Steve G.

WAR completes another revolution around sun – ‘Quick, send more money!’

In Libertarian on July 19, 2008 at 11:31 pm

I thought the SOB was a millionaire, since after all, he wrote a book called “Millionaire Republican” .  Yet according to this, he can’t even afford to go home to visit his family.

Dear friend,

Tomorrow is a special day for us here at Barr/Root headquarters as it is the birthday of our vice presidential candidate Wayne Allyn Root.

Since our nominating convention in May, Wayne has been traveling around the country representing our presidential ticket by talking to voters while raising much-needed funds.

This weekend, Wayne is in Missouri campaigning away from his family like many of us on the campaign trail.

A committed father of four – he and his wife Debra home school their children – it is tough to be away from home and loved ones for so long. Unlike the campaigns of McCain and Obama, our campaign has to be much more prudent with spending and cannot afford frequent trips home or the luxury of traveling with family.

To celebrate Wayne’s birthday and to thank him for his work for liberty, I want you to send him a special birthday note along with a small showing of support by donating five dollars today.

Consider it five dollars stuffed inside a virtual birthday card!

Please click here to donate today and to send Wayne a special birthday message.

I greatly appreciate your continued support.

In Liberty,

Russ Verney
Campaign Manager
Bob Barr 2008

  1. How about a $5.00 monopoly money bill tied to a brick!

  2. Surely, they can afford to pay for Root’s travel out of the “forty million, NO, FIFTY MILLION!” that they pledged to raise at the LP convention.

    Maybe they were talking Zimbabwe dollars though…

  3. Shame on those who voted for Root, under the disguise he is so wealthy and was going to contribute so much to the party. My take is that he has a lot of money invested and operates on a high risk basis, whereby he handles a lot of money, but can also lose a lot of money. Apart from his rhetoric – whereby the decibel meter may not be able to measure anymore – what does he really contribute to the LP. His foreign policy still sucks and one has not seen any contribution to the economy he has made. If the LP fares quite well comparably to before in November, it would be because of Barr and his team, nothing about Root. May I wish that something would be repealed that would force him to withdraw? It may be embarrassing for the LP for a day or two, but would have no lasting effect at all and a VP like Dr. Karen Kwiatkowski would really boost the ticket a lot, and ensure a lot of new voter appeal.

  4. Stefan, I all but begged KK on my knees to get involved.

  5. Yes, Robert, I wonder why she did not go for the VP candidacy. IMHO she would be better than Mary Ruwart, she is wider known and has extensive foreign policy and military experience and know about the influence of the “think tanks” and is known outside the LP (unlike Ruwart). I think she is more a “constitutional Libertarian” like Ron Paul and she would have more in common with Barr than Ruwart would have with Barr, I think. Of course Barr is not perfect, but he can articulate the basic message of non-military interventionism, civil liberties, 2nd Amendment etc. well. Barr’s international experience (having lived in Iraq and Iran) and Kwiatkowski’s foreign policy experience would make for a strong match and would also combat the (false) perception that Libertarians are naive, pacifistic etc. They both are to use Dondero’s term “pro-defense” Libertarians, while Root is a “pro-offense Libertarian”. KK also knows quite a lot about the economy and the Austrian school, did her PhD related to Reagan.

    I know it is a longshot, but I pray it is still possible. How some Libertarians could be so swayed by Root still baffles me. The guy is NO “Ron Paul on steroids” and essentially a failure, more a high risk gambler. He has also no real charisma, more the ability to shout a basic trivial mantra out. I do not think he has any debating or research skills either.

  6. Stefan – You said one thing that reminded me that Barr is not pure evil: He’s not belligerent towards Iran. That’s just one good thing, and about the only one, but it’s not minor.

  7. GE The relationship towards Iraq is IMHO going to be the main decisive issue in the coming months and years. It seems as if congress may give the power forth “blockade” to go through. Barr has not only first hand experience of Iran, having went to school there, but also his foreign policy adviser is Doug Bandow, who is very much a strong non-interventionist libertarian. Read his newest column with

    IMHO the current so called turn to diplomacy with Iran is just a temporary smokescreen, war with Iran is still very much on the cards. They decided on this “change” in rhetoric to bring down the oil price the past few days, as they know it hurts the economy and voter’s mood. This playing along will be a temporary issue.

    Can you imagine the consequences of an attack on Iran, not only in terms of foreign policy relations? The oil price will go to 200 USD plus and foreign countries may take the USD even less and this all will lead to much higher commodity prices and the whole world will sunk into a major recession, if not depression, whereby people in third world countries will die because of starvation. It is clear McCain would be the worst, he would also seek war with Russian and China, wile Obama may be not much better, e.g. also war in the ME, Afghanistan, Iran etc. and economic warfare with Russian and China.

