Steve G.

Archive for the ‘Ron Paul’ Category

Earl Ofari Hutchinson Scares Me

In Drug War, History, Immigration, Libertarian, Lies and the lying liars who tell them, Minorities, People in the news, Personal Responsibility, Republican, Ron Paul, US Government, War on February 24, 2010 at 11:19 pm

Three days ago, Mr. Earl Ofari Hutchinson posted a piece at The Huffington Post concerning Ron Paul, the man who won the straw poll at the 2010 CPAC thanks largely to the huge number of young people who attended the event.

Unfortunately, Mr. Hutchinson’s post contains a number of errors as well as a number of rather disturbing comments and implications.

Before I address those concerns, however, I wanted, simply as a point of objectivity, list some things on which I disagree with Dr. Paul:

(1) Although Paul does supports gay marriage (as he made clear in interviews with Elliot Schrage and with John Stossel), he unfortunately also supports the so-called Defence of Marriage Act (DOMA), which is both unconstitutional and heterosexist. I do not understand how Paul can rationally defend his support for this legislation, since it creates a federal definition of marriage which the federal government has no authority to create, and since it is, once again, heterosexist.

(2) Ron Paul unfortunately does not support open borders, even though government regulation and planning of human migration is both economically backward and unconstitutional.

(3) Ron Paul supports copyrights and patents, whereas I do not.

(4) Ron Paul does not share my nuanced (and difficult to describe in short passages) view on abortion.

And, finally, (5) Ron Paul is not an anarchist, and as such, is simply not radical enough.

These are all flaws that Ron Paul has, but compared to other politicians, these flaws are so few in number that I’m willing to look past them and throw my support to Ron Paul. He is one of the few politicians in either establishment party for whom I would not feel uncomfortable voting.

With these points dutifully addressed, I believe it is now appropriate to detail the flaws I find with Mr. Hitchinson’s post.

Mr. Hutchinson comments on what he calls Ron Paul’s “controversial off beat quips on race matters,” but fails to give even one quote to illustrate what sort of “quips” Paul allegedly makes.

It is possible that Mr. Hutchinson is referring to the Ron Paul Newsletters from the ’80s and early ’90s, but I believe it has been fairly-well demonstrated that Ron Paul did not author these, and was likely unaware what the specific articles in his newsletters even said. Of course, this isn’t to say we should not hold Paul to task for being an irresponsible editor; we most absolutely should. There is no defence for his irresponsible failure to even read what was being published in his newsletters. But, at the same time, there is not one shred of empirical evidence I have ever come across to indicate that Ron Paul himself is in any way racist or has ever said anything disparaging about other “races.” (I have opted to put the word “races” in quotation marks for, in my opinion, “race” does not actually exist; it is nothing more than a social construct. I regard myself as a member of the human race.) In 2007, I conducted a detailed analysis of the Newsletters. The results of my analysis are available here.

Mr. Hutchinson also references “a 30 second TV spot that ran in New Hampshire during the 2008 campaign,” an ad that was not particularly tasteful, nor particularly individualistic. What Hutchinson fails to mention is that many grassroots Ron Paul supporters disliked the ad and made their discontent known. I should know: I was one of them. Here is what Justin Raimondo, another Ron Paul supporter, had to say of the ad.

I suspect that Paul issued this ad to appeal to those conservatives who viewed him, ignorantly enough, as “soft on terrorism.” I actually approve of Mr. Hutchinson’s critique of the ad itself, but it would have been nice if he had presented a balanced acknowledgement of its negative reception amongst Paulians.

Then, shockingly and disgustingly, Mr. Hutchinson attacks Ron Paul for not being bloodthirsty enough. Ron Paul had correctly asserted that slavery could have been and should have been ended without war. Paul had also correctly asserted that no other country that abolished slavery engaged in civil war to do so. Mr. Hutchinson refers to this as “historical dumbness” but fails to show even a shred of evidence to the contrary of Paul’s claims.

