Kubby’s Open Letter on Iraq

With the 2006 elections starting to fade from memory, it’s time to look ahead toward 2008. With that in mind, leading Libertarian Presidential candidate Steve Kubby has issued the following “open letter” that outlines his position on the situation in Iraq.

Dear fellow Libertarians,

Since I declared my candidacy for our party’s 2008 presidential nomination back in August, one of the most frequently asked questions of me has been “where do you stand on the war in Iraq?” Some of you have found my answers unsatisfactory. I apologize. I’ve been thinking through a problem and haven’t found an answer … so I’m just going to bring it to you. We need to talk about it.

First, let me make my own position on the US war in Iraq crystal clear: I oppose it. I opposed it when it was proposed, I opposed it when it began, and I oppose it now. If the American people put me in the White House, I’ll end it immediately with a unilateral and unconditional withdrawal of US forces from that country.

But that’s the easy part. The hard part is re-uniting a country and a party that’s been divided by this war, and that’s the part that has to start NOW. If you haven’t found my previous answers satisfactory, please understand that I’ve been giving a lot of thought to the hard part.

It’s easy to be against the war now. A majority of Americans oppose it, and it’s even possible—although I admit that the possibility is slim—that America will be out, or on its way out, of Iraq before the next presidential election. But it wasn’t always that way. The majority supported the war at the beginning. They regarded it as necessary and proper. Opposition to the war has been the majority sentiment within the Libertarian Party from the beginning, but majority and unanimity are two different things. A number of Libertarians also regarded the war as necessary and proper.

Over the past three years, it has become increasingly obvious that the war in Iraq is a doomed project. It can’t be won. It can’t be salvaged. It can only be abandoned. Unfortunately, those of us who realized this at the beginning have, all too often, hanged ourselves with our own rope. We gloated. We used the issue of the war as a political bludgeon to beat our fellow Americans and our fellow Libertarians over the head with their errors.

When I say “whatever you think of the war in Iraq …” (this seems to have been the problematic part of my previous answers), I’m not saying that all points of view on the war are or were equally defensible. What I’m saying is that it’s time for Americans—and most of all Libertarians—to unite and move forward instead of beating each other up over past mistakes. I’m not saying that we
shouldn’t learn from our mistakes. Far from it. The war in Iraq validates the non-interventionist ideals which our party has long held high, and in the future we will point to it when we say “never again.” But …

I know many Americans who supported the war at the beginning but who now understand that it’s a lost cause. I know many Libertarians who regarded it as necessary and proper, but who have since become persuaded otherwise. These people are GOOD Americans and REAL Libertarians. Were they mistaken? I think they were, but I don’t hate them for it. We all make mistakes. We need those good Americans and real Libertarians with us now … and we won’t have them with us if we insist that they come on their knees, wearing hair shirts and vocally denouncing themselves. As Ben Franklin said, “we must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.” And we must hang together as equals, not with some portion of us designated second-class citizens on the basis of an argument that is, or at least should be, over.

In the early 1970s, it became de riguer among Democrats to “grade” each other, and especially primary candidates, on the question “when did you come out against the war in Vietnam?” That habit persisted long after the war ended, and it cost the Democratic Party dearly. I don’t want the Libertarian Party to fall into the same trap. As a candidate for our party’s presidential nomination, I will do my best to clearly articulate our opposition to the war in Iraq—and to any expansion of that war to Iran, Syria or any other country—and to offer a sound non-interventionist prescription for the future conduct
of American foreign policy. What I will not do is subject my fellow Americans or my fellow Libertarians, including my opponents for the nomination, to a “just when did you get right on this issue?” litmus test.

Our party and our nation face critical challenges in the coming years. Among those challenges are disentangling ourselves from a disastrous foreign military misadventure; reclaiming our civil liberties from a White House and Congress which has spent them even more wastefully than it spends our tax dollars; securing each and every one of our rights as Americans and as free human beings; and making America once again a beacon of liberty toward which the world turns—and to which many of the people of that world come to live in freedom and are welcomed. We must face these challenges together,
as a party and nation united in purpose, not divided by past quarrels.

Let freedom grow!
Steve Kubby

150 Responses to “Kubby’s Open Letter on Iraq”

  1. Otto Kerner Says:

    Libertarians should know better. I certainly don’t and wouldn’t use the Iraq issue to beat up on my friends and neighbors, who are just innocent standers-by. But politicians—and this includes libertarian activists—have a responsibility to get this sort of thing wright. So, yes, I think it’s reasonable to question the judgment of a libertarian who supported getting involved in this mess—and I’m assuming that we’re talking about someone whose principles are above reproach.

    The more important question, rather than personal recriminations, is … will the party learn its lesson? We need to be an explicitly anti-war party. We need press releases denouncing wars, we need to select candidates who will make that a major issue, etc. Is that going to happen? I tend to doubt it.

  2. Joe Says:

    I don’t mean this to be an attack on Mr. Cubby who I have never heard of before. But on what basis are you describing him as the “leading” Libertarian candidate for President? Isn’t it a bit early to tell who the leading candidate is for any party’s nomination? And after reading this I still have no idea what he would do differently than President Bush in regards to Iraq? If elected, would he immediately withdraw our military from Iraq and all overseas deployments or not?

  3. Citizens For A Better Veterans Home (founded 1998) Says:

    We do mean this as an attack on Mister Kubby, a fellow Californian whom has yet to respond to our many quiries on abused veterans issues.

    In general the failure of local, state [CALVETS/ CDVA], and national government programs on housing and health care for former military and their families is criminal. Libs claim to be the party of smaller government. The silence on the abuse of veterans by our government by Libertarians is deafening!

    Specifically, the under funding and ineffective management of such programs is a red hot example of ‘War On The Cheap’! Mister Kubby? Same ole stuff and steer manure. “Unresponsive and unimmaginative!”

  4. Roscoe Says:

    The LP needs to hammer out a clear policy on foreign policy and military defense. The policy needs to describe what, if anything, would be done about rogue nations or groups that threaten the U.S. with imminent attack that may include nuclear or biological weapons that can be secretly introduced into America (the day of worrying about landing craft storming
    the beach at LaJolla or Asbury park is past). Further, how would a Libertarian America participate in the intelligence gathering community?
    Didn’t the LP platform once call for the abolishment of the CIA? Or does
    the LP advocate waiting until America is actually attacked before trying to
    identify and defend against the attacker? Are we willing to say, straight out, we won’t lift a military hand to protect any other nation or group of people from attack – we will sit in Fortress America and let Japan, Canada,
    the Bahamas or whatever fend for themselves even if we are completely surrounded by vicious enemies. Sure, some of these are “worse case scenarios” but it would be dishonest of us not to reveal to Americans the principles under which we would be operating if Long Beach harbor was vaporized under President Kubby.

  5. Jake Porter Says:

    Leading Libertarian Presidential candidate George Phillies has the following to say about the War on Iraq:

    The Libertarian message is simple. End the war! Bring our troops all the way home to America, as swiftly as possible consistent with their safety and practical logistical considerations. Stop meddling in the internal affairs of foreign countries. End Federal foreign aid. Our most effective foreign aid is the money you spend to buy foreign goods. It goes to productive workers and employers, not kleptocrat dictators. Support Americans giving charity to drought and disaster victims.

  6. Eric Dondero Says:

    This will drive a wedge right down the middle of the libertarian movement. Perhaps that’s a good thing. Those of us libertarians who view Islamo-Fascism as the greatest threat in the world to preserving our civil liberties are disgusted by the attitudes of “Surrender First” Libertarians like Kubby.

    Kubby, if nominated, will drive a great many Pro-War on Islamo-Fascism Libertarians out of the LP into the Republican Party.

    Further, Kubby believes Libertarians oppose the War cause they wanted to pull-out. He has misread the sentiments of many Libertarians. Some Libertarians oppose the War cause they believe that Bush is not fighting it hard enough.

    If you oppose the War, yet offer no plan to fight the rising tide of Islamo-Fascism, like it or not, you are a defacto supporter of Islamo-Fascism and are the exact opposite of a libertarian.

  7. Andy Says:

    “If you oppose the War, yet offer no plan to fight the rising tide of Islamo-Fascism, like it or not, you are a defacto supporter of Islamo-Fascism and are the exact opposite of a libertarian.”

    What a load of crap! Arabs would not hate America if our government hadn’t been interfering in their internal affairs for decades. You’ve talked about “winning friends and influence people” in regaurds to Libertarians trying to win over Republicans but then totally ignore this when it comes to dealing with Arab nations. The US government has done the exact opposite of “winning friends and influencing people” when it comes to Arab nations.

    The forces in control of the RepubliCON and DemoRAT parties (who are all a part of the same cabal) are the greatest threat to our freedom. Anyone who doesn’t see this and wants to fight some PHONEY crusade against Arabs is NOT a libertarian.

  8. Andy Says:

    9/11 was a false flag terror operation that was carried out by factions within the US governemnt. The Arabs could not have made NORAD stand down. The Arabs could not have caused World Trade Center Building 7 collapse when Building 7 was not even hit by a plane and was on the other side of the World Trade Center Complex from the Twin Towers. The insider stock trading on companies effected on 9/11 did not lead back to Arabs, it lead back to the CIA. Arabs have not benifitted from 9/11, the US government and their corporate cronies are the ones who have benifitted. 9/11 was a modern day Riechstag Fire. Those who refuse to debate the facts are INTELLECTUAL COWARDS.

    http://www.amazon.com/Terrorstorm-History-Government-Sponsored-Terrorism/dp/B000HRJLM4

  9. Roscoe Says:

    Andy, that’s only what our REAL overlords want you to believe so as to deflect attention from THEM.

  10. Tom Bryant Says:

    It wouldnt be such a bad thing if we did drive folks like Andy over to the GOP.

  11. Timothy West Says:

    as a party ….....in purpose, not divided by past quarrels.

    thats all the LP has ever been. Thats all it will ever be, as long as every single libertarians “fitness to be libertarian” will be the first thing judged. The LP cant even agree to allow whose good enough to be involved in it, only those who reject the concept of the government entirely, or those who just want to reduce it in some manner.

    when starts to allow enough poeple involved in it to matter instead of being a liberty cult, it will start to gain traction.

  12. paulie Says:

    I don’t mean this to be an attack on Mr. Cubby (sic) who I have never heard of before. But on what basis are you describing him as the “leading” Libertarian candidate for President? Isn’t it a bit early to tell who the leading candidate is for any party’s nomination?

    http://knappster.blogspot.com/2006/11/some-campaign-notes.html

    http://knappster.blogspot.com/2006/10/first-look-2008-series-end.html

    And after reading this I still have no idea what he would do differently than President Bush in regards to Iraq? If elected, would he immediately withdraw our military from Iraq and all overseas deployments or not?

    Is this not clear?

    “First, let me make my own position on the US war in Iraq crystal clear: I oppose it. I opposed it when it was proposed, I opposed it when it began, and I oppose it now. If the American people put me in the White House, I’ll end it immediately with a unilateral and unconditional withdrawal of US forces from that country.”

  13. paulie Says:

    The LP needs to hammer out a clear policy on foreign policy and military defense. The policy needs to describe what, if anything, would be done about rogue nations or groups that threaten the U.S. with imminent attack that may include nuclear or biological weapons that can be secretly introduced into America

    There really isn’t anything you can do about it militarily. The government can no more stop terrorists than it can stop illegal immigration or drugs. Even turning the border, ports of entry, or even the entire country into a police state won’t solve that particular problem; drugs, weapons, cell phones and other contraband manage to find their way into maximum security prisons on a regular basis.

    The best thing to be done about terrorists is to remove the incentive. A privately well-armed America which minds its own business, does not station troops overseas or send aid to foreign regimes or bomb foreign nations, would invite a lot less terrorism than one which is constantly sticking its nose into other countries’ business. Additionally, if we had private (secret) banking and an economy unhampered by taxes and regulations, we would be too valuable as a place to save and invest to attack.

    This works for Switzerland, and has kept it at peace for hundreds of years, including the Napoleonic wars and both Word Wars, which engulfed all the rest of Europe around it. It would work even better in a large nation with oceans on both sides.

  14. paulie Says:

    Libertarian Presidential candidate George Phillies has the following to say about the War on Iraq:

    The Libertarian message is simple. End the war! Bring our troops all the way home to America, as swiftly as possible consistent with their safety and practical logistical considerations. Stop meddling in the internal affairs of foreign countries. End Federal foreign aid. Our most effective foreign aid is the money you spend to buy foreign goods. It goes to productive workers and employers, not kleptocrat dictators. Support Americans giving charity to drought and disaster victims.

    Good position. Too bad his position on immigration isn’t nearly as good.

  15. Joseph Knight Says:

    Having been in a war, you have to run long and hard to convince me that one’s worth fighting – and the one in Iraq ain’t! You might make a case for Afganistan, but not Iraq. I beleive that Iraq, since it was on the drawing board BEFORE 9/11, is only the Ayatollah George’s effort to show daddy that he could do it better.

    The ONLY way to resolve veterans’ problems is to quit making veterans. The best way to do that is non-intervention – a Libertarian staple before Portland.

    However, at this point, endless debate among Libertarians will probably be counter-productive since there’s a good chance Iraq will no longer be a specifc issue by the ‘08 campaign season.

    Paulie, you are right about George Phillies’ immigration plank. For me it’s not quite a deal killer, but it is diappointing.

  16. George Whitfield Says:

    A thoughtful, positive, and principled staement from Steve. I would like to hear him at a state convention somewhere.

  17. Kn@ppster Says:

    Disclaimer: I’m the Kubby campaign’s communications director, so it’s reasonable to assume that anything I can say is intended to promote his candidacy.

    Right now, “leading” is mostly a matter of subjective evaluation. But:

    – I think that most objective observers would agree that at present the only declared candidates for the LP’s 2008 presidential nomination who are campaigning at all in any real sense are Steve Kubby and George Phillies.
    – There’s no scientific polling being done (at least publicly), and the non-scientific polling at TheNextPrez is pretty obviously being “stuffed” on behalf of various candidates, but what polls there are indicate that he’s at least “in the running.”
    – Technorati search results, Google Page Rank, Alexa rankings … Kubby excels all of the other declared candidates in these measurements of interest/popularity, imperfect as they are.

    Naturally, I believe that Kubby is, and will remain, “the” leading candidate. It’s pretty obvious that he is at least “a” leading candidate. Austin didn’t use either modifier, so I don’t know which, if either, sense he was attempting to communicate with the expression.

    Regards,
    Tom Knapp

  18. George Phillies Says:

    In the reasonably near future, my web site http://www.phillies2008.org will have a link to a set of YOUTUBE videos showing me at the LPNH State Convention last month. You’ll here an opening speech, a closing speech, and close to 15 minutes of questions.

    I’m addressing the audience, not either of the video cameras that were covering the event. However, I won the delegate who was awarded by vote of the convention.

    The other Presidential candidate who appeared at the event and spoke for 20 minutes was a declared candidate for the Democratic Party nomination, former Senator Gravel of Alaska.

  19. Lex Says:

    “Those of us libertarians who view Islamo-Fascism as the greatest threat in the world to preserving our civil liberties….”

    ...are missing the far more obvious, direct, and successful threat—the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, who holds himself above the law, violates the law to spy on American citizens, pushed legislation through a compliant Congress (R and D alike) to allow detention of American citizens without trial, and now, torture.

  20. Andy Says:

    “Kubby, if nominated, will drive a great many Pro-War on Islamo-Fascism Libertarians out of the LP into the Republican Party.”

    This would be a good reason for Kubby to get the nomination. Driving out the dead weight that is holding the LP back would be a step in the right direction. Good riddance to old rubbish!

  21. Andy Says:

    “You might make a case for Afganistan, but not Iraq. I beleive that Iraq, since it was on the drawing board BEFORE 9/11, is only the Ayatollah George’s effort to show daddy that he could do it better.”

    The war in Afganistan is just as big a sham as the war in Iraq. Just like with Iraq, the plan to invade Afganistan was already on the table before Bush’s Riechstag Fire, opps, I mean 9/11.

  22. Andy Says:

    “Paulie, you are right about George Phillies’ immigration plank. For me it’s not quite a deal killer, but it is diappointing.”

    Mass immigration and a welfare state is a disasterous combination.

  23. Kn@ppster Says:

    Andy,

    You may be right: Perhaps mass immigration and a welfare state are a disastrous combination (although probably not the way you think—the numbers say that it is immigrants subsidizing “the social safety net” for natives, not the other way around).

    In any case, however, freedom of movement across imaginary lines is a GOOD thing and stealing some people’s money to give it to others is a BAD thing.

    If you have a GOOD thing and a BAD thing which interplay with each other to—according to some—produce a WORSE thing, which one do you try to eliminate or suppress: The GOOD thing or the BAD thing?

    The answer seems obvious to me, but perhaps I’m missing something.

    Regards,
    Tom Knapp

  24. Paulie Says:

    For some reason, my response to Eric is not posting. Tried several times now.

  25. Paulie Says:

    Since it won’t post here, see it at:

    http://www.lpalabama.org/node/602

  26. Eric Dondero Says:

    Paulie says “Islamo-Fascism doesn’t exist.” Tell that to the wife of Daniel Pearle, the WSJ reporter who was forced to kneel down and cite, “My Mother was a Jew, My Father was a Jew, I am a Jew.” Before his head was sliced off with a rusty knife by hooded jackbooted Muslim thugs.

    And for Joe Knight and others who claim this is about foreign policy, how does one explain the brutal murder of Theo van Gogh? The Dutch didn’t invade the “Arab Holy Land.” Rather van Gogh got a long knife to the chest for producing a documentary film critical of Islam’s treatment of women.

    Face it, they hate us for our culture and our wealth, NOT for our foreign policy.

    If anything our intervenionist foreign policy works with this group to garner their respect. Muslims view wussie surrenderers as people with no stomach for was, and people not worthy of anything else but being conquered.

    In other words, if we retreat, they will follow us, all the way to the banks of the Rio Grande.

  27. Paulie Says:

    If you oppose the War, yet offer no plan to fight the rising tide of Islamo-Fascism, like it or not, you are a defacto supporter of Islamo-Fascism and are the exact opposite of a libertarian.”

    What a load of crap! Arabs would not hate America if our government hadn’t been interfering in their internal affairs for decades. You’ve talked about “winning friends and influence people” in regaurds to Libertarians trying to win over Republicans but then totally ignore this when it comes to dealing with Arab nations. The US government has done the exact opposite of “winning friends and influencing people” when it comes to Arab nations.

    The forces in control of the RepubliCON and DemoRAT parties (who are all a part of the same cabal) are the greatest threat to our freedom. Anyone who doesn’t see this and wants to fight some PHONEY crusade against Arabs is NOT a libertarian.

    Exactly!

    The Demorats’ selection of Hoyer shows that they are selling out the antiwar majority which just put them in control of both houses of Congress and a majority of Governorships (with the war in Iraq and terrorism cited as the #1 and #3 issues).

    The leading candidates for the NSGOP and Blue Bandana Gang presidential nominations – Senators Clinton and McCain – are both rabid warmongers, who want to increase troop levels in Iraq and invade Iran.

    This at a time when 2/3 of the public, and growing, is against the war, and the general public considers it to be THE most important issue. Sounds like a huge opportunity for a third party candidate, and a perfect opportunity for a Libertarian since war is the health of the state (and the disease of liberty).

    We either start making it a top priority and send the Republitarian warmongers back to the NSGOP or cede third party momentum completely to the Greens; it’s that simple.

    Hell, if the LP keeps fumbling this one, I might switch to the Greens myself (and try to change their other platform planks), and I’m a 100/100 Libertarian.

  28. Paulie Says:

    Paulie says “Islamo-Fascism doesn’t exist.” Tell that to the wife of Daniel Pearle, the WSJ reporter who was forced to kneel down and cite, “My Mother was a Jew, My Father was a Jew, I am a Jew.”

    What does this have to do with fascism? Read the Margolis article before shooting off half-cocked again.

    Face it, they hate us for our culture and our wealth, NOT for our foreign policy.

    Yeah right. That’s why Iceland and Switzerland are such prime terrorist targets, huh?

    Nice fantasy world you live in, Eric.

  29. Paulie Says:

    Having been in a war, you have to run long and hard to convince me that one’s worth fighting – and the one in Iraq ain’t! You might make a case for Afganistan, but not Iraq.

    I spent some time in Central America in the 1980s. War is a horror.

    The war in Afghanistan is no better than the one in Iraq.

    With any luck, the USSA’s involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq will have the same impact on the American Empire that the Soviets’ involvement in Iraq had on theirs; I understand the British Empire did not fare so well in Afghanistan, either. It too no longer exists.

    Looking further back, Alexander the Great crested somewhere around Afghanistan. George Bush the Lesser might well, too.

    However, at this point, endless debate among Libertarians will probably be counter-productive since there’s a good chance Iraq will no longer be a specifc issue by the ‘08 campaign season.

    I’m pretty sure it will be. W shows no inclination of leaving, and the Democrats show no inclination of forcing him to.

    Paulie, you are right about George Phillies’ immigration plank. For me it’s not quite a deal killer, but it is diappointing.

    Kubby would be the best general election candidate, but Phillies might beat him at the convention.

    He seems to have the support of several hard-working activists including, inexplicably to me, Loretta Nall.

    His website, at least so far, is better than Kubby’s.

    Reasons I don’t care for Phillies:

    1. Immigration stance, and, even worse, reasons given to explain it which are openly Eurocentric.

    2. His open disdain for tax protestors, regime ID resisters, 9/11 truthers, etc.

    3. Personality/charisma, specifically, lack thereof.

    4. Repeated runs for top level spots demonstrate hubris.

    However, he does have many good points too, such as his pro-withdrawal position on Iraq and his campaign to clean up LP internal conflicts of interest.

    I just think Kubby would be a much better nominee – if he can get past the LP nomination process, which makes byzantium appear sane.

    I’m hoping Kubby gets it – he’s exactly what the LP needs and has needed for quite some time, a bridge to the left and an effective spokesman and activist as well as a true real life hero and experienced campaigner.

  30. Paulie Says:

    9/11 was a false flag terror operation that was carried out by factions within the US governemnt. The Arabs could not have made NORAD stand down. The Arabs could not have caused World Trade Center Building 7 collapse when Building 7 was not even hit by a plane and was on the other side of the World Trade Center Complex from the Twin Towers. The insider stock trading on companies effected on 9/11 did not lead back to Arabs, it lead back to the CIA. Arabs have not benifitted from 9/11, the US government and their corporate cronies are the ones who have benifitted. 9/11 was a modern day Riechstag Fire.

    Exactly!

    Andy, that’s only what our REAL overlords want you to believe so as to deflect attention from THEM.

    Baloney.

    It wouldnt be such a bad thing if we did drive folks like Andy over to the GOP.

    I know Andy well. He’s not going over to the NSGOP any time soon, despite his wrong-headed view of immigration issues.

  31. Paulie Says:

    A thoughtful, positive, and principled staement from Steve. I would like to hear him at a state convention somewhere.

    Good idea.

    “Those of us libertarians who view Islamo-Fascism as the greatest threat in the world to preserving our civil liberties….”

    ...are missing the far more obvious, direct, and successful threat—the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, who holds himself above the law, violates the law to spy on American citizens, pushed legislation through a compliant Congress (R and D alike) to allow detention of American citizens without trial, and now, torture.

    Exactly.

    “Kubby, if nominated, will drive a great many Pro-War on Islamo-Fascism Libertarians out of the LP into the Republican Party.”

    This would be a good reason for Kubby to get the nomination. Driving out the dead weight that is holding the LP back would be a step in the right direction. Good riddance to old rubbish!

    Right again.

    “You might make a case for Afganistan, but not Iraq. I beleive that Iraq, since it was on the drawing board BEFORE 9/11, is only the Ayatollah George’s effort to show daddy that he could do it better.”

    The war in Afganistan is just as big a sham as the war in Iraq. Just like with Iraq, the plan to invade Afganistan was already on the table before Bush’s Riechstag Fire, opps, I mean 9/11.

    Couldn’t have said it better myself.

  32. Paulie Says:

    You may be right: Perhaps mass immigration and a welfare state are a disastrous combination (although probably not the way you think—the numbers say that it is immigrants subsidizing “the social safety net” for natives, not the other way around).

    In any case, however, freedom of movement across imaginary lines is a GOOD thing and stealing some people’s money to give it to others is a BAD thing.

    If you have a GOOD thing and a BAD thing which interplay with each other to—according to some—produce a WORSE thing, which one do you try to eliminate or suppress: The GOOD thing or the BAD thing?

    The answer seems obvious to me, but perhaps I’m missing something.

    Exactly, and you aren’t missiing anything.

    This is like saying that illegal drugs and legal gun ownership are a bad combination.

    One bad policy doesn’t justify another.

  33. Eric Dondero Says:

    Yes, go to the Green Party. That would be great. I only wish more Leftists who claim to be Libertarians would do the same and leave us real libertarians alone.

  34. Timothy West Says:

    real libertarians

    in these 2 words you kill any chance of the LP ever being large enough to matter. Every one is less than a perfect libertarian to someone else.

  35. Devin Ray Freeman Says:

    Islamo-Fascists there are, and Jewish-Fascists and Christian-Fascists too. They act in contradiction to their doctrine, moralizing while making exception for themselves. They disgrace the Abrahamic religions.
    Islamic extremists, Jewish extremists and Christian extremists are all dangerous if you lend them support, or give them leverage. If we allow them to determine our foreign policy, we will contiiue to lose our freedoms.

  36. George Phillies Says:

    So if we ask where the Libertarian Party is at the moment, here is the total house vote, courtesy of Adam T on http://www.dailykos.com using the CNN web site. Note that this count excludes three dozen districts in whcih there was no Democrat or no Republican on the ballot (in almost all cases, the missing candidate was the Republican).

    Total votes: 72,959,590 401 districts
    Democrats: 37,384,882 51.2% 203 districts won
    Republicans: 33,937,956 46.5% 198 districts won
    Libertarians 600,715
    Green 209,383
    Others/Independents 826,654

    We are about a factor of three ahead of the Green Party. Also, that vote number is appreciably better than our Presidential candidate has done in recent races.

  37. undercover_anarchist Says:

    This letter is a whole lot of nothing.

    Who cares?

    It’s really stretching things to call people who ever supported this war “good Americans.” I’d be more inclined to say that they are “blood thirsty racists” at best, “murderers” at worst. Then again, some of the “greatest Americans” fit those qualities, at least according to my history text.

    But to say people who were in support of this war, even for one minute, are “true libertarians” is fucking ridiculous.

    It is BS political pandering. STEVE KUBBY IS A UNITER, NOT A DIVIDER. He’s also a self-important dolt who likes to hear himself talk, ableit in text.

    Count me out.

  38. Kn@ppster Says:

    undercover_anarchist,

    Let me see if I have this right: It’s “fucking ridiculous” to classify anyone who has ever misunderstood anything, or made any kind of mistake, even for one minute, as a “true libertarian.” Is that what you’re trying to say? Or is there something exceptional about the particular issue of the war that triggers your “any mistake, ever, you’re out” clause?

    Either way, someone might as well turn out the lights, because under your set of standards not only is there nobody eligible for the LP’s nomination, there’s nobody eligible for the LP, period.

    There’s no “pandering” in Kubby’s approach. His “open letter” is simply an attempt to get the party to concentrate on present and future agreement instead of fighting about past disagreement. He didn’t write it because he likes to hear himself talk, he wrote it in response to an inbox full of emails from party members asking not only what his position on Iraq is, but how it will figure in his campaign.

    At some point, you’re going to have to decide whether your priority is getting things right, or browbeating others for having previously gotten things wrong. One approach may produce results. The other is just the political equivalent of masturbation … possibly pleasant, but of no consequence.

    Regards,
    Tom Knapp

  39. Eric Dondero Says:

    Funny UA doesn’t call the Terrorists who blew up the Twin Towers on 9/11 “blood thirsty racists.” Let’s see now, they drew blood, killing nearly 3,000. They were racists, hating any and all Americans, simply because they were Americans.

    What an odd set of standards this guy has.

    Murderers are heros. And innocent Americans who are killed by these murderers are ignored.

    One wonders what UA would have been thinking of these terrorists if he had been one of those unfortunate individuals stuck on the top floors having to decide between death by fire or by jumping. Wonder if he would have thought at that moment the terrorists were “fine fellows.”

  40. Eric Dondero Says:

    Only problem is Devin, there’s no “Jewish Extremists” or “Christian Extremists” murdering people like the Muslims.

    That was a Mulsim man who gunned down those 6 Jewish women at the Seattle Jewish Community Center.

    That was a Muslim man who brutally killed 12 innocent convenience store customers, and others from Maryland to Tucson, including the wife of the former Libertarian Party of Alabama Chairman.