    BTW: Are you aware of the DVD action re. delegates (Ron Paul)? If Paul and/or his platform does not win at the RNC, perhaps the second best political scenario is that Obama wins and the GOP facing losses, forcing them to get rid of the neocon dominance, and RP leads a renewed swept to power in 2010 on a much more libertarian basis/platform and with a retake of majority in congress and senate, Obama’s hands will be tied to do foolish intervention. I also think with Obama facing the Iraq quagmire, and the GOP looking for ways to differentiate and attack, it is not unthinkable that they will do a 180% turn-around and become the pro-peace party again.

  8. Brian: I heard the Zimbabwean Central Bank is now issuing a 100 BN ZimDollar note…it sounds better than a 5 USD contribution ! 🙂

  9. Stefan, agreed about KK & Root. KK was my first choice. However I disagree about Barr. KK had every opportunity to get involved with or without me. She chose not to. You want to try begging her?

  10. Stefan writes “I think she is more a “constitutional Libertarian” like Ron Paul and she would have more in common with Barr than Ruwart would have with Barr, I think.”

    She is a radical anarchist, in ways that were much less well known two years ago. If you can find it, see her statements on Lew Rockwell on what she would do as VP.

  11. George Phillies Says:
    July 20, 2008 at 11:44 am

    (regarding Karen Kwiatkowski)

    She is a radical anarchist, in ways that were much less well known two years ago. If you can find it, see her statements on Lew Rockwell on what she would do as VP.

    What George and other so-called “mainstream” libertarians fail to realize (or refuse to say) is, that a personal philosophy of “radical anarchist” in no way supercedes the necessity of following the constitution as an elected official in the federal government. Certainly, using a “bully pulpit” is one thing in promoting anarchy, but that is different from being bound by the constitution, as an office holder.

    Harry Browne (though I am certain that Mr. Phillies will cringe at ANYTHING mentioned about him) was absolutely correct when he said that anarchists, minarchists and constitutionalists have nearly nothing to argue (politically, federally) about until the government adheres strictly to the constitution. Then, upon that being the case, such folks can then start to discuss/argue about how much further to go.

    I would submit that libertarianism calls for going further at the federal level, actually, a good deal further than the constitution. A good start would be to work to adopt a binding document more in line with the Articles of Confederation (the A of C wasn’t perfect either, but “more in line” would be OK IMHO).

    I am getting tired of the slanderous nature of the name calling of some libertarians as “radical anarchist”. I expect this from statists, but from libertartians? Totally uncalled for.

    Unless George or someone else can substantiate that a Kwiatkowski Vice
    Presidency would flout constitutional bounds, I ask for George to withdraw his slanderous remarks.

  12. Here is Ms. Kwiatkowski’s “My Plans for the Vice Presidency”, on

    Judge for yourself.

  13. In it Ms. Kwiatkowski says,

    “Sixth, as any modern Vice President, I will use my public position to favor, publicize and promote certain issues and organizations. I’ll push for freedom, anarcho-capitalism, and unalienable rights here at home.”

    Unless “push for” means that she will do things which are “unconstitutional” (I don’t believe that it does), then there is nothing here which would warrant the slanderous remark by Mr. Phillies.

  14. a personal philosophy of “radical anarchist” in no way supercedes the necessity of following the constitution as an elected official in the federal government

    That’s far from universally accepted, even in the anarchist community.

    For instance, a number of anarchists (and minarchists for that matter) would use the president’s “powers of pardon” to pardon all those incarcerated for nonviolent drug offenses. Is the Constitution super-clear on that?

    Well, sorta. The president has a power of pardon over all who are imprisoned. But the Constitution also says that law enforcement is the purview of the states.

    The irony is that a presidential pardon of all drug users would not only do battle with some parts of the Constitution, but it would whip up the “states’ rights” contingent into a froth of righteous indignation. Here’s a federal official coming in and OVERRULING THE WILL OF THE STATES! Horrors! 😉

  15. Mr. Miller,
    There are always going to be some diversity, and the “universality” of anarchists not superseding the constitution isn’t what I was saying.

    To clarify (hopefully) a sworn oath, even by an anarchist is something taken on one’s word. Thus, the sworn oath to uphold the constitution, whether by an anarchist or anyone else is as good as the word (as in – “you have my word”) of the sworn in person. “Good for one’s word” isn’t universal in or out of the anarchist “community”.

    I will say this though, since anarchists (generally) personally believe in the voluntary associations of people rather than the coercive nature of government, one’s “word” (voluntarily given, and subsequently voluntarily taken/accepted by others) is likely to be more universal amongst anarchists than the population in general. Ditto for the broader group – libertarians.

    So, I would disagree that “far from universally accepted” is a fair characterization. Completely universal . . . I would agree, no it isn’t.

    Regarding the presidential power of pardon, I understand that this is the relevant wording in the constitution:

    “The President … shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.”

