and help us avoid the economic and political destruction of America, and possibly the world.

For more information on how you can help, please contact Development Director Angela Keaton at akeaton@antiwar.com or 323-512-7095.

Won’t you join me in donating to help promote peace? It’s for our future.

Sincerely,

Michael Seebeck

Donate to Antiwar.com

Source: www.antiwar.com

Your contribution will ensure a voice for peace. Antiwar.com is a 501(c)3. All contributions are tax deductible. Below are the many choices for donating via credit card, check, monthly deduction, Paypal or by phone.

 

 
Angela Keaton
Development Director
Producer, Antiwar Radio
Antiwar.com
Office: 323-512-7095
8am-6pm (Pacific)
323-512-7095
Cell: 310-729-3760
Fax: 602-801-2659

Barr Campaign: Last Days

My experiences with trying to volunteer for the Barr GOTV calling in the last days of the campaign:

• I was initially blacklisted from volunteering to make calls because I had been a critic of Barr (this from Shane Cory to me in a phone call that I initiated). After I called the campaign to beg to be allowed to volunteer and promised to ‘behave’, I got the privilege of volunteering.
• The Barr campaign used a database of “registered Republicans from Bob’s district in Georgia” (according to Austin Peterson). When I expressed an interest in calling NC voters, I got… ignored. I could call GA folks or no one I guess.
• The call-script was as follows:

Hello, my name is [name] and I’m calling to ask for your vote for our former Congressman and Presidential Candidate Bob Barr.

Bob Barr opposed the McCain-Obama bailout scheme, opposed McCain-Feingold and has a proven track record of protecting both your tax dollars and your Second Amendment rights. According to the National Taxpayers Union, only Bob Barr will reduce federal spending.

May we count on your support for Congressman Bob Barr for President?

Notice a conspicuous lack there? No mention of the LP or libertarianism. Calls to Barr’s congressional ‘constituents’ in GA. Not surprising, but disappointing and another mis-step for the campaign. ESPECIALLY in light of a recent campaign email, which said, in part:

In 1992, both parties ignored Ross Perot. … But his votes had a huge impact and in 1994, just two years later, the Republicans
actively embraced much of the Perot agenda and swept out many Democrats in Congress, capturing control of both the House and Senate.
…
I believe that together, we can repeat this – either as Republicans or Democrats — and come next week, Congress will know that.

Which, taken with the calling ’strategy’, indicated to me that Barr may be planning to run as a Republican (or Dem!) for his old house seat. Subsequent communications from Barr seem to indicate otherwise, though.

The Cult of the Omnimalevolent State

Less, I don’t agree at all that any of the candidates in Denver could have “threatened our existence” — not the ex-Republicans, not the universal-healthcare candidate, not the no-legislation-against-pubescent-prostitution candidate, not even Christine Smith.  The lesson I learned from 2008 is inertia — candidates and Libertarian delegates and Libertarian voters and non-Libertarian voters and the media are not easy to deflect from their default path.  Consider:

• Despite the best efforts of the Radical and Reform caucuses, the vast majority of delegates in Denver didn’t know and didn’t care about the inter-caucus disagreements.
• The delegates in Denver were extremely skeptical of reformer attempts to fix an SoP that they did not perceive to be broken.
• The delegates in Denver were extremely skeptical of radical attempts to fix a PlatCom report that they did not perceive to be broken.
• Despite all the passion around the Barr/Root nomination, the vast majority of the LP closed ranks behind the ticket chosen by the Denver delegates. (I confess that some radicals worked harder for the ticket than I did.)
• None of the worst radical predictions about the behavior of the ticket — endorsing an opposing candidate, giving up on the LP — came true. (However, they came true about Ron Paul, the darling of so many radicals.)
• None of the worst radical predictions about media reaction to the ticket came true — Root’s career was treated respectfully, and the un-libertarian parts of Barr’s legislative record occupied only a small fraction of his media coverage.  (Alas, he deflected much of what legislative-record questioning he got with appeals to federalism, which most radicals can forgive only if your name is spelled R-o-n P-a-u-l.)
• The LP ticket received only a little more than its standard vote share, despite an order of magnitude more national TV coverage than in 2004.
• The CP ticket received only a little more than its standard vote share, despite an endorsement from a personality-cult leader who this year commanded a million votes and 30 million dollars.

