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.
Last Free Voice 
I used to know Kevin Craig when he lived in Riverside County, California. Though I liked him personally, I did have an extremely uncomfortable feeling with regard to his religious views and linking them to the LP. I remember our county affiliate had a rather long discussion about his campaign literature and website when he ran for Congress out here. Back then, he was running as a Christian Anarchist and explicitly told voters (and in local newspaper reports) that he was NOT seeking votes and actually encouraged people to NOT vote for him.
Whether he’s seeking votes or not, he’s tying “concepts” such as “Homophobia is as ridiculous an accusation as embezzlerphobia or murderphobia. Embezzlers and homosexuals disrupt God’s creation. They bring pain into the lives of others,” I’d think that’s a position that most LP members would want to avoid linking up to the party as much as any other antisemitic or other view.
The point is, the executive employees need to show *some* modicum of consistency on who they go after. If Haugh is going to chase a candidate who delivers “disrepute” to the LP in some aspect of his positions or demeanor, he’s going to have to chase every candidate.
Alternatively, he could leave the candidate condemnations to the LNC, or even better, the local Libertarians.
I think his antics are best left to the LPMO to deal with. LPUS should stay out of it.
You have a small typo:
“That’s just a small sampling of the various content Mr. Barrett has spread as the Libertarian Party’s campaign message during his Libertarian candidacies.”
This should say “Mr. Craig”, not Mr. Barrett.
Otherwise, this is a splendid article.
The tent is getting smaller.
One other thing, Barrett usually makes it clear when his positions deviate from LP orthodoxy, and emphasizes this by calling himself a “New Libertarian”, to help people be aware that he is a little different.
Barrett scores in the LP range on the Nolan Chart, and he has a link to the Nolan CHart on his homepage. Barrett spends most of his time defending civil liberites and opposing wars of aggression, as well as 9/11.
Some of the best 9/11 material can be found on the homepage of his website, along with the great Libertarian material: http://www.barrettforcongress.us
Thanks for pointing out the typo. I have corrected the error.
Thanks also for the information about Barrett’s candidacy.
My favorite Barrett quotation:
” “Like Bush and the neocons, Hitler and the Nazis inaugurated their new era by destroying an architectural monument and blaming its destruction on their designated enemies,” he [Barrett] wrote.
Barrett said Tuesday he was comparing the attacks to the burning of the German parliament building, the Reichstag, in 1933, a key event in the establishment of the Nazi dictatorship.
“That’s not comparing them as people, that’s comparing the Reichstag fire to the demolition of the World Trade Center, and that’s an accurate comparison that I would stand by,” he said.
He added: “Hitler had a good 20 to 30 IQ points on Bush, so comparing Bush to Hitler would in many ways be an insult to Hitler.” ”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/11/AR2006101100292.html
Brian,
You write:
“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*?”
That might have something to do with the fact that a Wisconsin newspaper apparently CALLED Sean Haugh and ASKED him for comment on the “one supposed deranged individual” in question.
If I had to take a guess at why Craig has received a “free pass” from the Missouri LP, that guess would look something like this:
– A few of us aside, the Missouri LP tends toward the social conservative mindset. I wasn’t even able to get a resolution out of the MOLP against the proposed anti-marriage constitutional amendment a few years back.
– When the Missouri LP’s “leadership” DOES get wound up, it’s not about socialcons, it’s about “counterculture.” Bash gays, immigrants, etc. all day long and there’s a good chance I’ll be the only one in your face about it. Make marijuana a central campaign issue or fail to kiss the proper posteriors and there will be an emergency meeting of the executive committee for the purpose of violating the party’s bylaws, defying the explicit orders of the state convention, and breaking Missouri’s election laws — in cahoots with the Democratic Secretary of State who has chosen to de facto following them optional — to remove you from the ballot (I was the ONLY vote AGAINST that one earlier this year).
– Craig spends no money and receives very little media or publicity … and he’s the only one who’s bothered to file for US House in that district the last few times. In 2006, he was the only one who filed in the district EXCEPT for an avowed neo-Nazi, who got plenty of publicity (to my regret, I supported breaking Missouri’s election laws, taking an action not permitted the executive committee by the bylaws, etc., to keep that guy off our primary ballot line).
– Here’s the part where I’m at fault: I generally fight hard to keep the MOLP as an organization from intervening in the primary process. Better to fight a bad candidate with a better candidate than to have the MOLP “leadership” go berserk trying to “fix” it. And after the primary, it usually seems smarter to ignore weird candidates if we can than to wail and gnash teeth and call attention to them.
This is the risk one takes when involved in a political party. Most of the time, the LP’s hands are tied when it comes to deciding who and who should not run for office.Though I am not familiar with the election laws of most states, I know that in California, all one has to do is meet the legal requirements to run for office, as per the elections code. A Nazi could easily file paperwork for a congressional or state assembly race and the LP is helpless, for the most part.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/748032/posts
This is why I always say that for most radicals, partisan political activity is probably not the best choice because it gets UGLY. I am a self-described “radical” myself, but over the years have become thick skinned enough to be able to roll with the punches and deal with it. Doesn’t mean I like it: I just deal with it. Unfortunately, political parties are best left to people who can stomach the political process. It’s like some people are able to cross over the border from San Diego to Tijuana and be able to eat a taco from a street vendor without getting ill, while others cannot. : )
UPDATE!
Ed Thompson Talks About Building 7, On Tape
Article Here:
Ed Thompson weighs in on congressional candidates
http://www.rivervalleyblogs.com/articles/2008/06/26/rmagney/009997.txt
Direct Interview Link Here:
[audio src="http://www.rivervalleyblogs.com/artwork/Ed_Thompson.mp3" /]
If you haven’t heard of World Trade Center Building 7, please see here:
WTC 7 – This is an Orange
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3898962504721899003&q=wtc+7+this+is+an+orange&ei=gWkzSPSyA5qi4ALArYXoCQ&hl=en
The Smoking Gun of 9-11 (WTC7)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4605940839251141560&q=wtc7+barry+jennings&total=6&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=2
The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 – The Third Tower. Sunday, 6 July 2008
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/conspiracy_files/
explicitly told voters (and in local newspaper reports) that he was NOT seeking votes and actually encouraged people to NOT vote for him
Wow, what a maroon!
It appears from the citations that he is prone to some nontraditional and non-LP opinions on 9/11,
What’s non-LP about them?
I saw Barrett speak at the WI LP convention. Great speech.
“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,”
So it is not longer a Libertarian trait to question official government stories?
“and as someone who rejects the 9/11 conspiracy theories,”
So you must believe that the 9/11 attack was carried out by one individual, because when a group of people plan something (ie-conspire) then it becomes a conspiracy.
Although I assume that you mean that you believe the 9/11 conspiracy theory that was put out by the government. Do you believe everything the government says, or do you just believe what the government says about 9/11?
“I’d certainly be uncomfortable having those views communicated as a Libertarian Party view on the issues.”
I don’t think that Kevin Barrett ever said that everyone in the Libertarian Party agrees with him on every issue.
Also, although I’ve got some disagreements with Kevin Barrett myself, I am glad to see a candidate addressing all of the holes in the official government conspiracy theory about 9/11 as this is one of the biggest issues of our time.
Jim Duensing of the Libertarian Party of Nevada is running as a 9/11 Truth candidate. Jim is a more solid Libertarian than Kevin Barrett but unfortunately his campaign has yet to recieve as much publicity.
There currently are and have been in the past Libertarian Party candidates with whom I’ve had disagreements. Somehow I think we’ll survive.
I reject the government’s conspiracy theory as well.
Kevin Barrett compares himself to Bob Barr:
“Barr opposes impeaching the Constitution-shredding Cheney regime; Barrett demands impeachment, conviction, and treason trials. Barr is willing to keep the U.S. spending more on the military than every other nation on Earth combined; Barrett wants to end the empire, return to a defend-the-borders posture, and cut military spending by at least 90 percent. Barr will not endorse Ron Paul’s call to abolish the private money monopoly known as the Federal Reserve; Barrett strongly supports abolishing the Fed. Barr is unwilling to end the bogus “war on drugs” and the even more bogus “war on terror”; Barrett will work to expose and end both of these horrific, government-bloating hoaxes.
Barr could become a real Libertarian — and a force in the presidential race — just by adding an “-ett” to his name.”
http://www.madison.com/tct/opinion/letters/291455
Barrett for congress:
http://www.barrettforcongress.us/
http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/02/22/2250/