    I think that that is pretty clear. Since federal criminal cases are identified as “so-and-so vs. the United States”, I think that this is pretty clear.

  16. Mr. Miller – however you make an excellent point about “the Constitution also says that law enforcement is the purview of the states.”

    The president or vice president could do one of two things . . . dictate that his/her executive agencies (mostly DOJ) NOT pursue and ultimately prosecute “crimes” not explicitly enumerated in the constitution . . . those being counterfeiting, treason and piracy, OR, to pardon all those criminally convicted of such crimes which aren’t “counterfeiting, treason and piracy”.

    So, maybe George would have a problem with this being done by a “radical anarchist”. However, even Harry Browne, who never advocated, as a presidential candidate executing the office of president in any way other than constitutionally, was offering to pardon all federally convicted non violent drug, tax and firearm “criminals”.

  17. I happen to believe the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and that ALL state and local law is subservient to the Constitution.

    In other words, if the president issues a general pardon to all non-violent drug offenders presently in prison, that applies to federal, state and local prisons alike.

    The Constitution is supreme. The president, as the executive with Constitutionally-granted pardon powers, has the right to pardon individuals convicted of ANY offense at ANY level of government.

    And no level of government has the right to ignore or repudiate the Bill of Rights, or any other part of the Constitution. Period.

    Thus, when one has a common-sense, 14th amendment recognizing view of the Constitution, it’s a simple situation.

    Only when one gets caught up in 19th century “state rights” arguments does one see a problem. 😉

  18. Steve: I thanks for the link and I do agree with you on this one. Phillies does not describe what he means with “radical anarchist”. I listened to interviews with her at and she was also active in the Ron Paul campaign, apart from pledging her support for him. She also – and I find this significant – mentioned specifically with the Ron Paul meetup groups the constitution is much more actively and enthusiastically discussed about than with Libertarian meetup groups. She sounds to be more like a “RADICAL or strict constitutionalist” than an anarchist.

    She is believing in the “anarcho-libertarianism” in the tradition of Rothbard and it is probably her agreement that the Federal Reserve to be abolished over time (e.g. it is not constitutional) and it is probably this that leads Dr. Phillies to the false conclusion that she is a “radical anarchist”. She does not advocate the abolishment of government as such, she seems to me to be rather a strong limited government proponent.

    One can also point to the wikipedia article:
    “On a Fox News program, host John Gibson and former Republican National Committee communications director Clifford May described her as an anarchist.[8] Kwiatkowski responded by saying, among other points, that she had never supported or dealt with LaRouche. She requested and received a written apology from Senator John Kyl for his false statements about her”.

    She has also said in the Virginia senatorial race in 2006 she has voted for Jim Webb vs. George Allen. If she was an anarchist, she may not have voted at all.
    In any case, I find the article she wrote interesting and a good rhetoric. The fact is that Cheney played a much greater role of the VP position than is normally assigned. The VP cannot determine policy so much, he or she is a leader with the senate, an have a decisive vote and is responsible for overseas diplomatic functions and speeches. This is about all the office entails.

    The problem with Dr. Phillies, like with others also, is that he uses his basis in the natural sciences to view politics and political positions as an exact science, and not as a human science, where a plurality of views can be valid and justified. Consequently he seems to like to put someone into a certain category and then shoot him/her down and making broad unjustified generalizations. (Should I cite a few examples?).

  19. “For instance, a number of anarchists (and minarchists for that matter) would use the president’s “powers of pardon” to pardon all those incarcerated for nonviolent drug offenses. Is the Constitution super-clear on that?”

    THis by itself demostrates why Brian Miller isn’t a libertarian.

  20. Because “libertarians” always argue for the primacy of government power over the rights of the individual, when that level of government is below the federal level, right?


  21. I believe Brian is in error about the Presidential power of pardon, which I believe extends only to Federal crimes. However, Jass appears to be equally in error by seemingly claiming that Constitutionalism is related other than on occasion to Libertarianism.

    With respect to Stefan’s remarks on Kwiatkowski, I was refering specifically to her article on what she would do as VP. I do not actually remember having read whether or not she endorses the crackpot claim — taken by several writers here — that the Federal Reserve Bank is unconstitutional.

    I view Stefan’s assertion that someone is a Rothbardian–if true–as being equivalent to the assertion that that person is a radical anarchist. And not a very bright one, either, as witness the ‘Rothbardian’ notion that not-point sources of pollution can usefully be treated by having everyone sue everyone else.

    Like most non-scientists, Stefan confuses mathematics–and the ‘list of scientific facts’ taught to undergraduates–with real science. They’re actually quite the opposite. My position is closer to Founding Father Dickinson, who wrote that we should base our decisions on experience, and the reason (as from first principles) would only lead us astray. Rothbard is the example of reason leading people wildly astray indeed.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: