Libertarian Party to Paul: Come Back!

The LP stated the obvious with a resolution passed (unanimously) this weekend: Ron Paul is the most successful Libertarian candidate ever and the party wants him to run on their ticket.

WHEREAS, the Libertarian Party and Congressman Ron Paul share many common principles for liberty and prosperity in America, and

WHEREAS, Congressman Ron Paul is a member of the Libertarian Party in good standing, and

WHEREAS, Congressman Ron Paul was previously nominated by the delegates of the Libertarian National Convention to serve as the Libertarian Party's 1988 presidential candidate, and

WHEREAS, Congressman Ron Paul, through the efforts of his current presidential campaign, has ignited a renewed passion for liberty across America, and …

WHEREAS, the Libertarian Party and its members have remained respectful, and in many cases, supportive of Congressman Ron Paul's campaign seeking the Republican presidential nomination…

NOW THEREFORE, in the event that Republican primary voters select a candidate other than Congressman Paul in February of 2008, the Libertarian National Committee urges Congressman Ron Paul to seek the presidential nomination of the Libertarian Party to be decided in Denver, Colorado during Memorial Day weekend of 2008.

Via Steve Gordon. I don't think the speculation about a third-party Paul run is going to end any time soon, no matter what he does to douse the flames. (It also confirms that the LP is ready to junk its current field at a moment's notice. It sucks to be Wayne Allyn Root/George Philles/Steve Kubby.

Comments

[Larry Anderson]

Yep, that should put the nail in the coffin.

[Edward]

Paul can also fall back to run on the National Socialist Party ticket too. The good doctor and David Duke as VP would be a formible one-two.

[Episiarch]

Libertarian Party to Paul: Come Back!

Paul to LP: No fucking way, I'm actually doing pretty well and don't need to be associated with colloidal silver guy.

[nobody special]

Are the top tier candidates wooing Paul at all for a VP slot? I don't think he'd want it, but the presidency is worth so much money to the winners maybe they'll resort to straight bribery? How much for a Paul fig leaf for their corporate-statists acts? 100 million dollars?

[Sam Grove]

Why do people to know about a possible third party run while he is doing so well as a Republican?

It would be foolish for the RP campaign to grant such a possibility and relieve the pressure on support for the current campaign.

Please, people, don't respond to the fool in the #2 spot.

[sage]

I'm writing him in next November. If he runs as an independent, so much the better.

[joe]

Run, Ron Paul.

Run away!

Run like the wind!

[Brent]

He turned it down already. The LP are probably sad :[. I really wish the LP was as popular as the GOP and Democratics cause it's the only party representing the Old Right.

[Ken Shultz]

Isn't it theoretically possible that the LP could endorse Ron Paul?

No? ...I thought not.

[Jay D]

The possiblity of a third party run would or should be a factor in a likely brokered convention. They better not stonewall his supporters, or lock them out, or otherwise mistreat them.

Question: If a Third Party Ron Paul actually does better than a GOP Rudy vs. Hillary, would the media still call Ron Paul the "spoiler"?

[Edward]

...in the event that Republican primary voters select a candidate other than Congressman Paul in February of 2008...

What a sense of humor those Libertarians have!

[Ayn_Randian]

Sam Grove - good point. The categorical refusal of Paul to consider a third-party run ensures that his supporters remain active for his Republican campaign.

But, if he does not win the nomination, I still want him to run for President anyway.

[andyd]

I heard him asked if he'd take a VP position if it was offered. He said that it's very unlikely to be offered, because the other Rep nominees are very politically different than him. Of course, he's right. You think Guiliani or Romney would want him? Hell no.

But getting the Libertarian nomination after failing as a Republican is sort of like playing the lottery... whether or not he gets it, his chances of winning remain about zero.

[Edward]

Ron Paul is the most successful Libertarian candidate ever...

That's a sad fucking comment on the state of libertarianism.

[Ayn_Randian]

If a Third Party Ron Paul actually does better than a GOP Rudy vs. Hillary, would the media still call Ron Paul the "spoiler"?

Ha - yes, probably, because in the minds of "teh Big Mediaz", only two parties exist (except for their little darling Ralph Nader).

[Richard Wicks]

> Edward | December 10, 2007, 10:07am | #
>
> Paul can also fall back to run on the National
> Socialist Party ticket too. The good doctor and
> David Duke as VP would be a formible one-two.

Congratulations, you've won stupidest post so far.

If the Nazi Party had any similarities with Ron Paul, there weren't have been WWII because Germany would have never attack Poland, where they killed 2 million of my countrymen before my family fled to the United States.

[Edward]

The Edward who made the Nazi party comment isn't me. Lots of false Edwards post to sow confusion. I'm the one who makes the witty quips and mocks Ron Paul for his looniness. I have occasionally pointed out that he's an idiot for not denouncing his Nazi supporters.

[Ayn_Randian]

Dear Edward,

Please fuck off.

Sincerely,

The Troops.

[T]

You know why Ron Paul won't get a VP slot? Because there are too many libertarians with guns. I don't endorse the concept, but I would bet money that if Dr. Paul got the office of VP someone would decide to vote with a bullet.

[Edward]

Your wit is hard to match, Ayn.

[Minion of URKOBOLD]

CORRECT, "EDWARD".

THAT IS WHY AYN WILL BE DOING MC DUTIES AT THE H&R FESTIVUS PARTY.

HIS WIT.

[Richard Wicks]

> The Edward who made the Nazi party comment
> isn't me. Lots of false Edwards post to sow
> confusion. I'm the one who makes the witty
> quips and mocks Ron Paul for his looniness.

There's nothing loony about him. He's just well educated, whereas you are not.

For example, Paul knows why and how Operation Ajax directly led to the formation of Al Qaeda and that's the basis of his foreign policy position. Yet here you are, with absolutely no idea what Operation Ajax is despite the fact that you could find out in a matter of minutes if you could simply use the Internet for useful things instead of viewing porn and downloading movies illegally.

> I have occasionally pointed out that he's an
> idiot for not denouncing his Nazi supporters.

He has denounced them, but there's no reason to give the money back. People who support him are free to support him.

For example, I'm an active anti-Zionist because I view any nation that uses genetic history as a basis for emmigration to be inherently racist and not deserving of US foreign aid.

Of course, I also know the full history of the formation of Israel, the 500,000 Arab refugees that Israel created, and the fact that Israel broke it's first UN resolution 1948 with UN Resolution 194, right after the very same UN CREATED Israel with 187. Also, the precursor to the Likud party murdered Count Bernadotte in 1948 as well. Zionists have always been a group of terrorists.