All of the above tell me that is harder than I thought to change the behavior of delegates, voters, and journalists — and I already knew it was very damn hard.  I think you’re fundamentally wrong in saying that the delegates voted against preserving the LP brand.  Rather, I think they were so confident in the durability of the LP’s brand and ideology that they didn’t think a conservative-leaning ticket was any long-term risk to it.  I tend to agree with them.  I share your concern about branding not because I see an existential risk to the LP, but rather because I see an opportunity cost in not making our brand sharply and equally distinct from Left and Right.

What you seem to be saying is that we can’t preserve the LP brand if we ever nominate a former Democrat or Republican politician, or ever try to say that we agree with the good parts of the liberal or conservative agendas.  I strongly disagree. I suspect your analysis is colored by your belief as an anarchist that the LP has no hope of moving public policy in a libertarian direction by persuading people to vote differently — as opposed to persuading people that government is always immoral and always inexpedient.  As long as you insist that the latter is the core of the LP’s mission and brand, then the LP is going to be distracted by infighting — at least until you induce us non-anarchists to give up on the LP.

I would recommend a different strategy to the LP’s anarchists.  You shouldn’t be trying to get the LP to preach anarchism or its functional equivalents, such as personal secession and abolition of everything that might look like taxation (e.g default fines on pollution aggression).  Instead, you should use the LP to 1) give anarchist candidates a chance to preach anarchism through the electoral process, and 2) promote policies that when adopted will make it easier for people to see that anarchism might work.  For (2), I’m thinking of things like radical decentralism (to allow competition among experiments in decreased government), and any policy (like vouchers) that increases market competition in what used to be a government monopoly.

I see school vouchers as a litmus test about whether an anarchist is A) serious about creating conditions in which more people can perceive the workability of anarchism, or B) only interested in political posturing as a consumption good — a way to exhibit ideological purity and self-righteousness.  None of our Libertarian activism is rational if it isn’t in part a consumption good, but I think it becomes purely a consumption good if there is no plan or hope to move public policy in a libertarian direction other than by one new anarchist at a time.  That’s not a political party, that’s a cult — the cult of the omnimalevolent state.

Wayne Root’s post-election message

The Road Ahead:
A Message from Wayne Allyn Root -
2008 Libertarian Vice Presidential Nominee

Dear friends,

It has been an honor and privilege to serve all of my many
friends, fans, voters, contributors and most importantly, the
Libertarian Party as the nominee for Vice President of the
United States in 2008.

Restoring the Libertarian Brand Name

In 1985, the Board of Directors of Coca-Cola committed one of the biggest marketing gaffes in history. After decades of establishing their product as “The Real Thing,” they accepted the findings of their research team that discovered a taste people preferred in blind tests, and proudly announced that they had improved the formula.

The New Coke was an absolute disaster. The anger of the consuming public was so great that they had to eventually accept hundreds of millions in losses and figure out a way of reversing their course. They announced the return of “Coke Classic”, to give people a choice, and then quietly shelved the New Coke once they had gotten rid of as much of the stuff as possible.

Now, far be it from me to describe the Libertarian Party of 1971 to 2000 as a best seller like Coke. Anyone who measures success by the election of LP members to office should have long ago given up and gone somewhere else (the Republican or Democratic parties, if they have any common sense). Still, it was a far more effective brand than people think it was: it served as a feeder organization for the entire movement, and many non-political libertarians of today can trace their first contact with libertarianism to the Libertarian Party. It had and has an intellectual respectability within the field of academia and the blogosphere, and some within the field of journalism.

Well, we blew it. In a year that screamed for an alternative, we were virtually ignored, and in a year that had thousands of young, idealistic people energized, we failed to convince them that we are the only logical home for the Ron Paul Revolution. I think it is because we failed to defend our brand.

