Another LNC Conflict of Interest Goes Almost Unnoticed

This article has been removed due to inaccuracy.  – ENM

LNC Recollections Indicate Keaton Completely Abandoned By “Radicals”

Rachel Hawkridge recently sent out an e-mail to a number of Libertarians about the final vote to try and boot Angela Keaton.

Keep in mind that this resolution was passed AFTER an earlier effort to brand Ms. Keaton a sexual predator, and still earlier efforts to smack her down for her outspoken, pro-transparency nature.

A shrewd observer would note this was the modus operandi of those who attempted to frame Mary Ruwart as a child porn acolyte. But I guess shrewdness is not a gift of the average LNC member.

Without further ado, Hawkridge writes in her summary of events, and I comment with my thoughts:

PLEASE read it carefully, and note that things are not nearly as bad as have been reported – anything red is note from me to Sully. Notes from me to you are ****. Most of the bold or italics are my attempts to highlight important points.

I did not receive any coloring in my e-mail, so I have no clue what is from “Sully” (LNC treasurer Sullentrup).

I’ll start with the substantive description of what happened, based on the Sullentrup and Hawkridge discussion:

After a break, the Chair announced Angela Keaton had blogged on the Internet some information that had been revealed in executive session.

“Executive session” is a fancy term for “secret meeting where various LNC members can engage in various shenanigans off the record, without any notice.”

Such secret meetings are useful for highly important classified stuff — like discussing lawsuits, etc. — but not for the purpose that they’re generally used for in the LNC (such as the BS politicking that we’ve witnessed this weekend).

**** Also note that some of this was reported incorrectly, and had already caused problems for some members. ****

I guess we’ll have to take Rachel’s word that there were some factual inaccuracies, since we’ll never actually know the content of the double-super-secret LNC meetings in question — which took up quite a bit of time last weekend.

From what I can tell, the “problems” were mostly constituent feedback. Unfortunately, lots of LNC members consider constituent feedback to be bad and something not to be replied to… hence its lack of connection to the paid membership in general.

Pat Dixon moved to censure Angela Keaton for having blogged what she had put onto the LastFreeVoice website.

Angela Keaton does not have access to LFV’s website as a poster.

Angela Keaton left the room after having admitted to the transgression.

Why did she leave the room?

The report is that she was ordered from the room.

Did she voluntarily leave the room? Was she ordered from the room? Did Imperial Shock Troops drag her out of the room?

Michael Jingozian read the passage to the body.

Aaron Starr moved a substitute motion: It is the belief of this body that Angela Keaton should resign for having disclosed material in executive session.

Hilarious. Aaron Starr swoops in for the kill.

How did the motion go?

Everyone in the room voted for the substitution. ****I believe this was a voice vote, and that I did not vote. – R****

So Keaton was not in the room — presumably because she was ordered out (as reported). Then there was an Aaron Starr resolution demanding her resignation for revealing material in one of the double-super-secret sessions (we still don’t know what the material was).

We also don’t know who voted or didn’t vote, and a voting member is claiming that she “believes” it was a voice vote and that she didn’t vote at all. That’s not very precise.

Angela Keaton returned to the room.

And the response was?

Aaron Starr moved to have her leave the room while the body decided what actions to take.

This is where it gets even dodgier.

As I noted prior, this is a clear violation of both the Libertarian National Committee’s Bylaws, and a violation of Roberts’ Rules. The body cannot order a sitting member of the body to leave the body other than through a valid vote to suspend the member.

The bylaws of the LNC clearly mandate a 2/3 vote of the LNC to suspend a member of the committee. Starr’s motion was not a motion to suspend, thus he (and the LNC) did not have authority to expel a sitting member of the body.

Angela Keaton was removed from the room

Whoa, holllllld on a minute, partner.

“Removed from the room?” Through what mechanism?

How did Starr’s illegal removal-from-room motion get introduced? Was there a vote? Who voted for it?

If not, was Keaton ordered removed from the room by Redpath and Starr (as reported)? If so, what basis do they claim the removal?

Was she removed physically?

but was afforded an opportunity to speak in her defense before departing.

By whom? In what capacity?

Her defense was that executive session was inappropriate for the material being discussed.

She wasn’t on trial. If the LNC was voting to suspend her from the LNC, calling it a “defense” would be appropriate. However, this was an illegal motion made by a politically motivated member of the LNC to expel a valid sitting member of the committee from the room. No “defense” needed other than “you don’t have the authority to do this.”

I wish Angela had not given in to this bullying.

Moreover, some of the material was an affront to her, and she had no opportunity to meet her accusers.

Typical day in the Starr Chamber.

Mary Ruwart invited Ms. Keaton to try again to address the specific issues the Committee had raised, since she had not appeared to have addressed them.

By whose estimation?

Again, the LNC is not a court.

There can be debate, there can be discussion, but the LNC does not have “powers of trial.”

It has one of two options — it can pass a resolution condemning Ms. Keaton (which she has full right to debate and participate within, including a vote, as a sitting member). Or, it can vote on expulsion, which requires a 2/3 vote of the committee.

It may not “kinda expel” a member.

**** I believe that Mary diffused some of the emotion here by injecting a moment of calm, loving . . . and allowed the discussion to later evolve into the apology compromise.****

I believe that Mary Ruwart folded like a cheap suit, at least if this account is accurate.

Bob Sullentrup called the question, which passed.

Was Keaton still in the room? What motion (if any) was used to “expel” her?

Moving then to a vote on the LNC recommendation to ask Angela Keaton to resign:

Voting in favor

Mary Ruwart, Jim Lark, Julie Fox, Pat Dixon, Rebecca Sink-Burris, Mark Hinkle, Michael Jingozian, Aaron Starr, Stewart Flood, Dan Karlan, Bob Sullentrup

Rachel Hawkridge abstained and the chair did not vote.

And there you have it. Your LNC voted to ask Angela to resign over absolutely nothing.

Worse, Mary Ruwart sold Keaton down the river, after earlier dirty dealing by several people in the same room targeting Ms. Keaton had earlier resulted in an attempt at a resolution (as well as a press release by Shane Cory) attempting to essentially smear her as a pro-child-porn activist.

Word to the wise — if you fight for the radicals, this is the “support” you can expect to get when your back is up against the wall later.

**** Note that this is not hostility in any way from Mr. Redpath. Both Gene and I feel that he was truly trying to be fair, and I got a sense of reluctance on his part in the whole matter. Mr. Redpath also DID NOT comment, suggest any motions, demonstrate any pleasure or anything else undesirable. He was FAIR and IMPARTIAL, and the overwhelming feeling and discussion then and later was that The Keaton had left us no choice. This was the second time in 2 days, and the revelations made on Sunday were made after discussion about secrecy about some of these revelations. ****

Absent for the vote were Lee Wrights, Admiral Colley (airport), Angela Keaton

Bob Sullentrup moved the LNC suspend the membership on the LNC of Angela Keaton for breaching confidentiality in executive session.

And now they move in for the kill.

Pat Dixon moved to amend with the phrase ‘as denoted in Article 8 Section 5 of Bylaws’.

The amendment was adopted.

Aaron Starr moved to make this matter a mail ballot. There was no second.

Aaron Starr moved to append ‘in the event she does not apologize with 10 days and commit to never repeating the offense again’. **** Once again, no malice or glee detected here. This was a major softening of the original motion, and I appreciate and commend Mr. Starr’s strength in being willing to back off the original motion.