    Eric Rudolph was the last Christian Terrorist, and that was way back in the early 1990s. That’s what, 16 years ago?

    We’re almost in 2007, and people like you are still trying to equate Rudolph from 1992 to John Muhammed and other modern Muslim American Terrorists. Give it up will ya.

  41. Joseph Knight Says:

    TK, excellent response to Andy re. immigration and welfare. Open the border, kill the welfare state.

    George Phillies, from your web site, “Americans are entitled to the certainty that their country’s just laws will be enforced until those laws are changed.” The operative word here is “just.” Remember, the “law” used to require that runaway slaves were returned to their masters, but it was an unjust law so many people flaunted it.

    Also from your site, “The low-cost workers we import into America pay less in taxes than the social services they receive, so a vote for open borders is also a vote for a tax increase on the rest of us.” I read about a study a few weeks ago – wish I could remember the source – indicating the inverse. I believe you may be in factual error here. If I can find the study, I’ll forward it to you.

  42. NewFederalist Says:

    What is the state of Mr. Kubby’s health? I thought he was on medical marijuana to allow him to endure chemotherapy. Is he okay now?

  43. Kn@ppster Says:

    NewFederalist,

    No, Mr. Kubby isn’t on medical marijuana to allow him to endure chemotherapy. He’s on medical marijuana as part of a permanent program that has kept his cancer—malignant phenochromocytoma—under control for more than 30 years now.

    I’d like to re-iterate and emphasize that, as it goes directly to the state of his health. The prognosis for malignant phenochromocytoma is 100% terminal, in 6 to 12 months.

    Marijuana has kept Steve alive for more than three decades … and not just alive, but more physically active than any three other individuals I know put together. After his original cancer diagnosis (in 1968), he led a National Geographic expedition up Mount Shasta. Since his diagnosis with malignant phenochromocytoma and his commencement of marijuana use to contol it, he’s flown fighter aircraft at the Navy’s “Top Gun” school, skied thousands of vertical miles from Canada to Hawaii, conducted scuba dives for documentaries in Aruba … the guy regularly gets up at 4 in the morning, and sometimes I hear from him after midnight. So far as I can tell, he’s unstoppable—as long as he has access to his medicine. And far from the typical “stoner” image that some people would like to paste on him, I’ve never found him to be either lethargic or any less than 100% lucid (although, granted, I’ve only talked with him 2-3 times per day for the last month or so).

    Bottom line on health: I’d trust the health of a guy who’s been under regular medical supervision for 30 years, who gives every indication of being in fantastic shape, and whose one known condition is in well-established long-term check, more than I’d trust the health of someone who may have no known health problems, but who sees a doctor every couple of years for a cursory examination.

    Regards,
    Tom Knapp

  44. Timothy West Says:

    wish I could do that. my “legal” drugs for my cancer alternately put me to sleep or dont control my side effects well enough. wheres chief Wanna dubie?

  45. Joseph Knight Says:

    TW, the laws against medical marijuanna (or any other kind) are unjust and I urge you to ignore them.

    Also, about the border, let me say that sealing the border would deter those brave underground entrepreneurs from smuggling in the holy sacrement required for the practice of some folk’s religion. “Tear down that wall.”

  46. undercover_anarchist Says:

    Dondickwad has the vision of his political hero GW Bush. Black and white.

    Listen dipshit I HATE ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISM. Not only that, I hate the religion of Islam. You need people to state their position on terrorism, Al Qaeda, the Taliban, etc.? All that shit goes without saying.

    But you are a paranoid idiot. Radical Muslims hate us becuase we do not abide by the libertarian principal of non-intervention and non-aggression. They do not “hate our freedom” as your idol lies; they hate our usurpation of their sovereingty. As long as you delued yourself into thinking that Osama bin Laden has designs on taking over the US, you’re living in a bigger fantasy world than the idiots who think that Bush caused 911. I DEAL WITH REALITY. I’m against rape and murder, and “our” troops are degenerate bastards who rape 14-year-old girls.

    Anyone who was ever for the war is not a libertarian. Or let me rephrase that, they weren’t a libertarian at the time. Unless they experienced a conversion, they’re not one now.

    And to Kubby’s lapdog, Knappster… Kubby’s campaign is “masturbation.” His open letter is a DC political move, but Kubby is no legitimate DC hopeful. Just give me the Democrat who is best going to stem the tide of theocracy, and I’ll have to be happy with that.

  47. Timothy West Says:

    sigh.

  48. Darcy Richardson Says:

    Given the Libertarian Party’s historic policy of non-intervention, this should be a no-brainer. Anyone who initially supported the disaster in Iraq should be excluded from serious consideration for the party’s 2008 presidential nomination.

    More than any other issue of the past forty years, this Neo Con-inspired foreign policy disaster, which has not only taken the lives of more than 655,000 Iraqis and 2,800 Americans, but has also created an irreversible and nightmarish situation that will haunt American citizens for decades to come, speaks volumes about one’s judgment and understanding of geopolitics and world history. It also says quite a bit about one’s ability to see around corners, or lack thereof. Make no mistake about it, the ramifications of this deadly and misguided military misadventure will be felt for years and years to come.

    Anyone who was naive enough to buy into Dubya’s deceptive pre-war intelligence—- fabricated nonsense which ran counter to what the UN weapons inspectors were saying at the time—- isn’t worthy of carrying the LP’s banner in the 2008 presidential election.

    Like the Vietnam War, this is the defining issue of our time. And while Steve Kubby’s observation that it became fashionable among Democrats in the early 1970s to evaluate each other on the timing of their opposition to the Vietnam War is historically accurate, it was, nevertheless, a legitimate concern at the time. It’s also the main reason why Ed Muskie, the party’s prohibitive favorite in 1972, lost the Democratic presidential nomination that year. Muskie, who had been slow in coming out against the war, was savaged—- and rightly so—- by Eugene McCarthy, the 1968 peace candidate who briefly sought the Democratic nomination again in ‘72. McCarthy hit the bull’s eye with his early attacks on his party’s front-runner. “If Ed Muskie had lived at the time of the Revolution and been asked to take the ride Paul Revere took,” quipped McCarthy, “he would have arrived a day late, shouting, ‘The British were here! The British were here!’”

    It was vintage McCarthy. But it was also true.

    While Mr. Kubby’s own credentials on the war are admirable, I’m not sure why he’s willing to be so forgiving of those in his own party who were so clearly wrong in supporting the debacle in Iraq, those who were so easily duped by the Neo-Conservatives and the right-wing blather of Neal Boortz and his ilk. Why give them a free pass, especially since they were so willing to violate the party’s core principle of non-intervention? It’s worth reminding those party members who supported this mess of the LP’s proud history. The Libertarian Party’s original platform in 1972, adopted shortly after the party’s founding, not only called for an immediate withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Vietnam, but also courageously advocated unconditional amnesty for military deserters and those who had evaded the draft. It was a pretty bold document for its time—- and had considerable appeal on the left.

    In view of the Libertarian Party’s longstanding opposition to foreign interventions, it’s amazing that this issue is even being debated at all.

    Obviously, we can’t turn back the clock. Anyone can be opposed to the war now that public opinion polls show a majority of citizens on their side. But where were they when it really mattered, before Bush and his manipulative “High Priests of War” led us into this mess? It’s a legitimate question, possibly the most compelling question of all.

  49. Bill Wood Says:

    I thought this was interesting. From Sept.01,2006 to Sept.21,2006 about 425 people joined the Libertarian Party and 366 people renewed their memberships, 791 people in 20 days. This is from the lastest LP News.

  50. Joey Dauben Says:

    Once again, another pointless issue from another also-ran candidate who won’t make a dent on the national radar.

    I honestly do not believe after the showing of the last presidential candidate’s run for Congress that anyone will give the LP any more anything. The stakes for 2008 will be so high if HRC runs. Vote McCain!

  51. Devin Ray Freeman Says:

    I define ‘fascism’ as – a form of authoritarianism based on merger of state and corporate power.
    This recently popularized term “Islamo-Fascism”, you, Eric, seem to define as – muslim terrorists. This is evidently the sense that the term’s popularizer, GWBush, had in mind too. Is this “War on Islamo-Fascism” then a war on muslim terrorists? If so, how do you figure on winning such a war? Is the Iraq War a War on Islamo-Fascism? If so, is it working? If we keep at it, will it make us freer?

  52. Timothy West Says:

    “just when did you get right on this issue?” litmus test.

    thats the entire LP right there. by the time you get finished with all the “rights”, you’re down to a party that cant even advance it’s own positions in a effective manner. it doesnt have the support base or the money.

    include. hardliners. reformers. ZAP/NAP People ( but no oath : reason: an institutional barrier that allows for nothing but no govt. ). defense hawks. defense doves. people that dont meet your standards of libertarianism. NO ONE meets them all. EVERYONE is less libertarian than someone else.

    I denounced the war the night of “shock and awe” on TNL while I was watching the bombs fall on TV. I said Bush deserved to be impeached then and there. Does that make me a better presidential candidate than Kubby? Of course not. The only thing we have in common is we have cancer.

    If the LP does not stop with this “perfect principled” fixation, it just will never amount to shit. No one will ever be good enough. Such things could survive in the LP of old, but the political LP requires such things as consensus building. What the real world of political involvement is made of.

    I am less “libertarian” than probably 95% of the people on the lib web. I like some government things: I like the rule of law, court systems, the interstate hiway system. But I agree with what should be the basic premise of the LP: that people should live MORE free rather than LESS free, in every area of life. Thats the principle the LP needs. That principle applied to government and legislation, a BROAD principle that can be applied and defined in real life.

    kubbys statement is a excellent one, but the responses to it are the telling part. NO one and no position except the most “principled” means shit to anyone. Inside the LP, they are everything, outside the LP, they mean literally nothing.

    The LP is so far divorced from the reality of everyday life in his country.

    the LP fascism of perfect observance to “principle” is no worse than any other “must think” org. Mussolini told you what to think as well. I dont want to assume the LP’s principles, I want to be involved with the org that most closely matches MY principles.

    The ones I’ve formed from 43 years of life and work and study.

    I’m talking to a wall, arent I? I should be taking care of myself instead.

  53. Kn@ppster Says:

    Tim,

    Quite a bit of wisdom there.

    When I talked with Steve Kubby about working on his campaign, we had “the issues talk.” Nothing against anyone, but there are a few key issues that if I don’t agree with a candidate on, I can’t work for him. This cycle (and last), the war is one of those issues. We talked about the war, and he made it clear that he opposes it.

    We also had “the party talk.” He’s as aware as anyone of the fact that the LP has continual internal fighting over “purity” and “pragmatism” and lions and tigers and bears, oh my. I told him that he could pick a corner and make his campaign about that internal fighting, or he could just be who he is, make his campaign about moving America toward liberty, tell the party that he’s more interested in liberty than in intra-party smackdowns, and let the fighting sort itself out. He wanted to do the latter … which was also an unstated condition of my participation in his campaign. I like a good fight as much as anyone, but that kind of thing isn’t a campaign activity in any real sense.

    As a side note, the other candidates seem to also be taking that road, albeit less overtly. They’re not telling the party “time to knock of the intramurals, we’ve got the real fight coming up,” but they’re setting out their visions instead of just trying to turn the nomination process into an internal factional pissing match.

    So, now Kubby’s stuck with me as communications director. Which just goes to show you that no good deed goes unpunished.

    Regards,
    Tom

    P.S. The full foreign policy position paper—NOT the “open letter”—is now up at http://www.kubby.com/issues/iraq.html.

  54. Timothy West Says:

    tom, thnks.

    the stakes are becoming too high. The LP or an LP replacement party that knows how to mesh principles with real life is becoming our only chance. I dont want to live out my years in a country where everything is a lie, like the Soviet Union.

    We are all going in that direction, purists, reformers, everyone. The LP has got to start to matter. people have got to realize that a political party large enough to make a difference cant just all be clones of what they want it to be. Me included.

  55. Andy Says:

    ” (although probably not the way you think—the numbers say that it is immigrants subsidizing “the social safety net” for natives, not the other way around).”

    This does not take into account children of immigrants who are born in hospitals at tax payers expense, put through school at tax payers expense, and recieve other tax payer funded programs. They are left out of the statistics because they are regaurded as American citizens.

  56. Andy Says:

    UA was hitting the nail on the head until he said this.

    “you’re living in a bigger fantasy world than the idiots who think that Bush caused 911.”

    Anyone who believes that 19 Muslims armed with box cutters under the command of a guy hiding in cave in Afganistan carried out the biggest terrorist attack in history is living in fantasy land.

    How did the Muslims make World Trade Center Building 7 fall down in its own footprints when Building 7 was not even hit by a plane and was on the other side of the WTC complex from the Twin Towers?

    How did the Muslims make NORAD stand down? Andrews Air Force Base is only about 10 miles away from the Pentagon and they’ve got fighter plane on stand by at all times. They had plenty of advanced warning that a “hijacked” plane was headed in towards the DC area but yet they didn’t scramble fighter planes from Andrews Air Force Base which is a standard operating procedure.

    Why is it that the put options that were purchased on the companies effected on 9/11 went through a bank that had been headed by Executive Director of the CIA Buzzy Krongaurd?

    Anyone who believes that factions within our government could not have carried out the 9/11 attack is a naive fool.

  57. Andy Says:

    “Only problem is Devin, there’s no “Jewish Extremists” or “Christian Extremists” murdering people like the Muslims.”

    How many thousands of innocent people have been murdered in Iraq and Afganistan??? Of course, the people in charge of that mass murder may claim to be Christians and Jews, but that is only their “cover.” Satanist is a more accurate description of the likes of Bush and his cronies.

  58. Andy Says:

    “Funny UA doesn’t call the Terrorists who blew up the Twin Towers on 9/11 “blood thirsty racists.” Let’s see now, they drew blood, killing nearly 3,000. They were racists, hating any and all Americans, simply because they were Americans.”

    First off, American is not a race since this country is made up of people from multiple races. Secondly, it was factions within the US government that carried out the attack. Just because you don’t have the BALLS to confront the evidence it doesn’t mean that all of us have to buy into this bullshit that you are spreading. Go wave your phoney false flag terror government psy-op somewhere else.

  59. Devin Ray Freeman Says:

    Timothy, I wouldn’t miss a word you say, and I agree with you entirely.

    There’s no place else to turn, no other game going but the LP. There’s hardly anybody to vote for. There’s no way I’d ever vote for authoritarian-lights like Macain (how can you possibly vote for somebody who voted for the Military Commission Act?) nor stand-for-nothing political sluts like Clinton or Kerry. Neither major party’s about to stand against big government. Greens are no help. They’re big government too, and they believe in that IRV rubbish. (I’ll give the Greens one thing, though – they openly call for impeachment. I don’t know why the LP shys away from that. ) So the LP’s got to make room for everybody with any libertarian-lean. The people are more libertarian overall than the government right now, and a lot of folks ain’t got a party anymore. It’s accept anybody who agrees with you on more issues than not or we all go deeper down the hole toward police state.

  60. Andy Says:

    “Let me see if I have this right: It’s “fucking ridiculous” to classify anyone who has ever misunderstood anything, or made any kind of mistake, even for one minute, as a “true libertarian.” Is that what you’re trying to say? Or is there something exceptional about the particular issue of the war that triggers your “any mistake, ever, you’re out” clause?”

    Agreed. If a person made the honest mistake of supporting the “War On Terror” but later saw the light and joined the oppostion to it I see no reason to not forgive them.

  61. Andy Says:

    “Yes, go to the Green Party. That would be great. I only wish more Leftists who claim to be Libertarians would do the same and leave us real libertarians alone.”

    Yes, and fascists should stop pretending to be libertarians and just stick with the Republicans. REAL libertarians don’t lick RepubliCON boots.

  62. Andy Says:

    “That was a Mulsim man who gunned down those 6 Jewish women at the Seattle Jewish Community Center.

    That was a Muslim man who brutally killed 12 innocent convenience store customers, and others from Maryland to Tucson, including the wife of the former Libertarian Party of Alabama Chairman.”

    You talk about Mulims murdering a dozen and a half a dozen innocent people but ignore the fact that the US government has murdered hundreds of THOUSANDS of innocent Muslims.

    “Eric Rudolph was the last Christian Terrorist, and that was way back in the early 1990s. That’s what, 16 years ago?”

    How about the terrorist who is sitting in the White House? He claims to be a Christian. Of course he only claims this so stupid and naive people will vote for him. I don’t think that any real Christian would belong to The Order Of Skull And Bones and Bohemian Grove.

  63. Andy Says:

    “If you have a GOOD thing and a BAD thing which interplay with each other to—according to some—produce a WORSE thing, which one do you try to eliminate or suppress: The GOOD thing or the BAD thing?”

    Immigration is not necessarily good or bad. Some immigration is good and some is bad, and what’s good to some could be bad for others and vice versa.

    Government welfare is always a bad thing.

  64. Timothy West Says:

    Devin,

    if we dont get a handle on this “perfection” cult we will all be in the shitter. We have to coalition build enough supporters, money, and first tier candidates by 08 or non of this will mount to anything.

    THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE US WEARING RFID TAGS LIKE CATTLE. They are going to turn us into subjects to a king or Soviets to a state unless we can raise enough money, supporters, and real candidates for 08 and 012. WE HAVE TO ACCEPT THOSE THAT CARE ABOUT FREEDOM, EVEN IF THEY DONT DO IT “your” or “my” way.

    Illness makes you humble. It make you realize that we dont have forever and we have to do the best we can at the time. WE HAVE TO DO THE BEST WE CAN NOW.

  65. George Whitfield Says:

    Tim, You summed it up very well.

  66. Eric Dondero Says:

    Hey UA, ever been to the Middle East? I did two tours there, one of which I was stuck on the Island of Bahrain for almost 8 months. I also speak basic level Arabic.

    My guess is that you’re some whiny little man from some nerdy Midwestern state who has never traveled the world and experienced other cultures? Am I correct?

    In that case, how would you know anything about why the Muslims hate us so much?

    As someone who has been there I can tell you, they salivate over our busty blonde women. They have deep hatred for us American men because we have access to these chics and they don’t.

    One needs only to go to Europe and see this come to a head. Pretty French girls reject young Muslim men from the slums left and right. How do they react? By firebombing thousands of cars in Paris and rioting in the streets.

    Don’t be fooled into thinking this conflict with the Muslim world has anything to do with our foreign policy. It’s like everything else in life; IT’S ALL ABOUT SEX.

  67. Bill Wood Says:

    Darn, I must be Muslem. Now I know why busty, blondes always rejected me. ;-)

  68. paulie Says:

    That would be great. I only wish more Leftists who claim to be Libertarians would do the same and leave us real libertarians alone.

    Yes, but Eric, you’re not even close to a real libertarian.

    http://www.lpalabama.org/node/605

    http://www.lpalabama.org/node/602

    http://www.lpalabama.org/node/552

  69. paulie Says:

    real libertarians

    in these 2 words you kill any chance of the LP ever being large enough to matter. Every one is less than a perfect libertarian to someone else.

    Are you doubting that some people claim to be libertarian but aren’t? Bill Clinton once said he’s a libertarian. Check out the links in my previous post to see some of the people Eric think are libertarian or close, and/or have claimed they are.

    What does the term mean if anyone can claim it regardless of their views?

  70. paulie Says:

    Islamo-Fascists there are, and Jewish-Fascists and Christian-Fascists too. They act in contradiction to their doctrine, moralizing while making exception for themselves. They disgrace the Abrahamic religions.
    Islamic extremists, Jewish extremists and Christian extremists are all dangerous if you lend them support, or give them leverage. If we allow them to determine our foreign policy, we will contiiue to lose our freedoms.

    There are certainly dangerous religious extremists of every stripe, not just Abrahamic, but Shinto, Confucian, Hindu, various small cults, Marxist Atheists, Nazi Pagans, etc.

    However, this does not make them all fascists.

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/margolis/margolis46.html

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamofascism

  71. paulie Says:

    Total votes: 72,959,590 401 districts
    Democrats: 37,384,882 51.2% 203 districts won
    Republicans: 33,937,956 46.5% 198 districts won
    Libertarians 600,715
    Green 209,383
    Others/Independents 826,654

    We are about a factor of three ahead of the Green Party. Also, that vote number is appreciably better than our Presidential candidate has done in recent races.

    It’s substantially less than we got in other recent years:

    from Ballot Access News

    “Teddy Roosevelt’s Progressive Party polled 2,205,542 votes for its candidates for US House in 1912, and 1,117,939 votes for that office in 1914.

    But after that, no party other than the Democratic and Republican Parties had ever polled as much as 1,000,000 votes for its candidates for US House, until the Libertarians did it in 2000, 2002, and 2004. The totals were:
    2000 1,727,181;
    2002 1,204,248;
    2004 1,026,668”

    Furthermore, also from BAN:

    “With approximately 98% of the votes counted, the Green Party gubernatorial candidates polled 854,474 votes across the nation. This is the highest vote total for the gubernatorial candidates of any party (other than the Democratic and Republican Parties) since the Reform Party’s 1998 showing of 1,355,731.

    The Libertarian gubernatorial total this year so far is 421,910. ”

    In percentage of the vote in 3-way-or more races,

    “In the 2006 election, the median percentage for Libertarian candidates for U.S. House was 2.04%, when all the races with only a single major party nominee have been eliminated. That contrasts with the same figure for the Libertarian Party in 2004 of 1.66%.

    Also in the 2006 election, the median percentage for Green candidates for U.S. House was 1.41%, when all the races with only a single major party nominee have been eliminated. That contrasts with the Green 2004 figure of 2.41%.