Now, before someone thinks this is going to be a rant against the Reform Caucus, let me state clearly that it is not. I have substantial disagreements with Reformers on strategy, mainly because I think they have been insufficiently pragmatic and because most failed to implement their strategy consistently. Their preferred candidate should have been George Phillies, not Bob Barr or Wayne Root, and if the nomination battle had come down to Phillies vs Ruwart, I think we would have come out of Denver united and inspired, regardless of who was the final winner, with our brand strengthened and a lot of new, young activists making our future bright. Once Phillies was eliminated, Reformers should have switched to Ruwart, not Barr or Root.

We don’t all want exactly the same thing, but we’re reasonably close. What I want is a society with as little aggression as the real (not a fantasy) world can provide. In my view, the most practical society will be based on private property anarchism, but if you put me in a room with LP Founder David Nolan, who is explicitly a limited government libertarian, you’ll probably find that there isn’t a dime’s worth of difference in our actual positions (with the possible exception of immigration), and our differences are mainly in how we predict societies with libertarian sensibilities will address security, dispute resolution, and collective defense. I think (I need more time to be sure) that I have more differences with, for example, Brian Holtz, but I also have differences with Rothbardians. None, in my view, is fatal to a successful alliance. In fact, as an admirer of Friedrich Hayek, I don’t think any of us CAN know how a free society will solve all the serious problems facing a free society, and I don’t trust anyone who claims to know. Even me.

What both Radicals and Reformers want is an appealing and DISTINCT brand that will attract people to libertarianism. Now, I happen to think that anyone who works within the LP has already made a decision to forego electoral success, but I wouldn’t mind being proved wrong and, in any event, neither an educational nor an electoral strategy has a snowball’s chance in hell of succeeding unless libertarianism is an inspiring and unique brand, incapable of being confused with either Republican conservatism or Democratic progressivism. I don’t think we’ve ever tried hard enough to brand it properly.

Our radical past is a myth. The LP before 2006 was NOT the product of decades of explicitly radical campaigns based on the Rothbardian platform of the LP. To this day, there has never been a presidential campaign that promoted anarcho-capitalism, and Radical Caucus candidates have, with rare exceptions, pretty much been as loathe to campaign on their ideal society as Reform Caucus candidates (I blame the misinterpreted and now-dead Dallas Accord for some of this, but not all). Similarly, the 2008 presidential campaign is NOT an example of the Reform strategy, as I understand it. Reform Caucus advocates are every bit as eager as Radical Caucus members to have libertarianism stand out, and not be viewed as merely a principled version of conservativism.

My view is that we must renew and strengthen our brand as the only consistent advocate of liberty, and that we must remain absolutely vigilant that we not appear to be a form of conservativism (or progressivism). To my fellow Radicals, I think it is time we accepted the less comprehensive platform on a permanent basis, working only to improve it where it strays from plumbline libertarianism (as I believe it does implicitly in the tax plank and explicitly in the immigration plank). To my friends in the Reform caucus, I think it is time you accepted the pledge and the Statement of Principles as keys to our brand, the Party of Principle.

Applied to issues, let me sketch out what I see the implications on a national level of a libertarian who wants a brand that is neither conservative nor progressive.

Foreign Policy – An end to military intervention in other countries AND an absolute stand in favor of global free trade.

Health – The abolition of restrictions on drugs and treatments AND the abolition of government subsidies for health care expenditures.

Economics – An end to coercively financed poverty welfare AND an end to corporate welfare.

I do think members of the Reform Caucus should acknowledge the Law of Unintended Consequences. I have enough respect for many of you to know that you didn’t want the absurd platform that came out of Portland in 2006 but, absent your strategy, it wouldn’t have happened. Many of you didn’t want Barr to be our nominee but, absent your strategy, he wouldn’t have been the nominee. Acknowledge that.

Let me also caution my fellow Radicals about People Who Live in Glass Houses. You talk a good game about other people not being open about the full implications of libertarianism, and you were eager to fight for a comprehensive platform in Denver, but I spent a lot of time browsing candidate web sites and reading newspaper clippings, and with rare exceptions, I couldn’t tell you which candidates were members of which RC if my life depended on it. When it comes to radicalism, either put up or shut up (for the record, you are all hereby invited to hold my feet to the fire on this issue as I expand my site, Anarchy Without Bombs, over the next several months: I’m human, and sometimes I’m weak, so if you catch me waffling at www.anarchywithoutbombs.com, I will be ever-so-grateful for your correction of my heresy).