Yadda yadda yadda.

At this point, we amended the agenda to remove Jim Lark’s goals item from the agenda and move Rachel’s to the email list.

When Aaron’s amendment passed, the main motion read:

The LNC shall suspend the membership on the LNC of Angela Keaton for breaching confidentiality in executive session as denoted in Article 8 Section 5 of Bylaws, in the event she does not apologize with 10 days and commit to never repeating the offense again

At some point the Chair returned to the room after a brief absence and reported Shane Cory had sent a text message noting the Barr campaign did not want Ms. Keaton removed from the LNC.

After some discussion that Mary Ruwart and perhaps others would talk to Angela to get her to understand her breach and how it affected LNC business, the body withdrew the motion, pending Mary’s report on her conversation. There was no objection to the withdrawal.

In plain English — Starr moved to eject Keaton, the LNC effectively had the votes to remove Keaton lined up (apparently including that of Mary Ruwart), but they suspended their final vote on expelling her to give LNC members an opportunity to browbeat Keaton into submission and compliance with their wishes.

And that, in a nutshell, is what “your” national committee spent so much time on this past weekend.

Opportunity for Pubic Comment

Perhaps the funniest typo I’ve read on this yet.

Chuck Moulton invited the LNC to consider Philadelphia as a convention site for 2010 or 2012.

Chuck also pointed out the maxim that if ‘a person is committing political suicide, step out of the way.’ This he said was true for both Angela Keaton and the LNC. He forecast ‘blowback’ and expressed relief he was no longer on the Board.

There are many lessons in here, if you care to read them. Hints: excessive sense of self-importance by the LNC, lots of emotional gobbledygook, and a generous dollop of good old-fashioned dirty gotcha politics.

None of which does anything to contribute to the advancement of liberty in the slightest.

If you are reliant on the integrity and support any of the LNC members who voted to eliminate Ms. Keaton (or did nothing to stop this obvious third-attempt-in-the-weekend of bullying her), I suggest you reassess your relations with those people.

Myself, I no longer have confidence in any members of the Libertarian National Committee based on what I’ve heard and the details in this account. And I certainly cannot be a member of a political party with such a deficit of leadership and a lack of transparency.

LNC = Lawless Narcissism Chamber

What more can be said?

They ejected a member of the body FROM the proceedings of the body.  There are no provisions that allow this.

They then conducted a secret vote on the status of that member of the body, apparently without allowing that member to actually cast a vote.

None of the so-called “leaders” in the room introduced a resolution to table this insane purge of a popular and well-supported member of the LNC and focus on the important business at hand.

As a result, 80%+ of the real business time was spent on a small clique’s agenda to isolate and exclude a duly-elected member of the committee.

No comment or action taken on the LNC’s financial situation.

No comment or action taken on any number of ballot access lawsuits threatening the status of state parties around the country.

No comment or action taken on the election.

No comment or action taken on the nationalization of Fannie and Freddie, and the $2.8 trillion in “guarantees” the feds added to our already staggering national debt.

Oh, some throwaway resolution about Afghanistan, issued three to five years late.

The LNC is a fool’s chamber.  In its current incarnation it serves no purpose.  It has no function, impedes the growth of liberty, and cannot adhere to basic principles of openness, accountability, or even its own bylaws for basic administration of a democratic body that is supposed to represent its constituents (who pay, lest we forget, to be members).

It is useless.  Stop sending it money and let it go out of business.  That will only aid the candidacies of folks like Dr. Munger who are actually doing exciting things, and it will eliminate most of the angst and roadblocks that make running for office as a Libertarian a difficult proposition internally.

Hopefully, the marketplace of ideas will provide something more useful and dynamic in its place.

Barr to be thrown off Pennsylvania ballot?

I received a call this morning from a Green Party honcho in Pennsylvania telling me that a lawsuit filed by the GOP against the Barr campaign could result in the LP losing its ballot access in Pennsylvania.

This person mentioned that the Greens are apparently concerned that this could end up with a repeat of 2004, when the Democrats bullied the Greens off the ballot and then sent their six-figure legal bills for the challenge to senior state Green officials, effectively bankrupting them.

The repercussions from that effort are still reverberating, with Green officials suing the involved Democrats and law firms, and a prosecutor’s office becoming involved in the fray (suggesting some dirty dealing on behalf of the Democrats).

Fast-forward to 2008.  The LP of PA is both larger and better funded than the Greens.  If the Republicans succeed in knocking off the LP in this state, the Democrats likely will do the same to the Greens.

I could find nothing on this, other than an oblique reference in a letter distributed on Facebook by Stephen Gordon, claiming to quote Shane Cory:

From Barr’s Deputy Campaign Manager Shane Cory:

Today, I’m sitting here in Atlanta nervously awaiting word from a trial that is taking place today to kick Bob Barr off of the ballot in the state of Pennsylvania.

Although we did everything correct to get on the ballot in Pennsylvania and compete in the election against John McCain and Barack Obama, an operative for John McCain, Victor Stabile, decided that he didn’t “like to see anything taint that process.”

. . .

While losing sleep over of the case filed against us in Pennsylvania, I’ve been on pins-and-needles waiting all week to hear the outcome of our case in West Virginia.

It’s interesting to note the implication that the Barr campaign and LNC lack the resources to fight this battle — especially considering the threatened-yet-not-yet-filed lawsuit in New Hampshire. The city of Philadelphia alone has over 100,000 more residents than the entire state of NH, and if the LP is thrown off the federal ballot, there will be no Libertarian party alternative for voters in the nation’s sixth most populous state.

Outright Libertarians: Note to Republicrats — Silence Is Golden

Many of us at Outright Libertarians were rather surprised when Stonewall Democrats endorsed Barack Obama.

After all, Barack Obama’s record on issues that matter is pretty poor.

Obama is opposed to marriage equality and favors a segregated “separate and unequal” arrangement for gay couples based on his religious beliefs:

Barack Obama said Friday that his Christian beliefs dictate that marriage should be between a man and a woman

We were particularly disappointed that the first African American to represent a major party in a national election would cite his religious beliefs in support of segregation. After all, many segregationists in the Old South cited the Bible to justify racial segregationism as well.

Obama’s not just poor on the marriage equality issue. He has repeatedly refused to co-sponsor or support the Uniting American Families Act, or UAFA, which would do nothing other than treat same-sex couples the same as opposite sex couples for immigration purposes.

And Obama’s refusal to support a meaningful end to the military’s anti-gay policy by co-sponsoring the Military Readiness Enhancement Act is equally appalling.

In short, it is clear that a Barack Obama presidency would represent an ugly era of segregation for LGBT Americans. We would have a president who uses religion to justify public policies that segregate us and drop us into second-class status — permanently.

That sort of presidency doesn’t deserve an endorsement from a gay rights group.

Which brings us to Log Cabin Republicans, who dutifully endorsed their party’s choice, John McCain.

John McCain?

The same John McCain who stammered and ummmmmed his way through an interview with Ellen DeGeneres when she pointedly challenged him on his anti-family policies?

The same John McCain who backed a failed anti-gay ballot initiative in his home state, and who has embraced anti-gay bigotry by endorsing California’s anti-gay Proposition 8?

The ProtectMarriage.com campaign says it received an e-mail from McCain Thursday in which the Arizona senator expressed his support for the group’s efforts “to recognize marriage as a unique institution between a man and a woman.”

McCain has previously said that while he does not back banning same-sex marriage at the federal level, he thinks it is appropriate for states to do so.