I don’t if Mr. Hutchinson has ever studied in detail the civil war era, but I have studied it to some degree, and what I discovered had caused me to lose all respect for Lincoln. Growing up, I had considered Lincoln a hero. But upon studying the matter, I discovered (1) that the war was not even fought on the grounds of ending slavery, and that the slavery issue was not even brought up until halfway into the war; (2) the slavery issue was only brought up as a means of enticing the South to rejoin the union, and Lincoln made it abundantly clear that he was willing to keep slavery going if it meant the union would be reunited; (3) the abolitionists of the day were not fans of Lincoln, and were the first to point out that his Emancipation Proclamation didn’t free a single slave; (4) Lincoln engaged in a form of enslavement called conscription; (5) Lincoln jailed dissenters for speaking out against war, and even suspended habeas corpus; and (6) Lincoln made openly racist statements about black people that ought to sicken any modern American, liberal or conservative.

I must admit, I find it downright scary that Mr. Hutchinson dismisses Paul’s claim that we can make meaningful change without resorting to war.

Mr. Hutchinson claims that Paul “asserted that blacks are criminally inclined, political dumb bells, and chronic welfare deadbeats.” I would like to see Mr. Hutchinson present one verified quote from Paul on this. Again, while there were indeed disgusting, racist comments that made their way into the Newsletters, there is no evidence that Ron Paul wrote or even read said comments. If any evidence were to arise, I would be the first to denounce Paul; yet empirical evidence remains un-presented.

While there was indeed a few white supremacists who supported Dr. Paul, there is no evidence that a “hobnob” occurred with them. Moreover, the vast majority of Paul supporters were extremely embarrassed when it came to light that there was some racist scumbag who was planning to vote for Paul. This is why so many Ron Paul supporters in 2007 came to Paul’s defence, saying that Paul was not a racist and that the tiny number of white supremacists ought there planning to vote for Paul did not represent the rest of us.

Hutchinson scares me when he criticised Ron Paul for correctly pointing out that “[g]overnment as an institution is particularly ill-suited to combat bigotry.” Does Mr. Hutchinson not know that government is a particularly racist institution? It was an institution called “government” that murdered innocent Jews simply for being Jewish; it was an institution called “government” that sent innocent Asians into dirty camps in California; it was an institution called “government” that instituted Jim Crow laws, which systematically infringed upon the rights of a people simply for looking a little different; it was an institution called “government” that protected and defended the institution of slavery centuries. In fact, the U.S. government is still racist: just look at how the war on drugs is used to attack blacks so much more often than whites, despite the fact that whites use just as much drugs as blacks. Government is racist, government is patriarchal, government is evil. Mr. Hutchinson cites a few tiny examples of a government doing some less-indecent things, as though this somehow undoes or excuses governments around the world for all the horrors they have unleashed upon people. It does not! Moreover, if Paul errs in any way on this matter, it’s in not being even more opposed to statism than he is.

Mr. Hutchinson also writes that “Paul’s views are a corn ball blend of libertarianism, know-nothing Americanism, and ultra conservative laissez faire limited government.” I hold, however, that there is nothing “limited government” about conservatism. Perhaps this is a minor complaint, since so many people do define the term in so many different ways; but, I nevertheless desire to state my position on the matter, and in so doing, to promote the definition I employ for the term.

More importantly, Mr. Hutchinson makes the error of describing Paul’s foreign policy as “neo-isolationist.” In reality, Paul’s foreign policy is far more similar to that of the classical liberal Richard Cobden, as Dr. Thomas Woods has pointed out. Paul has nothing against employing diplomacy and open dialogue with other countries, nor has he anything against trade with other countries; in fact, it is still the popular liberal foreign policy view that open trade between countries diminishes or eliminates the tendencies for war-making between said counties. Paul isn’t supporting the goal of cutting America off from the rest of the world, he simply opposing American imperialism in other countries. I do not know if I should infer from Mr. Hutchinson’s comments whether or not he supports imperialism, war-mongering, and militarism, but if he does, then I should hasten to add that such an aggressive foreign policy scares me.