This is not intended to be the final word on this topic, but to get us talking about the future. I’m more interested right now in hearing the views of others who care about the future of the LP than I am about defending this entire post. I think the Ron Paul Youth are still up for grabs, and that we still have the opportunity to inspire them to our side (especially once the Obama Presidency gets going and starts disappointing). How do we reach them?

Barr Campaign Website – Where Is It?

The Barr camapign site went offline yesterday or perhaps even the day before. There has sometimes been a “we’re updating, be back shortly” notice, sometimes an error, and (now) a blank screen. I waited to comment on this, but it’s been well over 24 hours now that the site’s been offline, so there seems to be a real problem.

Whatever your thoughts about Barr as candidate, it seems clear to me that the LP’s presidential candidate’s site ought to be streaming information for some reasonable length of time after the election. I’ve been personally involved with the Munger for Governor campaign in NC, and we’ve been getting a decent bit of email even after the election. Media peeps with wrap-up requests. People who saw Mike on the ballot or met a pollworker and were curious. People who voted for Mike and wanted to send an atta-boy message. People who still have issue questions (which rather floors me). Folks wanting to sign up to help Mike run again. Oh, and the guy who assumes Libertarians are just disgruntled Republicans and that we need to get back in line because we kept the Republican candidate from winning – an absurd charge which I will address at some length here when I have some free time. we used the campaign site (and our email list) to help transition folks from the Munger campaign to the Libertarian Party. That’s what Libertarian candidates ought to do.

The candidate’s website is – or should be – an important outreach tool for some time after an election. I heard from a volunteer with the Lawson camapign in NC (which employed the web-campaign firm Terra Eclipse) that there may have been some bad feelings between TE and the Barr team, so perhaps that’s the problem. Or perhaps it’s something more mundane. But going down this long this soon after an election is a bad thing.

Just another mis-step from the ‘professional’ campaign team Barr assembled.

LFV Exclusive! Steve Kubby “Our Time Has Come”

Our time has come
By Steve Kubby

This weekend, the leadership of the Republican Party will be assembling at a secret location in Virginia, to try to decide what to do with the shattered remains of their party.

Conspicuous in his absence, Congressman Ron Paul, who holds many of the answers his party is seeking, was never invited.  Dr. Paul believes the GOP lost because it has lost the trust of their constituents, many of whom chose to stay home rather than vote.

Ron Paul tells us that the Republicans are unwilling to deal with the basic issues that have derailed their party.  Those issues, like ending the wars, downsizing government, cutting taxes and more personal freedom, are fundamentally Libertarian issues and the leadership of the GOP to unwilling or unable to embraces such a Libertarian platform.

Some conservatives like Richard Viguerie, understand this and have made sincere efforts to absorb and promote Libertarian views, but as Viguerie admitted privately to me, the GOP leadership has led the party astray and refuses to be replaced.

So the stage is set for the Libertarian Party to receive a stream of refugees from the GOP.  These Recovering Republicans have already been washing up on our shores and even former GOP operatives like Bob Barr have found a new home with the LP.

Unfortunately, many of our new friends from the GOP have insisted that we tone down the Libertarian message and water down our platform to make it more appealing to mainstream voters.  That’s the same nonsense that destroyed the GOP.

The Recovering Republican view prevailed at the LP presidential convention and the majority of delegates backed two GOP refugees as their ticket.  The Libertarian wing of the party may have suffered a defeat, but the results of this election show that the Recovering  Republican wing of the party was a dismal failure at delivering the numbers or outcome they had promised.  Thus, instead of $30 million, they raised just over  $1 million.  Instead of 5% of the popular vote, they delivered no more than past campaigns.

In contrast, Obama succeeded because he used the Net to raise hundreds of millions of dollars, one hundred dollars at a time.  Using the lessons of Howard Dean, Obama broke away from conventional political fundraising and created his own ground game.  Is there any reason the LP cannot do the same?