If there’s one candidate whose stance on gay issues is even worse than Obama’s execrable apologies for anti-gay animus, it’s John McCain.

For Log Cabin to endorse McCain, after their pointed refusal to do so in the case of George Bush in 2004, is particularly disappointing.

In both cases, the partisan LGBT lobbies chose party power politics over the concerns of the LGBT community.

That’s why we’d like to remind our friends in the Stonewall Demopublicans and the Log Cabin Republicrats that they are, first and foremost, gay rights organizations.

When they give unearned endorsements to anti-gay candidates, they sell out the LGBT community.

We at Outright take a different tactic. We only give endorsements to those candidates who have earned them — by embracing an unabashed equal-treatment-under-the-law agenda. When confronted with a candidate who doesn’t embrace equality under the law in our own party — or anywhere else — we don’t endorse him or her.

We’re big fans of partisanship. We believe that the Libertarian Party platform is the best approach for LGBT Americans, as well as America in general. We’re proud that our party platform has the strongest gay-rights plank of any national party in the USA. And we believe, as we’re sure our counterparts at Log Cabin and Stonewall do, that our party is the best choice for governing.

We simply choose to be honest and give credit where credit is due. When confronted with a demand for an endorsement for a candidate who does not embrace equality under the law, Outright Libertarians puts the LGBT community first. We wish that our colleagues in the other parties would learn that sometimes, silence is truly golden.

The great dilemma: Health insurance or Broadway tickets?

Al Jazeera is always good for laugh in its coverage of US social issues, and the Middle Eastern news outlet didn’t fail to deliver with this latest piece on US health care.

Meet one Gibson Glass, a Manhattanite who is too poor to afford health insurance:

Gibson Glass, 58, enjoys his jogs though New York City’s Central Park.

But he is not just running for fun. Gibson is one of more than 40 million Americans who does not have health insurance.

So, for Gibson, regular exercise is a form of health insurance. He is a freelance picture framer, and he says he simply cannot afford to pay about $600 each month on insurance.

He says that the United States’ healthcare system is “totally messed up” because, as he puts it, “everybody should be able to afford health insurance, whatever their income, and I have a pretty good income, I just can’t afford it.”

Gibson has worked out the odds and is making a rational decision, based on his circumstances.

Poor guy. Surely he’s scrimping every penny and living on the edge, right?

In the meantime, he would rather spend his precious money on going to the theatre and concerts and seeing friends for dinner.

These are things that give his life quality, and, as he says, “make him a healthier person”.

Oh.

So he chooses to live in the most expensive borough of the most expensive city in the country and instead of purchasing health insurance, he’s going to regularly purchase Broadway tickets (which are about $150 on average), dine out in Manhattan’s Zagat-rated restaurants with friends, and see Liza Minnelli in concert.

And if he *does* get sick after living this life of luxury in the playground of the wealthy known as Manhattan, he’s going to hand the bill to those of us who cannot afford to live in Manhattan, feast at Zagat-rated bistros, or enjoy the latest musical starring Mario Lopez.

I know many whiny people who earn decent incomes yet claim they “cannot afford health care.” All of them are just like Mr. Glass — they have sufficient income to purchase insurance just like the rest of us, but they instead prefer to spend the money on luxuries like iPhones with high-end service contracts, concerts, meals out, new cars, and vacations. No, they’re going to buy the luxuries and pass the bill for the necessities on to you and me.

Too bad this “inconvenient truth” has yet to be inserted into the Great Healthcare Debate.

Meanwhile, Gibson, it’s time to move to New Jersey, get a room-mate, learn to cook, rent some Broadway DVDs, and pay your own damn health insurance bill.

Hat tip to Delaware Libertarian for the pointer to the article.

You Are Now Leaving The Fourth Amendment

America’s Department of Homeland Security is a draconian beast.

It says that shampoo, toothpaste, Diet Coke and deodorant are dangerous chemicals which must be restricted and banned from aircraft in quantities above 3 oz.

It says that if you wish to board an aircraft in any part of the USA, you’re basically subject to humiliating sexual harassment and groping, including strip searches, trouser-drops, and x-ray scans of your entire body — including full views of your genitals.

It demands that if you wish to travel between two points within the USA, that you must produce a government-issued ID — much as Soviet citizens were required to in the bad old days.

But perhaps the most astonishing accomplishment of these guys is the effective termination of the Bill of Rights at every port of entry/exit in the United States.

The government is now asserting that it has an unlimited right to confiscate and search through your laptop, cell phone, or other personal electronic device whenever you enter or leave the country.

Federal agents may take a traveler’s laptop computer or other electronic device to an off-site location for an unspecified period of time without any suspicion of wrongdoing, as part of border search policies the Department of Homeland Security recently disclosed.

Indefinite confiscation of your personal effects without reasonable cause is unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment. But when did these boys ever care about the Constitution?

It gets better.

officials may share copies of the laptop’s contents with other agencies and private entities for language translation, data decryption or other reasons

Got your business’ general ledger on your PC? Better hope your big competitor doesn’t know someone at DHS who can snatch a copy of your hard disk while you leave the country, to churn through it and hand over confidential trade information.

Got your tax and medical records on your laptop? Well, they’re public now, baby! DHS can copy and share them for translation, decryption, or any other “reason” it decides.

Got photos of you and your significant others dressed in vinyl suits doing God-knows-what at Burning Man? Imagine the fun and laughter the good folks will have at DHS as they print and hand out copies of your photographs and giggle at the video clips! Fun will be had by all!

DHS officials said the newly disclosed policies — which apply to anyone entering the country, including U.S. citizens — are reasonable and necessary to prevent terrorism.

Oh, of course they are.

As will be the mandatory strip searches complete with probosces. After all, you could be hiding a stick of dynamite, plans to bomb St. Louis, or a film roll of obscene material in those intimate body cavities.

Yuppie Welfare Bill Passed

Did you buy a house you couldn’t afford, with a suicidal no-down-payment negative amortization loan about 10x your annual income, and then borrow tens or hundreds of thousands of additional dollars against your fake “equity” to buy luxury cars, expensive vacations, large-screen TVs, designer furniture, gold watches and other bling?

Or are you a “flipper” who committed mortgage fraud, getting several government-backed “primary residence” loans to buy houses, put $15K of Home Depot stuff in them, and sell them — only to discover the housing bubble popped and you cannot make your mortgage payments on the second, third, or fifth house you own?

If so, you’re in luck! The bipartisan bozos in Washington have signed a $300 billion bailout to make the payments on your loans and save Fannie/Freddie to keep the suicide loans flowing, positioning it as a “housing market stabilization bill.” Bush is planning to sign it “quietly.”

Are you a saver, someone who didn’t buy an overpriced house with a suicide loan and are waiting for inflated housing prices driven up by government largesse and the speculative flipper-bubble to return to the market price?

You, then, are screwed. With every tax payment you make, you’ll be paying for your insane neighbors’ Rolexes, Hummers, Danish modern furniture, pools, LG 64 inch LCD televisions, and Disney holidays. And you’ll continue to be priced out of the housing market, thanks to big government largesse.

Obama: Socialism Will Conquer Terrorism

If we only agree to ignore every difference between people, countries, languages, religions and beliefs, and embrace his socialist dream with sufficient ardor, we can defeat terrorism, says Barack Obama. Whoopee.

“People of Berlin, people of the world, this is our moment. This is our time,” he declared.