Finally, Mr. Hutchinson says that Paul’s speech at CPAC contained “a pinch here and there of racial baits,” but again Mr. Hutchinson fails to give even one example.

In conclusion, Hutchinson’s piece is poorly researched and poorly argued. While I believe there are legitimate criticisms one can make about Paul, this article reiterates many of the unfounded ones that have been demonstrated to be false time and time again. While Hutchinson does make a couple good points, these are unfortunately overshadowed by his veiled militarism and other statist viewpoints. Thus, I would hope to see less articles of this nature from The Huffington Post in the future.

—Alexander S. Peak

Creative Commons License

Advertisements

A House Majority for Federal Reserve Audit

In Austrian Economics, Corruption, Economics, Libertarian, Media, Personal Responsibility, Press Release, Ron Paul on June 11, 2009 at 8:56 pm

In a March 10th speech on the House floor, Ron Paul said, “I have introduced a bill, it’s called H.R. 1207, and this would remove the restriction on us to find out what the Federal Reserve is doing.  Today, the Federal Reserve under the law is not required to tell us anything.”

Earlier today, Paul’s Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009 (H.R. 1207) received its 218 cosponsors in the House of Representatives.  The significance of this number is that it represents a majority of House representatives.  The 218th co-sponsor, according to a press release released today by Dr. Paul’s congressional office says that the 218th co-sponsor was none other than Paul’s friend Dennis Kuchinich.

“The tremendous grass-roots and bipartisan support in Congress for H.R. 1207 is an indicator of how mainstream America is fed up with Fed secrecy,” said Congressman Paul.  “I look forward to this issue receiving greater public exposure.”

As do we all.  The Federal Reserve board was created in 1913 by an act of Congress to help big bankers do what they could not do on a free market: cartelise the banking industry.  The Fed today sets the interest rates instead of allowing the market to set the interest rates.  It also lowers the reserve ratio required for banks to 10%.  This means that banks are given the statist luxury of lending out up to 90% of the money you put into it.  The Fed uses these controls to encourage or discourage lending at its own discretion—a discretion that is always inevitably tainted by politics.  The Austrian school of economics holds that this manipulation of the money supply is the prime, if not the sole, cause of the business cycle.

Anti-Fed sentiments have been on the rise ever since the Fed-created housing bubble burst in 2008.  For more on this, see Dr. Thomas E. Woods’s excellent book Meltdown.  For a basic overview of the Fed itself, see the Ludwig von Mises Institute’s fantastic documentary 42-minute Money, Banking, and the Federal Reserve. (Don’t be scared by the title, the documentary really is fascinating!)

Right now, the number of co-sponsors on Paul’s bill is up to 222.  Hearings on Federal Reserve transparency are expected within the next month, “as part of the Financial Services Committee’s series of hearings on regulatory reform.”  This is the same committee chaired by the notorious Barney Frank.  Despite some clear flaws on his part regarding Fanny and Freddie, he has been a critic of the Federal Reserve system.

An identical bill, titled the Federal Reserve Sunshine Act of 2009 (S. 604), was introduced on March 16th in the Senate by the independent from Vermont, Bernard Sanders.  Thus far, the Senate version has no co-sponsors.

—Alexander S. Peak

Scotty Boman on Ron Paul Endorsing Chuck Baldwin

In Candidate Endorsement, Libertarian, Libertarian Party-US, Libertarian Politics, Politics, Ron Paul on September 27, 2008 at 11:55 pm

From the Miller Politics interview with Scotty Boman, the 2008 Libertarian candidate for Michigan US Senate.

Question: You say you are “running to further the Ron Paul/Libertarian ideals of Peace, Liberty, and Prosperity.” Recently the Libertarian presidential candidate, Bob Barr, has had a falling out with Rep. Paul and Paul has now endorsed Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party for President. What is your response to Paul’s endorsement of Baldwin over Barr?

Answer: My reflex reaction to this question was “No comment.”