Of course our GOP refugee friends have their own reasons why things didn’t go right for them, but they had their chance and the results are clear.  Now it is time for the LP to adopt a truly Libertarian platform, elect a seriously Libertarian Executive Committee and sponsor real Libertarians for office.

Liberty works.  It’s time for the LP to make a real commitment to real Liberty and give people what they want and deserve: Smaller Government, Less Taxes and more Personal Freedom.  If our party can just focus on these simple but powerful ideas, we can overtake the GOP and replace it with what people really want and need.

Our time has come.  Are we prepared to show real leadership and stand up for our Libertarian principles, without excuses or  watered down language? The choice is ours.

__________

Steve Kubby is a respected longtime libertarian activist, and one of the world’s leading experts on medical marijuana.  His newest project is a publicly-traded company, DYMC, which is developing cannabinoid medications; you can read more about that exciting project here.

Gawker points and laughs at Wayne Allyn Root

From Gawker:

Columbia Remembers Obama, Even If Libertarian Loser VP Candidate Can’t

Here’s a satisfying post-election shakeout of one of the rumors that Obama detractors stirred up: remember that accusation Libertarian VP nominee and Columbia alum Wayne Allyn Root made about Obama padding his resume with a fake Columbia University degree? “I think the most dangerous thing you should know about Barack Obama is that I don’t know a single person at Columbia that knows him, and they all know me. I don’t have a classmate who ever knew Barack Obama at Columbia. Ever!.” (He also told Reason that he would bet a million dollars that, if Obama had in fact attended Columbia, he had made a better GPA.) Well, Root can STFU because Columbia is making a big fuss about their grad, sending out an e-mail to their community about how Obama is the first Columbia graduate to be elected President.

An excerpt from the e-mail sent out by Columbia’s President:

Dear Columbian,

Yesterday’s election was historic, of course, and all of us who have graduated from Columbia have special reason for excitement. We note with pride that Barack Obama ‘83CC will be not only the first African-American but also the first Columbia degree-holder to occupy the Oval Office.

At Columbia we think continually about our role in helping to prepare remarkable men and women for leadership. With one alumnus, David Paterson ‘78CC, now serving as Governor of New York and another elected to the nation’s highest office, we are reminded of the University’s core commitment to public service and its tradition of producing outstanding leaders for our nation and our world…

All the best,

Lee C. Bollinger ‘71LAW
President
Columbia University

[via Lux Nightmare]

Oh, and here’s what Root told Reason about the million-dollars thing:

Root: And I’d be willing to bet every dime I have in the world, a million dollars I’ll put, I’ll put a million dollars cash on the fact—

Welch: This is on the record—

Root: —that my GPA was better than Barack’s—

Welch: Oooooh.

Meet the New Boss, Same as the Old Boss

In 2006, I predicted that the winner of the 2008 U.S. presidential election would either be a pro-war Democrat or an anti-war Republican.

I predicted correctly.

Don’t get fooled by the rhetoric of change.  We need real change, and as I explain here, Mr. Obama will not provide it.  All he will provide is four-to-eight more years of Bush-styled big government.

It’s Okay to Not Vote

In every election, there are always a hand-full of people who, for one reason or another, do not vote.

In this article, I explain some of the reasons why people choose not to vote.  Following that, I defend the right to choose not to vote, explaining how it’s impossible for one to have an intrinsic responsibility to cast a ballot.

Steve Kubby: Healing our world, one patient at a time

The following was provided to LFV by Steve Kubby, and is being published with his permission.  Steve is a longtime libertarian and longtime medical marijuana activist.  He is also one of the world’s leading experts on medical marijuana.

Dear Friends,

Million of people die each year from diseases that could be largely prevented or minimized by cannabinoid medicines. The science is irrefutable.  We now have thousands of peer-reviewed, scientific studies that have emerged and clearly show how cannabinoids can be used to treat, reverse and even prevent many of our worst diseases.