“The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand,” Obama said, speaking not far from where the Berlin Wall once divided the city.

“The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes, natives and immigrants, Christians and Muslims and Jews cannot stand,” he said.

Policies to make this pie-in-the-sky socialist dream come true were, true to Obama form, completely absent.

Well, perhaps it’s not fair to say completely absent… Obama’s position in favor of allowing warrantless wiretaps shows that he’s more than willing to simply continue the Bush-Cheney police state with a new, friendly, hope-and-change face.

Meanwhile, the adulatory worship of Obama’s platitudes is picking up in Europe as well:

One man yelled out in English, “Yes, we can,” the senator’s campaign refrain, when he emerged from his car to enter his hotel.

Well of course. Eight years of Bush have indeed proven “we can.” The question isn’t whether more of the same is possible — the question is, can we survive it with our civil liberties intact?

“But the burdens of global citizenship continue to bind us together. A change of leadership in Washington will not lift this burden. In this new century, Americans and Europeans alike will be required to do more, not less.”

Oh, there’s your answer. We cannot allow pesky parochial American concepts like the first, second, fourth, tenth and fourteenth amendments — or indeed the US Constitution — to overshadow our “global citizens’ responsibility” to, well, do whatever the ruling bureaucracies of Europe and the US decide we should do.

“Change?” Not really.

Why The Libertarian Party Is Still Better

Some have been claiming that the unwillingness of some Libertarians to actively undermine the party with baseless criticisms, despite the less-than-perfect nominee we received, represents “treason” or a “lack of principle.”

They’re not paying attention. Many of us are supporting the party despite our very public misgivings about the presidential ticket.

Compare that attitude to the dressing down that Democrats, angry that Hillary Clinton — who won the popular vote in the Democrat contest — is getting from former Hillary delegates.

It seems that a large number of Hillary’s uppity 18 million supporters are getting a bit too uppity for the “superdelegates,” and the superdelegates are letting their irritation with the little people show.

Dear Democratic Friends:

2008 is a Democratic year-at all levels in all the states. The opportunity is ours. We just have to seize it.

We experienced an exciting, intense, sometimes difficult, campaign to nominate our presidential candidate. Now it’s over. Barack Obama won.

I supported Hillary Clinton and am proud and pleased that I did. But she lost. Barack Obama won. It’s over.

It is time for all Democrats, supporters of Senator Clinton and all other contenders for the nomination, to stand with him to secure his election and the election of Democrats at all levels of competition.

I must confess a bit of fatigue and irritation with people who continue to carp, complain, and criticize the results of the primary and lay down conditions for their support. The Los Angeles Lakers didn’t establish conditions to recognize the Boston Celtics as NBA Champions; Roger Federer did not demand concessions before recognizing that Rafael Nadal defeated him at Wimbledon.

It is time to act in a mature and resourceful fashion. It’s time to put the primaries behind us. It’s time to support Barack Obama without conditions or demands.

It’s time to WIN for Barack Obama, the Democratic Party, America, and our future. We have an unparalleled opportunity. I hope we will all do everything we can to seize the moment.

See you at the Inauguration.

Sincerely,

Don Fowler
DNC Member At-Large, South Carolina
Former Chair of the Democratic National Committee

Alice Germond
Secretary, Democratic National Committee

The “party primaries” gave Clinton the lead — it was caucuses and the DNC’s shenanigans, opposed to the will of a majority of Democrat voters, that made Obama the putative “winner.”

But most amusingly, consider the demand that Democrats “support Barack Obama without conditions or demands.”

I certainly haven’t made a similar request of Libertarians. Neither have Steve Kubby and other prominent Libertarians who have decided to continue backing the vast majority of Libertarian candidates — while noting and criticizing the Libertarian top ticket when it’s wrong.

Those who have criticized Libertarians for not immolating the top of the ticket should consider our party’s relative conditions. We have a thriving group of enthusiasts for Barr, nominal supporters for the LP delegation’s decision (like Kubby and myself), and a large group of “anybody but Barr” activists — all of whom are active and important constituents of the Libertarian Party.

Democrats, on the other hand, not only had no opportunity to have a voice in who was picked for their nomination — having their voices overridden by the Democratic National Committee — but has also suffered the indignity of arrogant insiders smothering their voices and demanding they support the ticket “without conditions or demands.”

Yet another reason why I am a Libertarian. The contrast is stark.

South Carolina: The Deadbeat State

There’s been a miniature scandal in South Carolina that reaches over to the United Kingdom and back.

South Carolina, like so many other states, loves to waste taxpayer money on “tourism advertising.” Rather than recognizing that individual businesses (and business coalitions) can more effectively advertise than the state can, the state every year spends more than a million dollars on ads in various tourist venues promoting the state’s various attractions.

One of those venues was London’s Gay Pride Festival. Gay and lesbian tourists are one of the biggest market niches for tourism, and some bureaucrat in SC’s tourism ad department apparently decided to get some return on taxpayers’ dollars (to the extent that getting tourism for tax cash is “a return”).

The person — fully allowed to contract on behalf of the State of South Carolina — contracted with an advertising firm called AMRO to run a $5,000 campaign during the height of London Pride, advertising South Carolina’s beaches and plantation houses as “so gay.”

Unfortunately for that bureaucrat, SC’s Republican right-wing governor discovered the spending, ex-post-facto, and demanded his resignation. His outrage over “taxpayers” being “angry” over “how money was being spent” only applied to the $5,000 gay ad campaign however — not to the millions being wasted elsewhere. The governor announced that the state would not pay the debt it incurred as a party to the contract — despite AMRO incurring the requisite expenses and running the advertising as agreed.

Meanwhile, poor AMRO ended up with a deadbeat client. The governor announced that, despite a contract being signed and AMRO delivering on its commitment by designing the advertising copy and running it in high-profile places throughout London, the state would never, ever pay.

If you ever needed evidence of what crooks run government today, here you’ve got it. Contracts can be broken by the benefiting party based on nothing more than manufactured outrage.

Not to mention that, if you or I were to walk out of a $5,000 contract, we’d face ruined credit, big lawsuits, an inability to borrow for years, higher interest rates, and punitive damages. Government, however, can steal twice — once from your assets to pay for such advertising, and again from the providers of the advertising when it decides conveniently not to pay for the campaign. And it enjoys “sovereign immunity,” ensuring that the state will remain forever a deadbeat with no relief for the creditor, ever.

But another party has stepped in to make light of this situation… and it wasn’t a per-se libertarian group.

Gay group South Carolina Pride has taken to mocking both the state’s ridiculous spending and its deadbeat status. It is running an ad campaign contest of its own to mock the SC advertising effort, as well as raising money to pay back the $5,000 bill that the state government racked up yet refuses to pay. That’s downright libertarian!

Outreach, or Outhouse?

Just click here, check out the comments at the bottom from R3OVLUTIONaries, and pop back to tell me how I’m supposed to sell such a campaign, and a “libertarian” brand associated with that campaign, with such opinions representing the majority of supporters.

Bonus points for apologies or claims that I “took the posts out of context.”

Extra bonus points if you can somehow spin it into happy-happy joy-joy.

Mucho mega bonus points if you can find comments from the Barr campaign, its prominent staffers, or LP staffers that are anywhere near as ridiculous.

Extra mucho mega bonus points if you can understand why associating the “libertarian” brand with such dreck is bad for the movement and the LP as a whole.