I am a Libertarian Party candidate who has been a Ron Paul supporter since 1988. I am also a Libertarian candidate for United States Senate that has earned the support of many Chuck Baldwin supporters. So any answer I give could cost me supporters.

Nonetheless, I must comment; I didn’t get into politics to play it safe and avoid offending people. That’s what mainstream Democrats and Republicans do; stand for nothing to attract supporters who fall for anything.

I got into politics to support what I believe is the right kind of government, and to give people who share my political beliefs, a chance to vote their conscience. At the core of my philosophy of government, is the recognition that the initiation of force is a fundamental social evil born of irrationality. By “initiation of force” I am referring to acts and threats of violence or fraud that exceed what is necessary to protect oneself from the same.

The political application of this principal is to support laws and policies that maximize individual liberty, and minimize the victimization of people. The greatest potential victimizer is the government. To the extent that government is necessary, it must therefore be restrained. This is the libertarian philosophy.

The libertarian ideal of minimal government provides the best model for a prosperous, free, society: A community wherein people of different cultures, and diverse faiths can coexist. This way, even people who have irreconcilably different theologies, and personal moralities can live next door without the fear of sectarian violence.

On the Federal level, adherence to the Constitution with its Bill of Rights is essential to move in the direction of a free society. Without it I am not a candidate, and Ron Paul is not a Congressman.

I have been a Ron Paul supporter because his message is libertarian; Ron Paul being the messenger, is not the reason I support the message. Now he has endorsed a candidate who has previously endorsed him. Chuck Baldwin’s positions on most Federal issues are the same as those of Ron Paul, the Libertarian Party platform, and myself. Previously Dr. Paul refrained from endorsing any presidential candidate, in part due to his close relationship with the Libertarian Party. In fact, earlier that day Tom Lizardo told me Ron Paul would not endorse ANY candidate who was running against a nominated Republican. According to Paul’s blog, Bob Barr’s Snub tipped the scales. I understand the Congressman’s choice, but I will chose differently.

My November 4th vote only matters because it will be an expression of my beliefs. It will not plausibly choose the next president. By voting Libertarian, I won’t just be choosing a single candidate; I will be voting for the policies of minimal government. I will be voting for the Libertarian Parties Statement of Principles. I will be voting for the fine individuals (myself included) that were nominated to be presidential electors by the Libertarian Party of Michigan.

While our views on Federalism are very close, there are important difference between the Constitution Party (Taxpayers Party in Michigan), and Libertarian Party on the State level. Libertarians support maximizing individual liberty, at all jurisdictional levels: Federal, state, and local. As a federal candidate, I recognize and agree with the tenth amendment limits on the federal government. As a Libertarian, I would support less government intrusion at the state and local level.

In this age of tyranny it is vital that people of all faiths and backgrounds work together for their mutual liberty. The libertarian platform is one that supports religious freedom for all faiths. We wish to keep the tentacles of the state out of your church, temple or mosque.

Why Bob Barr really offered to replace Wayne Allyn Root with Ron Paul

In Libertarian, Libertarian Party-US, Libertarian Politics, Libertarian Politics 2008, Politics, Presidential Candidates, Protest, Ron Paul, Wayne Allen Root on September 17, 2008 at 9:31 pm

According to an excellent source, LNC member Stewart Flood made a resolution to remove Wayne Allyn Root as the LP’s Vice Presidential nominee, as a result of Root’s bizarre (and some believe racist) interview with Reason Magazine.

While the resolution failed, it explains why Bob Barr felt free to offer the Vice President position to Ron Paul even though, in actuality, he has no such power.  It also explains why the Barr campaign inexplicably called the LNC and asked that LNC member Angela Keaton not be removed, since she would be more likely than most on the LNC to support such a radical measure.