But I'm not a racist. I simply am not a Zionist, precisely because I'm not a racist. Should Paul give me back the $2300 I sent him because Peter Schiff asked me to?

[Shannon Love]

I won't vote for Ron Paul because back in the 80's he called my spouse a communist on camera simply for politely refusing to talk to him on campus. The man is an arrogant loon.

However, he would be insane to rejoin the Republican party. If nothing else, as a Republican he picks up votes from people who vote a straight ticket. More strategically, no third party can ever hope to displace the Democrats and Republicans. First, the nature of the American electoral system drives us to a two party system. Even minor third party involvement leads to defeat for the block the third party belongs to.

Second, the major parties simply appropriate popular ideas that originate in minor parties. Even if the majority of people work up tomorrow with Libertarian leanings the officials elected would still be Democrats or Republicans because the parties would quickly begin to espouse the newly popular ideas.

If people are concerned about transforming libertarian ideals into actual policy, they should seek to work within one of the major parties and just accept that they will have to compromise to get things done. Ron Paul has had a much greater effect as a Republican than he ever did as a Libertarian.

The only reason to join the formal Libertarian party is to have a like minded social club.

[Rimfax]

I hope that he doesn't run for the LP. It would destroy his credibility. For any other politician, that would be no big deal. For Paul, it would make him just another back bencher.

Part of the problem with the LP is that the leadership keeps playing politics as if this were just another political party. Celebrity candidates and artificial emergencies work for other parties because they are nothing more than minimally-anchored political vehicles. There is only a tiny amount of ideological continuity. Each campaign is a short battle, not an ongoing effort to move the culture of the world.

The LP depends on the success of libertarianism, not the other way around. No other party, not even the Greens, are that strongly coupled to an ideology. There are efforts to decouple the LP from libertarian ideology. All they'll do is turn it into another moving target, another back bencher.

[Richard Wicks]

> If people are concerned about transforming
> libertarian ideals into actual policy, they
> should seek to work within one of the major
> parties and just accept that they will have
> to compromise to get things done

It's pointless to attempt to work within a party.

Simply vote Libertarian, and when the Republicans lose because 10% of the population voted Libertarian, suddenly the Republicans will have a come to Jesus moment and start implementing Libertarian ideas in order to get Libertarian votes.

[Edward]

Richard,

In spite of Ron paul's medical education, he evidently can't read:

The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders' political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government's hostility to religion.-Ron Paul "The War on religion"

Or he's a lying demogogue. You decide.

[Randolph Carter]

Shannon,
If there's one thing that Dr. Paul is not, it's arrogant. Although he did go into a super-firebrand stage in the 80s, particularly on that Morton Downey Jr. show where he called the little drug warrior a fatty.

[R. Totale]

I'm the one who makes the witty quips

Delusion, thy name is Edward.

[Garney]

I got involved with a group supporting Ron Paul.I voted for him in 1988.
However, I found almost all his supporters are college age and don't have a clue what libertarianism is about.Let's get a blimp!

[Edward]

R. Totale,

How about the time I suggested that Ron Paul choose the late Aaron Russo as his running mate because Americans are tired of having an activist VP? Still makes me laugh.

[Edward]

Urkobolds - FYI, I just received an email from Blogger stating they are currently investigating your blog for the ToS violations I reported. Those violations include:

HATEFUL CONTENT: Users may not publish material that promotes hate toward groups based on race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status, and sexual orientation/gender identity.

IMPERSONATION: We do not allow impersonation of others through our services in a manner that is intended to or does mislead or confuse others.

You can't say I didn't warn you. I gave you ass clowns a chance to remove libelous statements about myself. Like I've said before, fuck with the bull and you will get the horns. Fools.

[Warren]

Ron Paul has already carried the flag for the LP. He has done more than most to advance it's aims. I completely understand why any candidate would not care to run on a third party ticket under a system gamed for the establishment.

I salute Ron Paul for his efforts and wish him only the very best in whatever he cares to do with the remainder of his time on earth.

Should Ron Paul fail to gain the GOP nomination, I will return my support to the LP. The LP continue without Ron Paul. Perhaps a little more noticeably for his 2008 run. The support for libertarianism is growing. With each passing day it be comes clearer that the establishment will not and can not bend itself in the direction of individual liberty and returning power to the people.

[Minion]

yawn.

[AFJ]

Is the Libertarian Party asking Ron Paul to run on its ticket because he calls himself Libertarian or because he can raise a ton of money?
'Cause it sure can't be because he is an actual Libertarian. Ron Reagan brought down a wall and Ron Paul wants to build another one.

[Edward]

Warren, you're a sticth.

[Edward]

I meant "stitch."

[Richard Wicks]

> Richard,
>
> In spite of Ron paul's medical education, he > evidently can't read:
>
> The notion of a rigid separation between
> church and state has no basis in either the
> text of the Constitution or the writings of
> our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our
> Founders' political views were strongly
> informed by their religious beliefs.
> Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of
> Independence and the Constitution, both
> replete with references to God, would be
> aghast at the federal government's hostility
> to religion.-Ron Paul "The War on religion"
>
> Or he's a lying demogogue. You decide.

We've had a congressional chaplin in congress since at least 1800 and the Supreme Court has opened with a prayer, I think, forever.

What you need to do, is read history.

The Separation of Church and State was ushered in at the behest of Baptists by Jefferson in 1801 for fear that as a minority the state would crush them. It's by policy not by law.

If you actually ever bothered to read the Constitution, you'll see that it forbids the establishment of a religion, it doesn't guarantee that religion cannot be a part of government, simply that people can't be forced to worship a particular god.

And I'm atheist incidentally. I think Jesus was a homosexual hanging out with 13 other men and a fag had named Mary Magdalene, if Jesus was actually a person at all - and he probably wasn't.

[robc]

Like I've said before, fuck with the bull and you will get the horns.

Edward is Paul Gleason?

Wow, never would have guessed.

[Ayn_Randian]

There's no reason for Ron Paul NOT to make a third-party run, provided he does not receive the nom.

Why? For one, he's 72 years old...this is pretty much his last shot to make a difference for freedom, and he has the most momentum a libertarian-minded candidate has had since...ummm...Taft maybe?

Second, it's pretty traditional for a major candidate, when it looks like he's going to lose, to endorse another candidate. Can Ron Paul really look his supporters in the face and say "Support Romney/Giuliani"? I don't think so...I am not even sure he can convince 90% of his current followers to continue to vote Republican.

The man has a chance to spoil the race and highlight libertarianism/Goldwaterism. Regardless of the outcome of the convention, he should continue to fight for freedom.

[joe]

Ohnoes, Blogger sent Eddie a form letter response to a complaint email!

The horns, indeed! Feel his wrath!

[Edward]

AFJ

Wow, a sane person. Where did you come from?

[Edward]

What you need to do, is read history. Ayn_randian

What you need to do is read the fucking constitution. No references to God in there at all (if you don't count the date).

[Edward]

Ron Paul lies about the Constitution to rile up simpletons and garner their support. Why would anybody suppport such a dishonest demogogue? But look how he's doing. The market sorts things out, and blatant demogoguery doesn't sell very well.

[Richard Wicks]

> What you need to do is read the fucking
> constitution. No references to God in there
> at all

Well, he's wrong about the constitution, but he's certainly not wrong about the Declaration of Independence, nor about the role religion, even if it was Deism, played in the formation of this nation.

Hell, Jefferson rewrote the bible, he wasn't an atheist.

[Ayn_Randian]

Edward - I think that you need to go back and read my 10:30 comment. It will give you everything you need to know.

[Edward]

Well, he's wrong about the constitution..

Give me a break. He's LYING about the Constitution. Do you really think he can't fucking read?

[Jay D]

If you actually ever bothered to read the Constitution, you'll see that it forbids the establishment of a religion,

The exact words are a little more interestingly phrased.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

"Respecting" means "concerning/about."

The US Congress can make no law whatsoever concerning establishment of religion. For or against.

What does this mean in practice? How does this get 14th amendmented to the lower governments? Not easily. It is not the type of thing that could easily translate to local governments. However, it does mean that the US congress can't pass a law telling the states they can't establish religion. Such a law would be concerning an establishement and explicitly forbidden.

[Richard Wicks]

> The exact words are a little more interestingly
> phrased.
>
> "Congress shall make no law respecting an
> establishment of religion..."
>
> "Respecting" means "concerning/about."

And what does "establishment" mean?

The Federal Congress has no right to issue ANY LAW WHATSOEVER establishing a religion.

That is what it says, neither for, nor against. It can't say ANYTHING about it.

If, in 1803, Maryland wanted to establish a state religion - guess what - they could!

[Edward]

Yeah, the states could be theocracies. Is that Ron Paul's goal?

[Minion of URKOBOLD]

OH YEAH. I TOLD JEAN BART ON YOU. HE'S A FORMER FRENCH MARINE ENGINEER MARRIED JOURNALIST.

AND A FAN OF PIRATES.

[Richard Wicks]

> Edward | December 10, 2007, 11:07am | #
> Well, he's wrong about the constitution..
>
> Give me a break. He's LYING about the
> Constitution. Do you really think he can't
> fucking read?

No Edward, I think he's human, not a god, and he makes mistakes.

[robc]

How does this get 14th amendmented to the lower governments?

If, in 1803, Maryland wanted to establish a state religion - guess what - they could!

Thats how the 14th applies. In 1803, MD could, in 1903, they couldnt.

[Edward]

Saying the Constitution is "replete with references to God" is just a mistake?? Gee, I honestly thought I saw all those references. Must be these glasses.

[robc]

Richard Wicks,

Dont even bother. I have been over this with Edward multiple times. He understood that was a mistake in speaking not a lie before the first time he brought it up months ago. He is a troll.

Personally, I think he is a useful troll because he makes anti-Paul people look like idiots.

[T]

blatant demogoguery doesn't sell very well

Quick, somebody tell the donks and the efenants their strategy won't work! Edward said so!

More seriously, BUWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Don't follow politics in America very closely, do you, Edward?

[Ali (formerly iih)]

Where is Dondero! We talked about that over weekend. Do I need to state the obvious? He saw this as a victory for Guiliani as he is the obvious LP choice. Haha.

[Paige]

Something tells me Dr. Paul will have a change of heart if the time comes...

[Richard Wicks]

> Edward | December 10, 2007, 11:09am | #
>
> Yeah, the states could be theocracies. Is that
> Ron Paul's goal?

No, his goal is to castrate the Federal Government.

Considering this Federal Government has happily stolen the Social Security Surplus since 1935 and has left my generation and the generation before with a 60 TRILLION dollar obligation to fill that gap over the next 30 years, I can only see that as a good thing.

The Federal Government "closed down" twice under Clinton and you know what happened?

Nothing. The Federal Government doesn't do much of anything other than take money and waste it on bullshit undeclared wars, and bullshit initiatives like Ethanol which has a negative return on energy investment.

If my state became a theocracy, guess what I'd do? I'd move. Who wants to live surrounded by a bunch of religious nuts anyhow? I know I don't, which is why after living in Indiana for 2 painful years, I left for California.

That was the whole point of the original union. Allow free movement between the states, and when one state government became too onerous or oppressive, you simply voted with your feet. This forced competition between the states to attract tax payers, and no state government could become too much of a burden lest they lose their economy as people got fed up with it.

And it worked great until Lincoln came in and changed the rules. It got even worse with FDR when he nationalized all the nation's gold. Today, state governments are pretty much irrelevant, since the Federal government makes decisions right down to public school testing, and meanwhile, we have a 30% drop out rate in the nation.

Our Federal government absolutely sucks. It totally absolutely FUCKING sucks.

Isn't *that* wonderful?

Don't you just love it? Let's have more of it, eh?

[Jay D]

If, in 1803, Maryland wanted to establish a state religion - guess what - they could!

Thats how the 14th applies. In 1803, MD could, in 1903, they couldnt.

That's what makes applying the 14th amendment to the establishment clause complex (and interesting). What is the federal government going to do about it if MD establishes a religion? They have no authority to pass any laws on the subject of establishment. They are weaponless.

If MD reads the 14th amendment and concludes the establishement clause applies to them, they could, on their own, pass no laws about establishment.

The only thing I can conclude is that if the 14th amendment applies the establishment clause to all levels of government, each level of government is self-policing, since it can't pass any laws on the subject that would apply to a different level of government.

[Nick]

Oy. Part of me wants Ron Paul to continue on running for President even if he doesn't get the GOP nomination because he'll screw up the GOP's chances (unless Hillary is the nominee which will make everyone vote Republican against her, even if its Rudy).