Barr Slams Freddie/Fannie Bailout

On this score, Barr is taking a broadly libertarian approach to the issue and differentiating the Libertarians from the Democrats and Republicans on a key policy issue.

Barr’s statement to FOX on this issue can be viewed here.

Washington Blade Covers Kent Snyder’s Death

Some interesting tidbits from the Blade’s coverage:

Gay staffers from the Paul campaign, some speaking on condition that they not be identified, said they learned about Snyder’s unpaid medical bills from a web site created by his friends that calls on Paul supporters to contribute to a special fund to help Snyder’s family pay the bills, which come mostly from a two-month hospitalization. So far, the site (kentsnyder.com) has raised about $32,000.

It’s a bit sad that gay staffers feel like they cannot be openly gay in the Ron Paul campaign.

“I can’t believe he didn’t have health insurance,” said one political activist who read about Snyder’s unpaid medical bills in a story published last month in the Wall Street Journal. “I can’t believe that Ron Paul didn’t give him health insurance,” said the activist, who asked not to be identified.

Over $35 million raised, but no health insurance for key staff?!?

Craig Max, a D.C. gay Republican activist who sought to become a Ron Paul delegate to the Republican National Convention, said news of Snyder’s death and his lack of health insurance has triggered a behind-the-scenes debate among Paul supporters and libertarian activists over whether or not the Paul campaign should have provided health insurance to its staff.

…

The Journal story did not identify Snyder as gay; a Washington Post obituary reported Snyder died of viral pneumonia but did not mention his sexual orientation.

At least three gay Paul supporters said it was well known among Paul campaign insiders that Snyder was gay. Although Snyder shunned the public spotlight, activists and political operatives working on the campaigns of rival GOP presidential candidates, including officials with the McCain campaign, recognized Snyder’s efforts in building a major campaign operation for Paul, Paul’s gay supporters said.

Imagine if Synder had stepped out of the closet to challenge his boss on some of the issues I’ve criticized Paul on — it would have made a big difference.

Overall, this story is a compound tragedy. Snyder helped build a doubtlessly successful fundraising and publicity campaign, but was ultimately forced into the closet by the politics of the Republican Party, and ended up dead due to a lack of health insurance.

Whether it was the campaign’s responsibility to provide insurance for full time employees is up for debate, and I don’t know what the answer is to that question. I do know that America is poorer for Snyder’s death — and poorer for Beltway Republicans’ habit of forcing yet another brilliant gay man into the closet.

Some Help From Outright To Ease Obama’s “Difficulty”

This entry is reprinted from the Outright Libertarians blog.

Recently, a gay Democratic activist went to ask Obama about immigration equality. An emotional issue for the gentleman, he teared up when asking Obama about it and received a Clintonian “I feel your pain” response, followed up with a statement that immigration equality is a “difficult” issue:

It was apparent that he knew this issue well. He took some time to explain that same sex immigration is going to be a very difficult one because it combines two of the most controversial issues Congress faces, gay rights and immigration. (I heard this from Barney Frank two years ago as well.) Obama also said that to tackle it we were going to have to establish a vehicle to recognize gay couples.

Obama’s understanding of this issue is pretty lousy, and must contribute to his perception of “difficulty.”

Presently, the Uniting American Families Act (or UAFA) would make immigration equality happen for both same-gender couples AND opposite-gender couples who choose, for religious, personal or other reasons, not to get legally married.

So here’s a simple, easily implemented plan for Obama to pursue on this issue:

1) Talk to Nancy Pelosi, Democratic Speaker, and get the Democratic Whip to get all Democrats to sign on to support UAFA. Ask Pelosi to allow the bill out of committee. The bill, supported by all Democrats and a number of Republicans, would easily pass the House.

2) Introduce identical companion legislation in the Senate. As a senator, Obama can do this, and ensure there’s no “committee” necessary to reconcile differing pieces of legislation in the house.

3) Have Harry Reid instruct all Democrat Senators — who have a majority — to vote for the bill. A number of GOP senators support the bill as well.

4) If President Bush vetoes it, attempt to get a veto-proof majority, which could possibly be achieved for the bill. If a veto-proof majority is impossible to get, commit to signing the bill if elected president. Then, simply repeat the use of the Democrat majorities in both houses and sign the bill as president, after campaigning on a committed platform for UAFA.

It’s not that real action on immigration equality is “difficult,” it simply requires Democrats to actually walk the walk on gay issues. Since Democrats typically cannot be bothered to make legislation on gay issues happen — except when it’s anti-gay legislation like DOMA and the anti-gay military policy — the difficulty is not theirs, but that of 40,000 binational same-gender couples divided or exiled due to Republicrat duplicity on this issue.

Sorry, Barack, but “feeling our pain” ain’t good enough. We heard that often enough from Bill Clinton over 16 years ago. It’s time to listen to Lee Iacocca and either lead or get the hell out of the way.

The Surreal Discontents of the War on Drugs

An 18-year old MADD activist was recently arrested and charged with delivering cookies to police departments that one department alleged “smelled like” they contained marijuana and LSD.

Turns out that testing has shown the cookies were, well, just cookies:

Christian Phillips, 18, was arrested after field tests suggested cookies delivered to two police departments contained LSD and marijuana. However, a medical examiner’s test of the cookies showed no signs of drugs.

Phillips has denied the cookies contained drugs. More sensitive tests are underway – results are expected this afternoon.

Welcome to the New America.

No good deed goes unpunished. Nobody is above suspicion. No charge or suspicion made by “authority,” no matter how implausible, goes unquestioned. And taxpayers get to spend thousands upon thousands of dollars on each individual situation.

In the mean time, the big lesson appears to be “avoid providing food to police officers.” You could end up in prison.

Newsweek Commentator Alter: Throw The Gays Under The Bus (Again)!

The Obama campaign has been mystifying observers for a while in its sheer audacity. Not necessarily audacious in hope, but rather in flip-flopping, Obama has been running so far to the right as of late to shock even longtime critics like yours truly.

When not advocating an expansion of George W. Bush’s government funding program for religious organizations, extension of the warrantless wiretap law, or claiming ignorance about the teachings of his own pastor, Obama is taking steps to distance himself from gay people.

Whether it’s slamming marriage equality while announcing his opposition to California’s anti-gay marriage ballot initiative or the possible nomination of notorious homophobe Sam Nunn as his VP nominee, Obama has shown nothing but contempt for LGBT Americans.

Which makes this article from Newsweek’s John Alter advocating a Nunn Democratic VP nomination all that much more patronizing to LGBT Americans, especially this portion:

The biggest stumbling block in selecting Nunn is his support in 1993 for a Pentagon study that backed a don’t-ask-don’t-tell policy for gays in the military. Nunn’s position now is a mixture of new rhetoric (”I’m grateful to the thousands of gays and lesbians serving today”) and a willingness to “review the policy” with an eye toward “eventually” changing it.

This won’t be nearly enough for the gay and lesbian community and other liberals, for whom a controversial position of 15 years ago is still fresh. But, contrary to what many assume, this constituency does not have a veto over Obama’s choice. And after pleasing gay rights groups by expressing his opposition to a California ballot initiative that would change the state constitution to bar gay marriage, Obama has some room to maneuver.

The blunt political truth is that Nunn’s history on this issue might actually help the Democratic ticket in states like Ohio and Pennsylvania. While gays would protest loudly if Nunn is the nominee, his selection would show Obama’s independent streak in standing up to a powerful Democratic interest group.