Jason Gatties supports the removal of Bob Barr from the Michigan ballot

In Activism, Libertarian, Libertarian Party-US, Libertarian Politics, Politics, Presidential Candidates, Press Release, Protest, Ron Paul, Wayne Allen Root on September 12, 2008 at 3:40 pm

For Immediate Release

St.Joseph, Mi- Lake Michigan College Board of Trustees candidate and Libertarian Party member Jason Gatties announced on Thursday night that he is in support of the removal of Bob Barr and Wayne Allyn Root from the Michigan ballot this November. Bob Barr is a former congressman who gained the Libertarian Party’s presidential nomination in late May during the Party’s national convention in Denver. Wayne Allyn Root was a former Libertarian Party presidential candidate who ultimately won the Vice Presidential nomination.

“Bob Barr continues to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is not a libertarian and not a friend of the freedom movement” Gatties said in a written statement. “Barr shows no respect towards libertarian activists or down-ticket libertarian candidates.”

Bob Barr has recently become the center of controversy within the libertarian movement due to “no-showing” a unity event hosted by long-time libertarian & former presidential candidate, Congressman Ron Paul and ignoring party by-laws when, after insulting Ron Paul with the no-show, offered the Congressman a spot next to him on the Libertarian Party ticket, replacing Wayne Allyn Root.

“Bob Barr turned his back on the Libertarian Party the moment he accepted the nomination. Disrespecting Ron Paul should be the final straw. I encourage the Libertarian Party of Michigan’s Executive Committee to remove Bob Barr from the Michigan ballot. If they are unable to remove Mr. Barr, I encourage Michigan citizens to cast their vote for Chuck Baldwin or perhaps, write-in a freedom candidate who will not appear on the Michigan ballot. Your write-in vote may not count, but at least you will be able to sleep at night knowing that you made the right decision. I support our Michigan Libertarian candidates and I encourage people to cast their vote for these fine defenders of liberty. However, I refuse to support Bob Barr and his anti-freedom agenda.”

For more information regarding this story, please visit www.IndependentPoliticalReport.com or LastFreeVoice.wordpress.com.

Russ Verney says Bush showed “incredible leadership”, makes excuses for Barr’s no-show at Ron Paul event

In Crazy Claims, George Bush, Iraq War, Libertarian Party-US, Libertarian Politics, Politics, Presidential Candidates, Ron Paul, Terrorism, War, Wayne Allen Root on September 11, 2008 at 1:38 pm

Yet Verney still fails and refuses to recognize that Barr has absolutely no authority to replace Root with Ron Paul, or anyone else.  By the way, where’s Osama bin Laden?  We can see a quarter on the sidewalk from space, but we can’t find a strange-looking human giant?

Dear Friend,

Before I move forward with an important report for today, I would like to recognize and remember the 2,819 men and women who lost their lives seven years ago. As a result of the attacks of September 11th, Americans came together, setting aside differences in order mourn our shared losses and assist our neighbors in need.

May we never forget . . .

In times of crisis, strength in leadership requires boldness of character, clear direction and firm resolve. As we witnessed after the attacks of September 11th, President George W. Bush showed incredible leadership as he stood atop a fire truck amidst the rubble of the twin towers to rally America.

While the quality of leadership is rare enough, principled leaders are few and far between. Those who do appear to posses the traits necessary to lead, for reasons only known to themselves, frequently choose not to stand on principle.

Yesterday, our vice presidential candidate, Wayne Allyn Root, offered to step aside to allow Congressman Ron Paul an opportunity to serve on the presidential ticket of the Libertarian Party and move the agenda of Liberty forward.

On the surface, a simple offer was extended. In fact it was principled leadership at its finest.

Wayne Allyn Root showed his deep commitment to the principles of our cause. Without hesitation or regard to the effort, time and personal funds he has committed to the issues of freedom, smaller government, less taxes and the Libertarian ticket, Wayne offered to step aside to allow another leader to step up.

I could not be more proud of his actions and selflessness.

As America is hurling towards crisis on many fronts, we need principled leaders like Bob Barr and Wayne Allyn Root. We have no time to waste on anything other than spreading the message of smaller government, less taxes, and more personal freedom issues across this nation.

That brings me to my next point.