What’s worse, we are only now beginning to understand how just deadly conventional prescription drugs actually are.  For example, one brave pioneer, Dr. Barbara Starfield of the Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health, wrote an article for the July 26, 2000 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), volume 284, no. 4. She entitled her article, “Doctors and Their Drugs Could be the Number One Cause of Death in America, Causing Almost 500,000 Deaths Every Year.”

Watching people die needlessly is not an option, so my friends and I have formed a publicly traded company to research, develop and license new cannabinoid medicines that are safe, effective and far less expensive than the dangerous, toxic and synthetic pharmaceuticals in current use.

Unlike most publicly traded companies, we have a mission that goes beyond our bottom line.  That mission is to force governments to license cannabinoid medicines NOW, so we can start saving lives and helping to improve the quality of life for million of suffering patients.

So what can YOU do to help heal the world?  Simple, learn more about what cannabinoid medicines have to offer, then join us in demanding that these lifesaving, nontoxic medicines  be fast-tracked for emergency approval and use by patients.

Right now, we have or are developing cannabinoid lozenges and creams that can provide effective, safe and inexpensive treatments for a long list of diseases, including diseases that we are told are untreatable.  There is no excuse for any further delay in getting these lifesaving, non-smokable, lozenges and creams into the hands of patients who so desperately need relief.

We looked into forming a non-profit organization to accomplish our goals, but we decided upon a public company instead, so that we could provide our fellow patients with a unique opportunity to participate directly in the coming boom in cannabinoid medicines  Our publicly-traded company, DYMC, was recently featured on Money TV and is currently being broadcast to over 150 million television viewers.  If you haven’t taken the time to view this video, please do so, because in addition to describing what our company is doing, our Chief Science Officer, Dr. Melamede, provides valuable health information that could save or prolong your life. Links to this video are provided below.

If you’d like to get involved, please drop me a line at steve@kubby.com.  You may get an automatic response from my spam blocker asking if you are really a human.  If you do get such a response from me, just hit your reply button and the spam filter will clear you and your message to get through.

I look forward to working with you to heal our world, one patient at a time.

Let freedom grow,

Steve Kubby

MoneyTV Discusses Cannabinoid Medicines, part one
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrckW0XB634>

MoneyTV Discusses Cannabinoid Medicines, part two
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VyXuyGEyeg>

To view it on a cable tv station in your area, please see:
<http://www.moneytv.net/tvguide.htm>

To view a CNNMoney.com report about us see:
<http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/prnewswire/200810221425PR_NEWS_USPR_____LA40899.htm>

Libertarian rumor mill item: Tom Knapp

An interesting little domain factoid:

Domain Name: KNAPP2012.COM
  Registrar: GODADDY.COM, INC.
  Whois Server: whois.godaddy.com
  Referral URL: http://registrar.godaddy.com
  Name Server: NS421.HOSTGATOR.COM
  Name Server: NS422.HOSTGATOR.COM
  Status: clientDeleteProhibited
  Status: clientRenewProhibited
  Status: clientTransferProhibited
  Status: clientUpdateProhibited
  Updated Date: 05-nov-2008
  Creation Date: 24-jun-2006
  Expiration Date: 24-jun-2009

Does this mean that Tom Knapp is considering a presidential run in 2012? 

He certainly has respect within the libertarian movement, and of course he is the founder of the Boston Tea Party.  Could he be looking toward a possible LP/BTP fusion candidacy?  Only time (and Tom) can tell.

Marshall Fritz – A Great Advocate

When the history of the triumph of liberty is written, I hope due credit is given to Marshall Fritz, who died yesterday at 65 from cancer.  I was fortunate enough to have met Marshall when he first joined the Libertarian Party of California in the early 1980s, and am the only living person to have solved (without a hint) a riddle that he loved to share with everyone he knew.  He was fearless: he learned to be an excellent libertarian persuader the hard way, by trial and error, and took every failure as an opportunity to learn and grow.

I remember discussions with him about his plan to create a broad outreach organization founded on the principles of the abolitionist movement: Self-Government Advocates (now the Advocates for Self-Government).  Their free email newsletter, the Liberator Online, is rapidly approaching 100,000 subscribers.   We are quite fortunate that the Advocates were the quick thinkers who grabbed the web address www.libertarianism.com: they made it an excellent, broadly focused page that is both stylistically positive and consistent with libertarian principles, and that is filled with links to so many of the fine libertarian and near-libertarian organizations that remind us how much bigger the movement is than the party.  The Advocates main web site (www.theadvocates.org) has always been a source of inspiration and education for me, and its friendliness an image of Marshall himself (although the greatest amount of credit for today’s Advocates goes to Sharon Harris, who remains active in the LP while doing all her fine work for the Advocates).  It is not an educational site on the principles of libertarianism: it is an educational site on the principles of effective libertarian persuasion.

Marshall went on to found the Alliance for Separation of School and State, which has both aided the home schooling movement and brought many home schoolers to an appreciation of libertarianism.  It is doing good work in its own way, as well.  Indeed, Marshall is a prime example of the large cadre of non-political freedom fighters who validate my claim that the LP has been, through all of its ups and downs, a useful feeder organization.

Anyone lucky enough to have met Marshall will be unsurprised at the optimistic way he approached his own death after getting a terminal diagnosis early this year: his first thought was to figure out a way to use it as a fundraiser for the causes that inspired him, and he invited me to speak at two of those events.  In June, I had the privilege of delivering to him a proclamation in his honor that was approved unanimously at the Libertarian Party Convention in Denver the previous month.  Marshall was a mixture of Dale Carnegie and Murray Rothbard, and I will miss him.

I made a special contribution to the Advocates in his memory, and would urge others to consider doing the same, at https://www.theadvocates.org/donations.html.

Goodbye, my friend.

Supreme Court rules for McCain

In an emergency hearing, the Supreme Court, citing the “original intent” interpretation of the Constitution, voted 5-4 that each ballot cast for Illinois Senator Barack Obama only counts as 3/5 of a vote.  As a result, Arizona Senator John McCain received a plurality of votes in all 50 states, giving him all 538 electors and the presidency.  Former Georgia Congressman and Libertarian Party nominee Bob Barr declared the results a vindication of his campaign strategy, touting his tie with Obama in the electoral college as evidence that the LP is no longer just a third party, but now the co-second most popular party in America.

A Special “Election Night” Episode of Liberty Cap Talk Live Tomorrow Night

Tomorrow night at 8 p.m. EST, I will be hosting a special episode of Liberty Cap Talk Live with my co-host James Landrith, Jr. on NowLive.com.

I will have Libertarian Party and Boston Tea Party-endorsed candidates call into the show to report on their preliminary vote votals, the activities at their local voting precincts, and how their campaigns are doing and what is next for them if they don’t win their races. Plus, Jim and I will be following up on the McCain/Obama voting results, getting the electoral votes and the precinct results as well.

Plus, we will cover referendums in states that are being voted on and congressional and state races on the show.

Libertarian Party candidates, even those who have been endorsed by the Boston Tea Party, if you have anything of paramount importance to bring to the table tomorrow as far as the voting is concerned, please call into the show. The call-in information is located on the show’s profile page at NowLive.com.

This was originally an hour-long special show, but I’m extending it to 90 minutes. If more information needs to be covered and more candidates would like to be interviewed on the air, we’ll extend the show on the spot.

Hope to see you all on the air.

One more thing: if you want to post questions into NowLive’s chat room or call into the show and ask questions to me and Jim or the candidates or everyone, please do so. If you even have any comments you want to make as well, please do.

Thanks!

Yours in Liberty,

Todd Andrew Barnett

Host, Liberty Cap Talk Live

Escape from Attack of the Flying Lemons Piloted by Darth Liberties!

Yours for only $42.95 plus shipping at LPStuff.com! “You’ve been asking for it!”

Free Libertarian Bumper Stickers

Yours for free at FreeLibertarianStickers.com

Libertexians in the news

Dallas-Fort Worth area Libertarians in the news:

Yvonne Shick, candidate for U.S. Senate

Wes Benedict, Candidate for Travis County Commissioner, Pct 3

Jim Strohm, for US Congress, plus others in the Daily Texan