I’ll leave it up to you to decide which assertion is most pathetic:

1) The assertion that all gay and lesbian Americans are “liberals”;

2) The idea that Obama’s speechifying on a state issue not directly relevant to the presidency in California “makes up for” dithering in a federal area — military readiness — by taking the wrong side on an issue that a supermajority of Americans have long thought should change;

3) The idea that bigotry against gays and lesbians is demonstrative of an “independent streak” (one wonders if Alter and his media cohorts would characterize David Duke’s policies against African Americans as edgy and independent);

4) The idea that gay people have any significant power or influence in the Democratic Party — which has been taking the votes and contributions of gay people for two decades yet delivered not a single substantive positive policy change in that time.

If this article is what passes for “political analysis” in the mainstream media, it’s no wonder we’re stuck with a boatload of mediocre candidates this election cycle. The media isn’t doing its job.

Barack Obama: Bush’s State-Religion Intermingling Doesn’t Go Far Enough

Yet more “change” from the Democrat who seems ever more determined to grow the size and scope of Bush’s religious police state:

“I want this to be central to our White House mission,” he told reporters in Zanesville.

Obama, who stressed his religious faith during the 16-month nominating battle with Democratic rival Hillary Clinton, said he learned early on as a community organizer in Chicago the value of acting on his faith. 

“I came to see my faith as being both a personal commitment to Christ and a commitment to my community — while I could sit in church and pray all I want, I wouldn’t be fulfilling God’s will unless I went out and did the Lord’s work,” he said.

Obama said the office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives set up by Bush as part of his “compassionate conservative” agenda never lived up to its early promise and social service programs for the poor had been underfunded. 

He proposed a new Council for Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships to reinvigorate the effort. 

“The new name will reflect a new commitment,” he said after a tour of a ministry that provides food, clothing and services for the needy in Zanesville.

His proposal would launch a training program to offer instruction to community faith-based organizations on how to teach smaller groups to take advantage of government programs, and he would provide new summer opportunities for up to 1 million children.

The new summer learning program would cost $500 million a year — financed by cutting wasteful spending in federal procurement and management.

And they insist there’s a difference between Democrats and Republicans?!?  Both seem perfectly willing to ignore inconvenient parts of the Constitution — be they the first, second, tenth, or fourteenth amendments.

And for only $500 million a year!  Such a bargain.

Victims of the Bob Barr/Ron Paul Immigration Policies

Ultimately, a massive bureaucratic immigration policy as advocated by both Barr and Paul (and numerous folks from both of the old parties) has a number of victims.

First, you’ve got people who want nothing more than an opportunity to sell their labor, as a commodity, in the United States.  Efforts to block them from selling their labor are good old fashioned protectionism, no different than banning or limiting the sale of Korean cars, Japanese electronics, or French cheese.

Secondly, you’ve got the entire country as a whole, who pay higher prices for lower quality labor due to deterioration in competition.  When one is guaranteed a job through government intervention and protection from competition, quality suffers and costs increase.  You’d think libertarians would understand this.

And finally, you’ve got a frightening number of cases like this one:

Varsha Sabhnani, 46, was convicted with her husband in December on a 12-count federal indictment that included forced labor, conspiracy, involuntary servitude and harboring aliens.

The trial provided a glimpse into a growing U.S. problem of domestic workers exploited in slave-like conditions.

The victims testified that they were beaten with brooms and umbrellas, slashed with knives, and forced to climb stairs and take freezing showers as punishment. One victim was forced to eat dozens of chili peppers against her will, and then was forced to eat her own vomit when she couldn’t keep the peppers down, prosecutors said.

The poor women in this case were exploited not only by Sabhnani, whose light sentence is shocking, but by the government itself.  These women sought nothing more than to clean houses for profit — selling their most basic commodity, their labor, in a competitive free market.

Instead, they got forced into slavery by a system that says they cannot exist.  Recourse to law enforcement was difficult, since they’d be deported and their economic status completely destroyed.

Ultimately, those advocating a hard-core anti-immigration pogrom are protectionists who are willing to place millions of hard-working free market competitors in harm’s way by destroying their ability to compete in a free market.

Call it what you want — but it’s not “libertarian.”

Another Candidate For Sean Haugh To “Protect” Us From

Apparently, Sean Haugh has appointed himself determinant of who characterizes a nutty candidate who is bad for the Libertarian Party.  He says of Mr. Barrett:

From the references you can also see that there’s a community of people out there who are watching and listening to Barrett’s every word. When he says this junk in the future as a Libertarian candidate, every one of these people will have reason to link these noxious sentiments to our party.

Setting all that aside, why would you want to support a candidate that blithely lies to all of you?

For the moment, let’s overlook the fact Libertarian Party member (and presidential/congressional candidate) Ron Paul had had some pretty shocking racist, anti-semitic, and homophobic statements attributed to him… yet still got a hallelujah from the LP National Office when he dropped out of another party’s primary.

I know little of Mr. Barrett.  It appears from the citations that he is prone to some nontraditional and non-LP opinions on 9/11, and as someone who rejects the 9/11 conspiracy theories, I’d certainly be uncomfortable having those views communicated as a Libertarian Party view on the issues.

However, Mr. Barrett’s run with the LP is apparently his first.

Which brings me to one Mr. Kevin Craig of Missouri.  Mr. Craig is a perennial candidate representing the LP in Missouri.

Mr. Craig advocates a “Libertarian theocracy” on his campaign web site.  Unlike Mr. Haugh’s experiences with Mr. Barrett, I didn’t have to browse around a dozen obscure listserves and local papers to find lots of controversial and noxious sentiments.  I just had to go to his own campaign web site.

In poverty and anonymous homosexuality, at least man is his own god. But these would-be gods always cry out to Big Brother to bring paradise. Those who will not acknowledge the Messiah as their King live under the boot of the messianic state.

…

Another thing I find “morally repugnant” is the civil government telling citizens that two (or more?) homosexuals have a “right” to be “married.”

…

They have also disregarded God’s intent. Every single person who signed the Declaration of Independence (1776) and the Constitution (1787) believed that homosexuality is contrary to “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” The rights we have are only those with which we have been endowed by our Creator, who also ordained “marriage,” and who also defined who we can and cannot be “married” to.

…

Every single person who signed the Constitution would say the government is a child abuser by teaching children that homosexuality is not sinful.

…

It’s trendy to believe that evil capitalists and industrialists cause “acid rain” and “global warming,” but the MainstreamMedia gets all bent out of shape when Jerry Falwell suggests that homosexuals and the ACLU caused 9-11 or hurricanes. The Bible clearly declares that man’s evil is the cause of climatological disturbances (Deuteronomy 28) or as the lawyers call it, “acts of God.”

…

Congress should

* “Hate” homosexuality and homosexuals
* Follow God’s Commandments with respect to them

…

Homosexuals attempt to embezzle sexual satisfaction from God’s business.

The entire creation is God’s enterprise.

God is the Boss.

Homosexuals are disobedient employees.

God hates them.

That’s just a small sampling of the various content Mr. Craig has spread as the Libertarian Party’s campaign message during his Libertarian candidacies.

When I communicated my concern about this problem to then-Executive Director Shane Cory, I was ignored.  When I finally cornered Cory at the Conservative Leadership Conference last year, and asked him about these repugnant statements, he told me that the LP cannot monitor every candidate or centrally control every bad statement that candidates make.

Fair enough.