Today our campaign is being criticized by a few people for my decision to not attend a press conference sponsored by Ron Paul’s political action committee. I thought I would take a minute to explain to you why I made that decision.

It became evident to me after meeting with Ron Paul’s staff that this media event was not about promoting the liberty agenda; it was about promoting a man. That’s not what we’re in this for.

After rumors were spread in advance of the news conference that Bob Barr was dropping from the race – just to hype the event – I became even more hesitant to attend. Those tactics were unacceptable and when asked about it, Ron Paul’s staff simply smiled and said it would attract the press.

When I was provided a copy of Ron Paul’s prepared remarks just hours before the start of the planned news conference it became clear to me that the message Ron Paul intended to deliver was essentially to scatter the votes for the liberty agenda to the four winds.

His remarks not only encouraged anyone listening to support any one of four candidates, he also applauded ‘non-voters’. To me encouraging people not to vote is not principled leadership for the Liberty agenda.

I made the decision that attending that news conference was not consistent with Bob Barr’s principled leadership for the Liberty agenda.

Once I informed Ron Paul’s staff of my decision I was rudely informed that my decision would have permanent ramifications, I was personally threatened and Bob Barr was politically threatened. That’s a far cry from principled leadership.

One thing that did occur as a result of yesterday’s events is a clear separation of certain factions. Up until now, we have been dealing with two groups, those who want to advance the issues of liberty and those who have been drawn into a cult of personality.

There are those who support a specific politician and then there are those who support the liberty agenda regardless of standard-bearer.

Bob Barr, Wayne Allyn Root and the Libertarian Party stand for the issues of personal freedom and responsible government. As they have proven, both Bob and Wayne are willing to lead or follow for the advancement of our issues.

Now is their time to lead.

As we move into the final 50 days of the campaign we are in place to make a strong impact on the future of our country.

At the end of the day, the number of votes cast in support of the Liberty agenda in the General Election will influence the national political agenda of the next four years.

If we do our jobs, work hard and give us much as possible until Election Day, our voices will be heard and our agenda of smaller government, lower taxes, more personal freedom and government accountability will be on the table for years to come.

I appreciate your commitment and dedication.

Sincerely,

Russ signature

Russell Verney
Campaign Manager

Barr’s website says he invited Ron Paul to be his VP

In Crazy Claims, Libertarian, Libertarian Convention, Libertarian Party-US, Libertarian Politics, Media, People in the news, Politics, Presidential Candidates, Republican, Ron Paul on September 10, 2008 at 2:28 pm

The following was posted today on the Bob Barr website by Shane Cory. It is of particular interest given that Barr did not show up today at the Ron Paul third party press conference, thus causing a major rift with the Ron Paul camp.

It is unclear why Barr thinks Ron Paul should be his VP candidate, and not the other way around when Ron Paul has far more support both in and out of the LP, and far more experience in Congress. Furthermore, Barr’s current VP Wayne Allyn Root was nominated by the delegates at the Libertarian Convention, so Barr doesn’t have the power or authority to replace him.  Root seems to think it’s a fine idea, but he doesn’t have the power or authority to overrule the delegates either.

Many thanks to LFV reader Bubbu Blanco for bringing this link to LFV’s attention!

Bob Barr Shows Leadership to Unify Liberty Movement

September 10th, 2008 by Shane Cory

Asks Paul to Run as his Vice President

Atlanta, GA – Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party nominee for president, has invited GOP Congressman Ron Paul to be his running mate in the upcoming election. In a letter sent to Paul, Barr called Paul one of the “few American patriots” who exist in today’s society, and asked him to “seriously consider this final offer as an opportunity to show true, lasting leadership beyond party politics.”

Barr cited Paul’s 1987 letter to then-GOP Chairman Frank Fahrenkopf, in which Paul stated that, “after years of trying to work through the Republican Party both in and out of government…[Paul] concluded that [his] efforts must be carried on outside the Republican Party.”