Of course, I would want him to run as a Libertarian so it would raise the level of awareness of the party pretty much 1000 fold overnight. But, I don't want him to do what he said he wouldn't do, either because then he would lose favor with everyone who was supporting him because of principled honesty.

Man, I guess we just have to elect him as a Republican. So be it. Although if he doesn't get the GOP nod, he should endorse the LP candidate, which would really only increase the level of awareness 100 fold, which is not very much.

[INTERESTING POINT]

BUT EDWARD!

RON PAUL FLIES A BLIMP. IT IS CLEARLY STATED THAT GOD WOULD HAVE GIVEN MAN WINGS. BUT PAUL HAS A BLIMP. SO THAT PROVES HE'S NOT IN CAHOOTS WITH GAWD.

A BLIMP, MAN! BLIMP!

[Jacob]

>It's pointless to attempt to work within a party.

>Simply vote Libertarian, and when the Republicans lose because 10% of the population voted >Libertarian, suddenly the Republicans will have a come to Jesus moment and start implementing >Libertarian ideas in order to get Libertarian votes.

Richard,

Have you been to any Republican Party meetings? They are usually pretty welcoming of new people who are willing to do work. A dedicated group the size of the current Libertarian Party would make a HUGE difference.

[Richard Wicks]

> What is the federal government going to do
> about it if MD establishes a religion?

But did you notice?

Even those states COULD HAVE done this, NONE OF THEM DID!

Even religious people, even the WACKO religious people, recognize that forcing a religion on a person doesn't actually make them religious.

What if California outlawed Scientology today? Would the Federal Government object?

I would object though. A lot of people would, even though it's a stupid religion created by a science fiction writer just to fuck with idiots and steal their money.

[Richard Wicks]

> Richard,
>
> Have you been to any Republican Party meetings?
> They are usually pretty welcoming of new people
> who are willing to do work. A dedicated group
> the size of the current Libertarian Party would
> make a HUGE difference.

Sure did.

I went to the republican straw poll in San Francisco.

Trust me, we weren't very welcome... 🙂

We did get video tape of the event, and I did win a teddy bear through the raffle.

[Alex Hammer]

See also:
Facebook - Leading Ron Paul Widgets, Resources and Tools
http://www.facebook.com/apps/application.php?id=6424597449

Ron Paul - The $20 Million Man
http://ronpaulnewsblg.blogspot.com/2007/12/ron-paul-20-million-man-by-alex-hammer.html

[R C Dean]

Unless Edward is a group, I don't see how the Hateful Content rules would apply to the Ur-thrashing he receives on that website.

My guess is the Blogger folks will give the Ur-site a read, and pass it around the office for a chuckle.

[T]

Have you been to any Republican Party meetings? They are usually pretty welcoming of new people who are willing to do work.

I've been to plenty. They are more than happy to have warm bodies to do grunt work. However, when you open your mouth and start questioning the current orthodoxy of the party, they get unwelcoming real quick.

[Elemenope]

R. Wicks --

While Edward is generally an ass, he's closer to the mark on this one than you are, I think. (He thinks Ron Paul making a relatively insignificant factual error is a *big deal*, and that's another problem entirely.)

Deism was pretty clearly the dominant position among the minds that crafted the Constitution and following ten amendments. If deism is a religion, then Communism and the Home Shopping Network are too; it places the definitional bar so low it robs the word of all meaning. That as a practical matter those same men were committed by habit to religious ceremony (which on different occasions B. Franklin, G. Washington, and T. Jefferson all indicated were in fact empty) as part of the trappings of the state are not strong evidence of a comfort with religion substantially as a player in the affairs of the state.

The First Amendment does not stand alone, but is buttressed by the "No Religious Test" clause, which I think is crucial for outlining just how far apart the two spheres were intended to be. The role of the head of state can have some very unfortunate practical intersections with the moral and religious governance of a people; if you watch the Kennedy speech before the Texas preachers, some of those discomforting intersections were named and voiced. It is a singular thing that everyone there repeatedly and entirely without controversy stated in no uncertain terms that the separation between church and state are absolute (wildly enthusiastic applause the times it is mentioned).

That scarcely fifteen years after when the Christian conservatives had successfully mounted a complete takeover of the Republican party, suddenly it is hard to find a minister who is as enthusiastic about the principle. Just goes to show just how quickly power can corrupt. Something the founding fathers knew all too well and commented liberally and repeatedly upon.

[Urkobold?]

GOOGLE JUST CALLED THE URKOBOLD AND OFFERED $2 BILLION FOR THE URKOBOLD SITE. SAID THEY HADN'T NOTICED THE WEB SITE UNTIL SOME INSANE TROLL POINTED IT OUT TO THEM. THANKS, INSANE TROLL PERSON, WHOEVER YOU ARE!

"UR-THRASHING." THE URKOBOLD LIKES THAT TERM. MR. DEAN, ESQ., MAY HAVE A COOKIE.

[Nick]

Actually, many states early on did establish their "official" religions. They just didn't force their citizens to adhere to religious law or become part of those religions to live there, presumably because they wanted to still tax all the citizens. I am not sure if any of these states still recognize themselves in that way. It could be like the sex laws of years ago. In most states it is only legal to have missionary position intercourse with your legal spouse, but no one enforces them anymore. They are still the law in most states.

I live in NY and although it is unlikely there would ever be a state religion here, I wouldn't care if there was, until they started forcing their religion upon me or taking my freedoms away as a result of their "official" status. Then I would either move or fight back. Fight or flight is well recognized by non-religious folks such as myself as a natural response to attack or oppression.

[Jacob]

Richard,

I went to the straw poll in Virginia, it was a LOT better. The San Fran party looked pretty nasty.

I generally find that the R's are okay if you don't seem too strange. I mention an area that I agree with the orthodoxy for each one that I disagree with.

They would probably get behind people that ran for unopposed Dem congress seats.

[joe]

Jay D,

What is the federal government going to do about it if MD establishes a religion? They have no authority to pass any laws on the subject of establishment. They are weaponless.

Congress needn't pass a law regarding an issue in order for the Supreme Court to strike a state's law on that subject down on Constitutional grounds.

[Edward]

The nutjob didn't "make a mistake", he's a kook and a demogogue who flat out lied. What part of that don't you fucking wingnuts get? I give up. I'm done with this loony site. This is my last post.

[Ron Paul-apologist for murdero]

I hope the fucker leaves the Republican Party and runs as an independent. Good riddance to bad rubbish. The Republican party does not need a piece of shit who apologizes for dictators by blaming their actions on the United States. This disgusting panderer actually blamed the United States, in the recent Spanish language debate, for both Castro and Chavez. What a shameful fucking disgrace. It is no surprise this man has been less than ardent in separating himself from the scores of "Truthers" and Islamofascist apologists who support his campaign. After all, their beliefs that 9-11 was merely blowback is disgustingly similar to Paul's views on the aforementioned dictators.
Of course bullshit like this will go unnoticed on this website because in the eyes of the contributors, Ron Paul can do no wrong. And yet, withuout a hint of sarcasm, or irony, the bozoes here hammer NRO and other conservative sites for "slavering" over candidates. That is pot-calling-the-kettle-black hypocrisy with a capital fucking H.

[Editor of URKOBOLD]

pssst, rpafmd:

"pot" begins with "P" not "H".

[T]

The Republican party does not need a piece of shit who apologizes for dictators

No, you need a piece of shit who sets up illegal networks to fund and arm dictators! Because that's so much better, isn't it?

[Richard Wicks]

> It is a singular thing that everyone there
> repeatedly and entirely without controversy
> stated in no uncertain terms that the
> separation between church and state are
> absolute (wildly enthusiastic applause the
> times it is mentioned).

Kennedy was a Catholic and there was a great deal of concern that he would be taking his orders from the pope, not the law.

That's why he got thunderous applause. You also have to remember that Catholicism was quite in the minority back then, and still is to some degree today.

In the Midwest, a lot of people will call Catholicism a cult to this day. Of course it is a cult, just like any other religion, it's just a big cult, therefore it's not a cult, it's a religion.

[Richard Wicks]

> I hope the fucker leaves the Republican Party
> and runs as an independent. Good riddance to
> bad rubbish. The Republican party does not need
> a piece of shit who apologizes for dictators by
> blaming their actions on the United States.

Let me give you a needed history lesson.

In 1953, the CIA with the help of British Military Intelligence overthrew the Democracy in Iran. They then placed the Shah into power. This was done in order to secure oil from Iran cheaply and to prevent Mossadeq (the elected president of Iran) from nationalizing oil interests, even though the British were doing the same exact thing at the time - which is why there is British Petroleum, also known as BP.

The Shah was a very corrupt man who ran a police state and was the US government's puppet. This is a well known fact among the Iranian populace both then, and particularly now.

The corruption of the Shah and the savagery that he used to prevent dissent created a religious movement that eventually led to the Islamic revolution brought into power by Ayatollah Khomeini which led to the Iranian hostage crisis. This Islamic revolution continues to this day. Al Qaeda is an off shoot of it.

The US having seen these events used the CIA again to place a secular leader into power in Iraq. Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein prevented any challenges to his power by murdering any religious leaders in Iraq that he felt would threaten his dominance.

The US encouraged Iraq to go to war with Iran with the goal of once again controlling Iranian oil fields. The Iran Iraq war left millions dead and decimated both populations ending in a stalemate. This is one of the bloodiest wars in the Middle East.

Now, do you have any idea what "blowback" might be? There's a justifiable reason why Middle Easterners don't like our government.

Are you happy with a government that overthrows democracies to put tyrants into power over the objections of the people there, denying their right to self determination? I'm not, Paul isn't. Who in their right would be?

[joe]

The Republican party does not need a piece of shit who apologizes for dictators by blaming their actions on the United States.

That's true. Candidates like McCain and Guiliani, who blame the actions of dictators on the supposed "isolationism" or "appeasement" of their political opponents have no place in the Republican Party.

[Hindenburg]

"I'm done with this loony site. This is my last post"

and hier is the first slogan that shall be broadcast from THE BLIMP!!!!!

BLIMP, MAN. BLIMP!!!

[paul]

Call in today: and let us know how YOU feel about the LNC's actions.

The Steve Kubby Show
MONDAY at 9AM Pacific, 12PM Eastern.
1-646-378-1107

or just listen by logging on at

http://www.Blogtalkradio.com/SteveKubbyShow

[joe]

That was pretty good, Richard Wicks, but I have to question that assertion that al Qaeda was somehow an offshoot of the Shiite revolutionary movement in Iran.

[Jay D]

Congress needn't pass a law regarding an issue in order for the Supreme Court to strike a state's law on that subject down on Constitutional grounds.

Maybe you can help me out. I'm trying to find where the SCOTUS has jurisdiction in cases involing a citizen of a state and his state.

Article III Section 2.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

[Jeremy]

I'm sure I'm not the first to say this people - but this nod from the libertarian party is VERY VERY good. Being a libertarian myself - I already made my mind up that I was voting for Ron Paul a couple months ago... however, I think this is the best thing we can expect from the official party itself short of flat out saying "Vote for Republican Ron Paul 2008!!!"

The libertarian party is behind Ron Paul for President! While the party isn't the size of the Republican/Dems - it's significant. That isn't anything to be taken lightly.

[Jay d]

never mind

[Fluffy]

Yes, I think it's more proper to say that Al Qaeda is an offshoot of the Afghan Muhajadeen movement from the 80's. Having seen radical Islam succeed in Iran and in Afghanistan, the Arab street naturally increasing turned away from secularism and to the one force they believed could end their continual humiliation at the hands of the West and of Israel.

I also would have added that when the Shah's regime fell, the revolutionary Iranian government sought normal relations with the US, and asked merely that we extradite the mass-murdering Shah to face the justice he so richly deserved. Carter refused, because despite his rhetoric about human rights, he was unwilling to allow a US puppet to face punishment for his many crimes. In response to our refusal to extradite the Shah, the Ayatollah unleased the student groups on our embassy, and the rest is as they say history.

[Richard Wicks]

> That was pretty good, Richard Wicks, but I have
> to question that assertion that al Qaeda was
> somehow an offshoot of the Shiite revolutionary
> movement in Iran.

Stop thinking of the Middle East as a group of states, and start thinking of it as the Ottoman Empire.

The Islamic revolution is not about imposing religious doctrine on everybody, although that's a means to achieve their goals. Their goals are self determination not just for some piece of land the British arbitrarily cut out of the Ottoman Empire, it's self determination for the entire Ottoman Empire.

Religion is a common unifying factor. It's just a tool.