So why the emphasis on one supposed deranged individual, while on the LP clock, yet no emphasis on Mr. Craig — who has made his controversial and noxious statements *on his campaign web site*?

Craig’s candidacy has been “watched” by a number of people across the blogosphere, and has been used by several Democrats in the past to attack the Libertarian Party.  A quick Google search produces numerous pages of commentary.

If Haugh is not willing to enthusiastically go up against Craig, whose views certainly damage our party’s credibility and are every bit as noxious as those allegedly uttered by Barrett, then he should cease and desist from his activities against Barrett.  From where I am sitting, Haugh’s pogrom looks like politically-expedient grandstanding, not principled defense of the LP from candidate bigotry.

Surprise — your privacy is even more compromised than you thought

Apparently, one may still travel by air without ID, if the TSA is convinced that the ID is lost, and you’re willing to undergo egregious privacy violations.  Consumerist reports on one traveler’s experience:

After filling out the affidavit, Laurie called a service to verify my address. The service needed me to then correctly answer three questions about myself, which Laurie relayed to me. The first was my date of birth, the second was a previous address (which I only got right on my second try), and the third was “You are registered to vote. Which political party have you registered with?” I got all three right, and only then did Laurie clear me to go through security.

Of course, I still had to submit to secondary screening, including a full-body pat-down and total luggage search. Brenda and Laurie stayed with me to make sure the process went as quickly as possible, and were again incredibly helpful and nice. They kept explaining over and over how necessary it was to “verify” who I was, and how times have changed, and how these new regulations must have been as a result of someone trying to get away with something, because there’s always a reason for these thing but they don’t always know what those reasons are. They were so nice and considerate that I waited until the very end before I finally said that I do not agree with the new regulations, but that I was thankful that the two of them acted so professionally and considerately to me. Laurie actually seemed a little dejected when I said this, because I had been playing along the entire time out of fear that I would not appear cooperative otherwise.

I can only imagine what the reaction would be if one answered “Libertarian” or “Green” — especially in states where those parties aren’t “officially recognized.”

One also has to marvel at the amount of sophisticated data that the so-called “service” has collected about travelers.  More than likely, the information is gleaned from credit records — a situation where one in four individuals has serious errors on “their” file.

This makes the cozy relationship between government and data collection companies a lot clearer.  The next time you make a purchase, buy a car, apply for a loan, or go on vacation, your transaction will be reported — possibly inaccurately — into the government’s database.  And if you seek to sue the big corporate credit bureaus for torts such as libel (inaccurately publishing damaging information), you’ll run head-long into federal laws protecting those bureaus from liability.

This cozy corporate-government privacy-busting superstate reminds me of a quote from Italian dictator Benito Mussolini: “Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.”

In the new American Security State, you are always under suspicion.  Your innocence is never accepted, your guilt, if asserted, never need be proven.  And both big government and big business are working together to ensure your liberties get traded in for their profit.

Barr Has Bipartisan Appeal…

…at least in Georgia, where the LP ticket is polling at unprecedented levels due to Barr’s notoriety there.

Most interestingly, his 5.6% polling performance pulls strongly from both Democrats (5.0%) and Republicans (7.5%), underscoring the appeal of the Libertarian Party to both sides of the “political spectrum.”

With McCain and Obama polling within the margin of error against each other, the Libertarian Party may be close to attaining the “light switch” power I’ve long advocated it needs — the ability to “flip the switch” towards one old party or the other, and gaining policy compromises and concessions in exchange for how it chooses to flip the switch.

In Georgia, Barr could run hard against McCain on taxes and the war, or against Obama on social issues and the war.

Hat tip to Delaware Libertarian for pointing out the survey.

Present Your Papers, Comrade!

One of the old-fashioned expectations that most Americans had was absolute freedom of movement within the country, without government checkpoints, “paper checks,” or other such nonsense.

Alas, in the era of the New Security State, the “internal passport” once mocked by Americans as a Soviet abomination is becoming a reality for numerous Americans.

For example, if you fly domestically, you used to be able to fly without presenting a government-approved form of ID — albeit with the caveat that you’d be subjected to “more extensive searches.” That option ends this Saturday, when a government-issued REAL ID-style driver’s license or other “official ID” will be required to travel domestically by air.

That’s right — without your government-issued mandatory ID (which often involves the taking of fingerprints, as in Texas, and may soon require biometric information as well), you may not travel long distances domestically.

Lest some Ron Paul states’ “rights” advocates step in, it’s important to note that local government is getting even more draconian than the feds. In numerous cities across the country, including theoretically federally-administered Washington DC, entire neighborhoods are being closed up and blocked — with all traffic being directed through a central checkpoint. Individuals must present a form of ID to “prove” they “belong” there, and their entry and exit is left to the sole discretion of the police. Don’t have your “papers?” You’re not getting in (or out).

These situations beg a few questions to be asked of the security statists:

1) The federal government has instituted a massive, draconian entry and exit requirement for all foreign nationals, requiring photographs and fingerprints to be taken at entry. These new requirements, we’re told, “keep us safe from terrorists and criminals.” So if no terrorists or criminals may enter the country due to this incredible system, why are individuals *already in the USA* subject to these internal passport controls? Didn’t the magical draconian border controls already shut all dangerous people out of the United States?

2) How does an ID check “enhance security?” If one has a piece of plastic with a name and photo on it, how does that ensure that he/she isn’t going to attempt violent behavior? Conversely, who are individuals who value their privacy in terms of movement and activities suddenly “suspicious?”

3) Why should we trust local, state or federal government to protect our privacy rights, when you’re already using these internal passports to violate our constitutional right to freedom of movement between states — not to mention our Fourth Amendment rights to freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures? What form of “probable cause” can be invoked to shut off entire sections of a city, or the country, unless an individual undergoes a draconian search and interrogation?

Is the Libertarian Party a real political party?

I’m not sure I can answer the question in the headline.

On one hand, a member of the LP, speaking out on any controversial issue, can expect a cacophony of responses to that issue… ranging from how principled and brave he or she is, to a condemnation of his pseudolibertarian statist little black heart.

On the other hand, we are in the ballot in most states, right?

Yet, apparently the campaign organization isn’t quite sure how it’s going to get on the ballot in certain states, and the annual report sent out by the former executive director lost money — rather than raising money for the ballot access effort.

We’re all about freedom and transparency — but when one LNC member started posting snippets of the typical exchanges on the super-secret LNC discussion list, her position gets threatened.

We’re all about bringing freedom to the masses and being a better choice for the average American — yet the vacation plans of an LNC member’s girlfriend are apparently a major consideration in where our upcoming convention is being held.

We claim to be passionate for liberty — yet when one of the LP’s strongest candidates in North Carolina is being unfairly excluded from public debates that were set up for the benefit of the old party candidates, the same legion of folks who have hours to comment on LP blogs couldn’t muster more than two dozen e-mails between them to challenge this state of affairs.

So I guess I’ll settle on this answer.  The Libertarian Party is what you make of it.  Some people want us to be an effective political force that has a meaningful effect in moving America towards a position of greater liberty through successfully electing candidates and passing ballot initiatives.

Others seem to view us more as a platform for, ummm, “radical self-expression” — regardless of where that takes the organization.

And there’s a third group who just seem to like being the biggest goldfish in a little ol’ fishbowl.

I’d posit that whether we’re in business four or eight years hence will be dependent on which group of people manages to wrestle some degree of influence on the party by showing up at conventions and engaging in meaningful activism as a Libertarian (not a Republican or member of some other party).

It’s your party.  It’s up to you, as an individual, to make it real, in the real world.

Barr vs. Paul On The Issues: Barr Comes Out Ahead

After reading a great hue and cry about my comments supporting our Party’s ticket in 2008, many people compared Bob Barr unfavorably to other Libertarians (as well as Ron Paul) on a whole host of issues, including DOMA and immigration.  So let’s look at the individual candidates and see who is closer, today, to the Libertarian Party platform on two issues often invoked by self-described “principled purists” when attacking the Libertarian nominee.

Immigration

The LP platform says that “Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders.”  Where do Bob Barr and Ron Paul stand on this?

Barr says that “we must be aggressive in securing our borders while at the same time, vigilantly fighting the nanny state that seeks to coddle even those capable of providing for their own personal prosperity.”  He proposes an approach identical to the LP platform — maintaining control over the borders to allow peaceful people in, while denying entry to criminals.

Ron Paul, in contrast, favors the imposition of visas, including demanding that federal bureaucrats “track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa.”  He also complains that open borders will “allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the [arch-conservative] Heritage Foundation.  This is insanity.”  He advocates an end to citizenship by birth, a concept of American law since the beginning of the Republic.  He also ran one of the most anti-immigrant television advertisements in the Republican primary.

Most Libertarian candidate of the two on immigration: Bob Barr.

The Defense of Marriage Act, Marriage Equality, and Sexual Freedom

Bob Barr co-sponsored and authored the Defense of Marriage Act.  Ron Paul supports DOMA and declares that he would vote for it in its entirety.

The Libertarian Party platform says that “Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the rights of individuals by government, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships.”

Barr has advocated a repeal of the DOMA provisions that force the federal government not to recognize same-sex marriages performed by states that do recognize them.  In his nomination speech at the Libertarian National Convention, he declared that “The Defense of Marriage Act, insofar as it provided the federal government a club to club down the rights of law abiding citizens has been abused, misused and should be repealed. And I will work to repeal that.”  This position moves the federal stance on this issue significantly closer to the Libertarian Party platform.

Ron Paul, in contrast, has declared that “I would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act… to ensure that no state would be forced to recognize a ’same sex’ marriage license.”  That’s directly opposed to the Libertarian Platform.

On the California same-sex marriage ruling, Barr released a press release applauding the California Supreme Court’s ruling, stating that “The decision in California is an illustration of how this principle of states’ powers should work.”

In contrast, Ron Paul has declared his undying opposition to same-sex marriage in his own state (in opposition to the LP platform), stating that “If I were a member of the Texas legislature, I would do all I could to oppose any attempt by rogue judges to impose a new definition of marriage,” effectively nullifying the equal protection clauses of the state and federal constitutions.

Worse still, Paul strongly supports state governments as sex police, declaring on the floor of the House that “the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards” — a position that no serious libertarian could possibly take.

Most Libertarian candidate of the two on these issues: Bob Barr.  By far.

—

Now, you may be wondering why I am focusing on these two issues.  It’s mostly because so many purists for Paul have attacked the LP (and Barr) on the basis of his positions on immigration and DOMA, while ignoring their own preferred candidate’s positions.

Many have lectured me, declaring that “conservatism isn’t libertarianism” and other 50 cent cliches, while ignoring the fact that their own ideal candidate is more conservative on these issues — to the point of citing conservative groups like Heritage on hot-button social issues.

I could continue comparing the records of the two candidates in this regard on many more issues, and on most of them, Barr will not come out waving the white flag based on the Libertarian Party platform.

In short, if you’re proposing that Ron Paul is the antidote to conservatism as represented by Bob Barr, you need a remedial course in the positions of the two candidates.  It’s time for Ron Paul partisans to drop their “revolution” pipe dream and take an honest look at the Libertarian Party’s candidate and positions — while also honestly acknowledging their own tone-deafness on many areas of personal liberty crucial not only to American libertarians, but all American citizens.

Why I’m Voting Barr-Root, And Why You Should Too

I am a Libertarian Party partisan.

What does it mean to be a Libertarian Party partisan?

It means having a sincere, facts-based belief in the platform of the LP — and a strong belief that LP candidates, broadly speaking, are better for America than the candidates of other parties: Democrat, Republican, Green, Constitution, etc.

It also means understanding the unspoken agreement of the Libertarian Party — that as a party, we have our internal debates and discussions, work them out in convention, and then unite around our candidates and the values of the platform that they stand for.

In Denver, we had a number of improvements to our party platform, including strengthened language on sexuality/gender/parentage and the role of government in abortion (nil.) These were victories for liberty, and for Americans everywhere.

We also nominated Bob Barr and Wayne Allyn Root as our presidential and vice presidential nominees.

I intend to vote for the Libertarian ticket, and promote it over the candidacies of the Democratic Party, Republican Party, and Constitution Party, because in election 2008, the Barr-Root ticket is indisputably the best choice for America.

I am perfectly aware of the objections to the candidacy. I am aware of the concerns that many Libertarians have against the individual candidates, and I share them. But I could hardly expect the LP to unite around my preferred candidate, George Phillies, if I’m not prepared to have the same attitude to other Libertarian candidates.

Similarly, how could Ruwart, Kubby, Gravel, or Smith supporters have expected Libertarians to support their candidate if they’re not willing to extend the same courtesy to those who they otherwise don’t support?

The reality is, they couldn’t.

Where does Bob Barr stand on DOMA?

Ah, my first blogpost on LFV! A quick hello to all and sundry.

One of the more controversial issues regarding the Barr candidacy was his stance on the ill-named Defense of Marriage Act (or DOMA). I had the opportunity to sit down with Bob Barr last year and discuss, in detail, the impact of DOMA on Americans as well as the Libertarian Party platform on the issue.

Barr had been a primary author of the law, and was initially resistant to calls to renounce the law. By the time I’d spoken with Barr at the Conservative Leadership Conference in Reno in 2007, he agreed to a position identical to that of Hillary Clinton — amending the law to eliminate the federal definition of marriage, while preserving the portion allowing states to ignore other states’ marriages.

While this was suboptimal from a Libertarian Party perspective, it did represent significant evolution, and I encouraged Barr to make his position known. He seemed a bit hesitant to do so up until declaring his presidential candidacy, at which point the issue sprang out of the closet.

Jumping forward to May 2008, during his Sunday morning nomination speech at the 2008 convention, Barr appeared to call for the repeal of the law altogether. A number of delegates to the convention expressed surprise at this apparent evolution, and Outright Libertarians was only too happy to publicize Barr’s apparent change of heart. It received extensive coverage in the gay press, from local and national periodicals as well as radio and television. Dozens of undecided delegates, during the voting process, told Outright members that Barr’s apparent Sunday-morning conversion led to them making him their first or second choice.

However, we’re now getting mixed signals from the Barr campaign and Barr supporters regarding just what his position is on DOMA. Some are telling voters that Barr favors a repeal of DOMA, others are claiming his position hasn’t changed. The latter appear to be closer to the truth, if details from Barr’s recent interview with his local gay paper are to be believed.

While this represents evolution from Mr. Barr, it’s important to note that the LP platform, as implemented and amended at convention, rejects *all* government efforts to regulate or restrict personal relationships between consenting adults — including same-sex ones. It’s also disappointing to those of us on the floor who, after watching Barr’s “last word” on the issue on the convention floor, had been led to believe that he had come around to a position of full repeal.