Though recognizing Paul’s personal investment in the Republican Party and his recent attempts to reform the party from inside, Barr said he disagreed with Paul’s strategy. “Better options remain that will carry a message of liberty onto the ballot in November and beyond,” Barr stated, adding at a news conference called today at the National Press Club, that “change in politics and public policy in America cannot and will not be done from within the current, two-party system.”

Barr continued, “‘The status quo will not change the status quo’ and impact comes entirely from gaining votes in the General Election.” That is why Barr said he would remain focused on the Libertarian Party’s electoral effort and clear message, and why he invited Paul to join him.

“While you declined my offer to seek the Libertarian presidential nomination many months ago, I ask that you seriously consider this final offer as an opportunity to show true, lasting leadership beyond party politics,” Barr stated in his letter to Paul.

Barr’s running mate, Wayne Allyn Root, expressed support: “As the Libertarian Party vice presidential nominee, I believe in one thing above all else—principle. There can be no compromise on the ideals of limited government, lower taxes, lower spending, and more freedom for the American people. Those are the principles to which I’ve dedicated my life. The GOP and Democratic candidates only give lip service—at best—to these ideals and principles. It is only an act at election time every four years.”

“I want to end the charade once and for all,” Root continued. “I am willing to sacrifice anything to advance the cause of liberty, freedom, smaller government and to enable the American taxpayer to keep more of their own money and property. Understanding Dr. Ron Paul’s reputation and name recognition in the freedom movement, I am willing to step aside as Libertarian vice presidential candidate if he would be willing to take my place. I will pledge to work day and night, just as I have as the vice presidential nominee, to support Dr. Paul. I believe this is a wonderful opportunity for the Libertarian and freedom movements. I encourage Dr. Paul to accept Congressman Barr’s offer. The campaign is making this offer because we believe there is no sacrifice too large when it comes to improving the lives of the American people and American taxpayers.”

Barr’s letter to Paul can be found here.

Paul’s letter to the GOP can be found here.

Libertarian Party presidential candidate Bob Barr represented the 7th District of Georgia in the U. S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003.

Press Release: Libertarians on New York Ballot

In Libertarian, Libertarian Party-US, Libertarian Politics, Politics, Presidential Candidates, Press Release, Ron Paul on August 28, 2008 at 10:32 am

News from Libertarian Party of New York
For more information contact: Eric Sundwall, Ph: (518) 857-1731
Email:eric_sundwall@hotmail.com

Libertarians on New York Ballot
Presidential Nominee, Bob Barr, offers real choice.

ALBANY, NY (08/26/2008; 0000)(readMedia)–

As Democrats gather in Denver to anoint their choice for President this week, Libertarians have already decided. After their own taxpayer-neutral national convention in Denver this past Memorial Day weekend,Libertarians throughout the country selected former Congressman Bob Barr from Georgia and businessman Wayne Root, a former New Yorker now in Las Vegas, as their nominees for President and Vice-President.

State Chairman Eric Sundwall says that Barr and Root will be on the ballot in New York:

“While Democrats and Republicans enjoy their coronations in the next few weeks, Libertarians are happy to know their candidates are on the ballot after weeks of grueling work, in the hottest days of the year, securing our place on the ballot.”

In addition to Barr and Root, Libertarians will field three Congressional candidates and one New York Assembly candidate.  Both Steven Vasquez (www.stevenforcongress.com) and David Gay (www.davidgay2008.com) are Ron Paul endorsed candidates for New York’s 21st and 25th Congressional Districts (Albany and Syracuse respectively).  Isaiah Matos (www.operation-liberty.com)is seeking the U.S. House seat in District 14 on Manhattan’s East Side and Bill Buran (www.billburan.com)will be running as a Libertarian in NY’s 72nd Assembly District in northern Manhattan.

Sundwall continues:

“The Libertarian Party of New York is proud to have these freedom supporting candidates on the ballot. Without their hours of dedication, personal contributions and sacrifices, New Yorkers would be stuck with the same stale choices that have choked New York and our country far too long.  We look forward to seeing these positive campaigns do well in November.“