It's because these revolutionaries relate to "Middle East" and not their countries of origin you find an Egyptian like Arafat in the Palestinian territories, and why you find Saudis like binLaden in Afghanistan. This is why there is a real threat of the ENTIRE MIDDLE EAST going to war, if we withdraw from Iraq. The Shiites of Iran may go into to help their brothers, while the Sunni of Saudi Arabia will do likewise, and it will spread and spread, until the oil export it cut off. It will end when the Ottoman Empire exists again.

This is the real danger of leaving Iraq, and we won't leave Iraq. Our oil supply is at stake and a civil war is brewing across the old Ottoman empire for control of everything.

Israel, of course, is totally fucked in this situation.

[robc]

Jay D,

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution

Here you go: ALL cases arising under this Constitution. For constitutional cases, it doesnt matter where the two sides are located.

In non-constitutional cases, the federal courts have power between a citizen and another state or between two states.

[joe]

Jay D,

Maybe you can help me out. I'm trying to find where the SCOTUS has jurisdiction in cases involing a citizen of a state and his state.

Then maybe you want to Google the phrase "incorporation doctrine" to clear up what seems to be a rather glaring omission from your understanding of constitutional law.

Of course, you already know about the incorporation doctrine and the fourteenth amendment, right?

[Jay D]

To all libertarians. I'm not "libertarian" but I'm voting for Ron Paul because I think the Federal Govenment is supposed to be libertarian in the sense that it is supposed to have a very, very small affect on the daily lives of the people of the several States.

For example: I think prostitution should be against the law, just not federal law.

Just thought you might want to know.

[tarran]

To those who claim that no state everh had a state-religion:

Massachusetts had a state religion.

The state funded churches in every town into the 19th century.

One of my ancestors was a titheman whose job was to apprehend people who had broken the law by skipping church services.

It also was the motivation for introducing public schooling. The government wanted to make sure that every child was exposed to the right form of Christianity as opposed to any heresy their parents might believe.

[joe]

Richard Wicks,

Don't you think that the bit about the Iranians helping their "Shiite brothers" and the Saudis helping their "Sunni brothers" undercuts your point about It's because these revolutionaries relate to "Middle East" and not their countries of origin?

[Richard Wicks]

> To all libertarians. I'm not "libertarian"
> but I'm voting for Ron Paul because I think
> the Federal Govenment is supposed to be
> libertarian in the sense that it is supposed
> to have a very, very small affect on the
> daily lives of the people of the several
> States.

That's exactly right.

The only thing you can be at the Federal Level and not break your oath to uphold the constitution, really, is a Libertarian.

I'm MOSTLY Libertarian, but truth be told - I'm somewhat of a fascist. For example, although animals are considered property in our society, I wouldn't want to see any state condone torture of them for fun and profit.

In other words, I'm perfectly willing to impose my moral values on other people, but I believe it's the state government's job to do it.

[Jay D]

Joe,

It just strikes me as extremely odd that the SCOTUS would have a power that the Congress is explicitly forbidden. The SCOTUS can tell a state they can't have a law respecting an establishment but the Congress can't.

I think it goes against the spirit of the Constitution and balance of powers and reflects poor verbage in the fourteenth amendment itself.

[tarran]

Stop thinking of the Middle East as a group of states, and start thinking of it as the Ottoman Empire.

Holy over generalization Batman!

Most middle-easterners are far more provincial than that. Had there been any concern for the Ottoman Empire, the British would have had no luck bribing disparate tribes and leaders into rebelling against it in the Great War.

Incidentally, the idea that there will be an uprising and chaos throughout the old empire if the U.S. pulls out of Iraq is so laughable as to beggar belief.

The people living in Turkey will not rebel. If anything they will breath a sigh of relief. Iranians will be happy. It might trigger an eventual rebellion in Saudi Arabia, which I am sure the wealthy Saudi King will be able to put down. It will have no effect on the Balkans and in North Africa.

Egypt will mottor along in semi-permanent crisis. Lebanon will be splintered still. Syria will still be isolated and backward.

Have I missed anybody?

[Richard Wicks]

> Richard Wicks,
>
> Don't you think that the bit about the
> Iranians helping their "Shiite brothers" and
> the Saudis helping their "Sunni brothers"
> undercuts your point about It's because these
> revolutionaries relate to "Middle East" and
> not their countries of origin?

No, not really.

They are simply competing factions.

When a civil war breaks out to control a nation, why doesn't it just break up into two nations? That would be the sensible thing to do after all.

The problem is leaders tend to be greedy and are generally power hungry. They may say they care about religion, or people, but they don't. They care about their consolidation of power.

Hence, our own Federal government in it's present day form. Does our Federal government really give a crap about you? Do they care that 70% of the population wants us out of Iraq? Do they care about inflation? Does any Republican really want to ban abortion, they had 6 years of complete control of our government. Do the Democrats really want to create national health care because they care about your health?

No, they just say they do to get power.

This happens all the time. Heck, I doubt the Pope IS Catholic, I bet he's an atheist. How could any pope not be an atheist with access to all the history about how Christianity was really created, and all those lost books of the Bible?

[Richard Wicks]

> Incidentally, the idea that there will be an
> uprising and chaos throughout the old empire
> if the U.S. pulls out of Iraq is so laughable
> as to beggar belief.

Watch and learn laughing boy.

There's no winning in Iraq. It's going to happen, after our country finally collapses under it's own weight of expenses. Then you'll see what ensues.

1/2 of the nations in the Middle East are kept alive by us and us alone. Saudi Arabia is a joke. Egypt is bribed continually to keep them "friendly" with Israel. It's just a matter of time before they reform, peacefully or not.

[joe]

Well, Jay D, I'd say the passage of an intervenign amendment changes the situation. Once they passed the 14th, it superceded earlier verbiage. That's what amendments do.

Richard Wicks,

I don't question that politicians desire power. I question the relationship of Shitte, Persian Iran and the ideology of its current leaders to the rise of extremism among Sunnis. For one thing, the mullahs can't even get their own "street" to go along most of the time - the Iranian public is far less extreme than the government.

[Tom Walls]

Even if the stars align for a third-party (LP) run, this is the wrong time to talk about it. RP is running in the GOP primaries and talking about a third-party run can potentially take steam out of his bid.

But it is nice of them to offer.

[.]

Well, I could see Iraq falling into chaos and maybe the Shi'ite area of Iraq becoming part of Iran. However, some crazy shit would have to happen for the whole region to implode the way you're talking.

[Jay D]

joe: Well, Jay D, I'd say the passage of an intervenign amendment changes the situation. Once they passed the 14th, it superceded earlier verbiage. That's what amendments do.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

The only way to supercede that in any meaningful way is to say Congress can make laws respecting an establishment of religion.

I don't think you mean that. That doesn't even make sense. Then you get into a circular argument. If the US Congress can make laws establishing religion, what is the 14th amendment applying to the States?

[Richard Wicks]

> I don't question that politicians desire
> power. I question the relationship of Shitte,
> Persian Iran and the ideology of its current
> leaders to the rise of extremism among
> Sunnis.

What did Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini have in common?

Nothing, other than they learned from one another how to become effective dictators. It was Stalin that first created the notion of sleeper cells. It was Hitler that coined the phrase "homeland" to rally people.

And our government learns from them, just as different factions in the Middle East learn what works from other movements. There wouldn't be an Al Qaeda without Operation Ajax, certainly not the one we see today.

> For one thing, the mullahs can't even get
> their own "street" to go along most of the
> time - the Iranian public is far less extreme
> than the government.

If the US attacks Iran, the public will become very extreme. Some people think that Ahmadinejad is purposely trying to provoke an attack by the US to regain support of the population.

Just as 90% of America fled to support President Cunt right after 9/11. It's a knee jerk reaction. It worked for Hitler too with the Reichstag fire.

Don't overestimate the morality of your leadership. Operation Northwoods should give you pause about what sort of leaders the US has.

The Iranian overthrow of the Shah just demonstrated to the entire Middle East, how to do it. You find a cause to fight for, in Iran's case it was overthrow of a US puppet, in Al Qaeda's case, it's US involvement in Middle Eastern affairs from US bases in Saudi Arabia to Israel being formed by the UN through yes votes of ONLY NON Arab countries, and you incite people to fight and die for a glorious cause of freedom.

The overthrow of the Shah simply demonstrated "it can be done."

That's my theory anyhow, and I'm sticking with it.

[Richard Wicks]

> Well, I could see Iraq falling into chaos and
> maybe the Shi'ite area of Iraq becoming part
> of Iran. However, some crazy shit would have
> to happen for the whole region to implode the
> way you're talking.

Not really.

* You're an Iranian fighting in Iraq, and you are attacked by people you follow back into Saudi Arabia.
* You're a Saudi in Iraq, and you are attacked by people you trace back to Iran.

It can easily escalate.

[x,y]

The incorporation doctrine, like most constitutional law, is BS.

[Pro Libertate]

Jay D,

The First Amendment's religion clauses have been viewed by the Supreme Court as "incorporated" into the Fourteenth Amendment. If you think about it, "Congress" really means the "federal government" even without the 14th. With the 14th, "Congress" means "government" at any level. Incidentally, there are parts of the Bill of Rights that have not been expressly "incorporated".

[T]

Pro Libertate,

We should hear something on the incorporation doctrine and the 2nd any day now, right? Right?

[Pro Libertate]

T,

Only after we first get protection from the states quartering their soldiers in our homes.

[joe]

Jay D,

The only way to supercede that in any meaningful way is to say Congress can make laws respecting an establishment of religion.

No, it's not. We do what we actually did - say that the state governments cannot violate rights guaranteed by the federal Constitution. When there is a conflict, the latter amendment take precedence.

Richard Wicks,

OK. Your use of the term "offshoot" left me with a different impression.

[paul t]

People who can't see past the parties are a huge part of the problem. Get over your idealistic "platform" and vote for the best man in the primaries!

Do it now, stop wasting time! get other Lib members to do the same, do it now, stop wasting time!

Bad enough dealing with the Repub fabrication machine but no chance in hell he could win as a Lib.

Paul

[Vin]

I like Ron Paul a lot. He articulates well the political philosophy that many of us hold.

But I'm a practical man, and I'll settle for a realistic plan to reduce government a little at a time. Things are the way they are because they've evolved that way, and we're not going to wean the general public from its government "mama" in one fell swoop.

Short of a major national trauma (think historically, as in, "Great Depression") for the libertarian agenda to have any success at all, we are going to have work through the system, build a credible movement, and subdue the "nut" element. (I read this board regularly, but don't post because I have no desire to deal with the nuts and small minds that seem to liberally populate our ranks.)

I hate to say it folks, but the model to emulate is the so-called "Religious Right." Think of where they were 40 years ago; think of where they are now. Perhaps we overestimate their influence and they are probably damned by their own excesses, but all in all, they provide a great example of a fringe movement (and yes, we are a fringe movement) that became a significant political force.

Working to elect Ron Paul for president is a noble and highly impractical effort. Maybe, however, we can use Mr. Paul and some of the minor momentum he's generated for other more realistic and strategic purposes.

(Nice post, paul t.)

[The Democratic Republican]

The LP can go to hell.

[The Democratic Republican]

Let me elaborate: they finally found ONE guy (Paul) polling about 1/2 % and they have to find SOME way to attach themselves to it.

[Richard Wicks]

> Short of a major national trauma (think
> historically, as in, "Great Depression")

Hahahaha.

Wait.

If you think the subprime fallout is contained or we're over the hump, you're far too optimistic.

[robc]

Has there been any more successful "protection of our rights" than the 3rd amendment?

[NoStar]

This Ron Paul supporter just got himself appointed to be a Republican Precinct Committee Officer. The Washington state caucuses are in February.

Thanks to Sage and The Wine Commonsewer for urging me to do it.

[Richard Wicks]

> Has there been any more successful "protection
> of our rights" than the 3rd amendment?

Probably the 2nd amendment, in my opinion.

[Vin]

That may be true, Richard W., but the likely political result of that particular trauma would be in the opposite direction of where we want to go, no?

I'm not much for doom scenarios. I'd have been a solid supporter of President Hoover at the time.

[sage]

NoStar, I don't know if I'm going to like it, but here I am.

If anyone had told me a year ago that not only would I be planning to vote for a Republican but that I'd be campaigning for him too...I'd have asked them to get some help.

[Ruthless]

My RP button is in better condition, and I've taken to wearing it... again.

[joe]

NoStar,

Prepare to be described as a member of a "sleeper cell."

As in, "Ron Paul has planted EXTREMIST LIBERTARIAN SLEEPER CELLS in local Republican organizations across the country."

They're Republicans. Describing people who challenge their institutional power as terrorists is what they do.

[Jay D]

joe No, it's not. We do what we actually did - say that the state governments cannot violate rights guaranteed by the federal Constitution. When there is a conflict, the latter amendment take precedence.

It's just weird, that's all. The way for the federal government to protect my right to have government take no action* respecting establishment is for the federal government to take action respecting establishment (when it appears to be explicitly forbidden to).

By the way. I'm not sure the 14th incorporates the establishment clause. The 14th extends "privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" to citizens of the several States.

Does "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." really represent a "privilege or immunity" of citizens of the United States? I have the privilege of not having my government pass any laws respecting establishment? I guess it works. Is it universal? If everyone in my town wants to establish a religion in that town, is it really a privilege to be forbidden to?

If my State, through its representatives (which is how we decide to do things in a republic), wants to establish a religion, is it a priviledge that we can't?

I don't think the establishment clause does represent a priviledge or immunity. I think it simply defines the proper role of the federal government to be out of the process altogether.

*specifically "make laws"

[Ali (formerly iih)]

The LP is given the "no" by Dr. No.

[Jay D]

Remember, regardless of establishment, you will have the right to freely exercise whatever religion you do or don't have.

[Pro Libertate]

Jay D,

Incorporation has been viewed as happening under the 14th's due process provisions, not the privileges and immunities clause. There's a wiki on the doctrine that appears to be reasonably accurate.

I have mixed feelings about incorporation. In theory, it sounds like an additional check to protect our liberties, but in practice it's been used to make the federal government more powerful. . .ironically at the expense of our greater liberty.

[Jay D]

I have mixed feelings about incorporation.

I don't. Repeal the 14th! It sets up the false promise that the Feds can protect everybody's rights. It turns the Feds into the rights policemen, which it is ill equipped to do. The bill of rights was intended to ensure that the Federal government itself doesn't violate any of your rights. The next step is the citizens of the states have to make sure their states don't violate any of their rights.

[Pro Libertate]

Yes, but what stops the states from oppressing their residents? I think the benefits of federalism can go both ways. Of course, the way things have turned out, federalism has been almost replaced by a strong central government. Almost.

[T]

Yes, but what stops the states from oppressing their residents?

Mobility of the residents? Your state gets too oppressive, leave.

Yet Cali continually grows in population. Odd. Maybe this doesn't work.

[sage]

I mentioned in a prior thread that my short term goal as a precinct committee officer is to deliver the state of Washington to Dr. Paul, and my long term goal is to bring the GOP back to a very limited government philosophy that they supposedly already have. Hopefully other folks will see Paul's success and do the same.

Someone else asked me if I thought that was possible as well on the Democrat side, maybe by joining the party in areas where they have a hard time winning or getting voters. I think it is. Divide and conquer, etc.

[Pro Libertate]

Mobility isn't sufficient. Besides, the National Socialist Government of California (hypothetically speaking) might not allow emigration.

Anything to ensure the protection of fundamental rights seems like a good idea, although giving too much power to government at any level doesn't help advance that cause.

[Rimfax]

Edward: troll

Urkobold?: clown

It's a start.

[robc]

Richard,

The 2nd has been violated a number of times, but I cant name an instance of the 3rd being violated.

[Pro Libertate]

robc,

Damned Redcoat sympathizer.

[Jose Ortega y Gasset]

Personally, I think it's pretty funny that the LP is on its knees begging for Ron Paul to "come home." The LP is comprised of dogmatic jackboots who would burn Paul at the stake the first time he wandered from the LP orthodoxy. Tolerant, these guys are not. One of the reasons Paul is the "most successful" libertarian candidate is that he has kept the LP at arms distance.

[Max]

One Party under God,
with liberty and
justice for none.

[Rattlesnake Jake]

"Yes, but what stops the states from oppressing their residents?"

The 14th Amendment. Congressman Bingham, the author of the clause "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" stated that it was his intention to with this clause, apply the Bill of Rights to the States.

[Stevo Darkly]

Feed a troll?
Under no circumstances would I do that.
Certainly not.
Know this.

Even you-know-who.
Don't respond to him.
Worthless and repetitive are his posts.
Attention is all he seeks.
Reward him not.
Don't.

[Tom Walls]

Not exactly. Many of the Arabs who went to Afghanistan to fight with the Mujahideen stuck around when their own countries wouldn't take them back, and the Afghans, being a hospitable people, let them stay. That's why OBL went back there. If the Talibs knew what was coming, they may have just handed him over, or at least mounted a token protest and let us take him out. We could have exercised that leverage and little bit of goodwill we still had if we had not completely disengaged after the Soviets left. We still had the chance to do so in the late '90s, but Clinton did not pursue it other than lobbing a few cruise missiles; neither did W. We should have hit those f*ckers hard after the African embassy bombings in 1998.

With everything else being equal, that's one foreign intervention I would have endorsed.

"Al Qaeda is an offshoot of the Afghan Muhajadeen movement from the 80's."

[paulie]

robc,

2002 Alabama LP Gubernatorial candidate John Sophocleus has a third amendment case in federal court now.

more info

[Ali (formerly iih)]

Join the Party. (If you can, if not spread the word by making this video go viral).

[Carolyn Marbry]

The Libertarian National Committee has betrayed every single Libertarian
Presidential campaign.

The LNC voted to let a Presidential candidate of another party use BallotBase, the web based volunteer support system developed at great expense by the LNC, in New Hampshire. Now, our New Hampshire Libertarian Party is struggling to get the public to notice our candidate, and here is our money being used to build public notice for the candidate of an enemy political party.

In gross violation of the LNC's moral obligations to their own party, the LNC voted unanimously to invite a Presidential candidate of another party to compete for the Libertarian Presidential nomination.

That candidate supports Don't Ask Don't Tell, opposes gay marriage and adoption for the Federal City, Washington D.C., is a staunch anti-abortionist... He doesn't even believe in evolution. In short, his Libertarian credentials are highly dubious.

I don't see how we Libertarians can hope to succeed as a party when our Party National Committee betrays its own candidates.

Phillies 2008 is not giving up. We are redoubling our efforts to win the nomination for George Phillies. We do realize that your Party National Committee is actively working against us. We urge Real Libertarians:

If you are giving the LNC money, stop. Send it instead to your state party, or to any legitimate Libertarian Party Presidential campaign. http://www.politics1.com has a list.

Or send your money to FreedomBallotAccess http://www.FreedomBatllotAccess.org to support
libertarian ballot access.