    Also in 2006, the median percentage for Constitution candidates for U.S. House was 1.43%, when all the races with only a single major party nominee are set aside. That contrasts with the Constitution 2004 figure of .90%.”

  72. paulie Says:

    Let me see if I have this right: It’s “fucking ridiculous” to classify anyone who has ever misunderstood anything, or made any kind of mistake, even for one minute, as a “true libertarian.” Is that what you’re trying to say?

    Couldn’t be. U_A ran as Green in MI-7 in 2004.

  73. paulie Says:

    Funny UA doesn’t call the Terrorists who blew up the Twin Towers on 9/11 “blood thirsty racists.” Let’s see now, they drew blood, killing nearly 3,000. They were racists, hating any and all Americans, simply because they were Americans.

    It’s true; Bush, Cheney and the rest of the gang that carried out the 9-11 attacks really are fascist terrorists who hate us for our freedom. They have taken a lot of our freedom away since this false flag operation (look up this term if you are not familiar with it), just like Bush Crime Family friends, the German Nazis, did after their own 9/11 (Reichstag Fire)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire

    Murderers are heros. And innocent Americans who are killed by these murderers are ignored.

    But that’s what you believe Eric….the neo-con-artist cabal are heroes (not the sandwich) and the soldiers and civilians, American and foreign, that they have murdered, disappeared, tortured, raped, maimed, made homeless, etc, are ignored by you.

    One wonders what UA would have been thinking of these terrorists if he had been one of those unfortunate individuals stuck on the top floors having to decide between death by fire or by jumping. Wonder if he would have thought at that moment the terrorists were “fine fellows.”

    I know what I would have thought: why the hell are those rescue helicopters buzzing all around and not landing on the roof?

  74. paulie Says:

    More info for the moonbats who still believe the regime’s nutty 9/11 “19 Arabs with boxcutters” conspiracy theory

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_project

  75. paulie Says:

    Only problem is Devin, there’s no “Jewish Extremists” or “Christian Extremists” murdering people like the Muslims.

    That was a Mulsim man who gunned down those 6 Jewish women at the Seattle Jewish Community Center.

    That was a Muslim man who brutally killed 12 innocent convenience store customers, and others from Maryland to Tucson, including the wife of the former Libertarian Party of Alabama Chairman.

    Eric Rudolph was the last Christian Terrorist, and that was way back in the early 1990s. That’s what, 16 years ago?

    We’re almost in 2007, and people like you are still trying to equate Rudolph from 1992 to John Muhammed and other modern Muslim American Terrorists. Give it up will ya.

    Oh really?

    Bush’s “christian” Crusaders have killed 655,000+ in Iraq alone since 2003, not including the 2 millions plus the Bush and Clinton Crime Families have killed in Iraq since 1991, or the others killed in Afghanistan, Sudan, America, and all over the world.

    Or those killed in America, Mexico, Colombia, and elsewhere because of their religious crusade of drug prohibition.

    As for Jewish extremists, I seem to recall a certain Brooklyn Jew who moved to Israel and shot up a mosque at prayer, killing dozens of Arabs.

    Another one assassinated former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin.

    There are of course many others.

    C’mon Eric…no religion has a monopoly on extremists and terrorists.

  76. paulie Says:

    TK, excellent response to Andy re. immigration and welfare. Open the border, kill the welfare state.

    George Phillies, from your web site, “Americans are entitled to the certainty that their country’s just laws will be enforced until those laws are changed.” The operative word here is “just.” Remember, the “law” used to require that runaway slaves were returned to their masters, but it was an unjust law so many people flaunted it.

    Also from your site, “The low-cost workers we import into America pay less in taxes than the social services they receive, so a vote for open borders is also a vote for a tax increase on the rest of us.” I read about a study a few weeks ago – wish I could remember the source – indicating the inverse. I believe you may be in factual error here. If I can find the study, I’ll forward it to you.

    More distrurbing is this Eurocentric statement from Phillies’ website:

    Borders – Americans who quote the Statue of Liberty’s message ‘Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free’ should remember that it was written when France, Germany and Russia were autocratic monarchies. The huddled masses of Europe now breathe free. When Americans want open borders, they will tell Congress to vote for open borders. Until then, a Libertarian President who has sworn to protect and defend the Constitution will protect and defend the laws on border crossings. George Bush has created many enemies for America. Keeping them from coming here to injure our children and grandchildren must remain a top-priority issue for the foreseeable future.

    Julian Simon did good work on immigration issues

    http://juliansimon.com/vita-subject.html#Immigration

    My own take

    http://www.lpalabama.org/node/608

  77. paulie Says:

    What democrat would that be? Certainly not Hillary, who pretty much looks like the go-to candidate for the Double Penetration Blue Bandana gang, and is as much a warmonger as Eric – except she might actually get in office and kill millions of people, while Eric can just fantasize and cheerlead about it.

  78. paulie Says:

    Above was a response to U-A

    “Just give me the Democrat who is best going to stem the tide of theocracy, and I’ll have to be happy with that.”

    Further see

    http://thirdpartywatch.com/2006/11/16/kubbys-open-letter-on-iraq/#comment-69219

  79. paulie Says:

    U-A

    http://www.lpalabama.org/node/606

  80. paulie Says:

    I also agree with Darcy at

    http://thirdpartywatch.com/2006/11/16/kubbys-open-letter-on-iraq/#comment-69477

    From the sublime to the inane…

    “I thought this was interesting. From Sept.01,2006 to Sept.21,2006 about 425 people joined the Libertarian Party and 366 people renewed their memberships, 791 people in 20 days. This is from the lastest LP News.”

    Sounds fairly typical. How many lapsed, and are we counting dues paying members only?

    From the inane to the ridiculous…

    Once again, another pointless issue from another also-ran candidate who won’t make a dent on the national radar.

    See Kubby’s update, which I reposted at LPalabama node 606 for an answer to that.

    I honestly do not believe after the showing of the last presidential candidate’s run for Congress that anyone will give the LP any more anything. The stakes for 2008 will be so high if HRC runs. Vote McCain!

    Hell no! Another hypocrite, big spending, ultra-warmonger, drug warrior, gun confiscator, etc., just like Hillary. Those may well be the two absolute worst choices ever!

    Compare their record.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_mccain

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton

    Two dangerous psycho-authoritarian peas in a pod!

  81. paulie Says:

    the LP fascism of perfect observance to “principle” is no worse than any other “must think” org. Mussolini told you what to think as well.

    But we don’t.

    Think whatever you want, but don’t initiate coercion against us.

    Don’t rob, murder or kidnap us.

    And if you do. Don’t call yourself one of us!

  82. paulie Says:

    How many thousands of innocent people have been murdered in Iraq and Afganistan??? Of course, the people in charge of that mass murder may claim to be Christians and Jews, but that is only their “cover.” Satanist is a more accurate description of the likes of Bush and his cronies.

    Exactly!

  83. paulie Says:

    Greens are no help. They’re big government too, and they believe in that IRV rubbish. (I’ll give the Greens one thing, though – they openly call for impeachment. I don’t know why the LP shys away from that. )

    We need a party combining the best of the Greens and LP - I don’t care that much if it’s the Greens, LP or a new party.

    I’d prefer LP, but I can live with changing the Green Platform or even starting from scratch.

    And you are 100% correct about impeachment.

  84. paulie Says:

    Yes, and fascists should stop pretending to be libertarians and just stick with the Republicans. REAL libertarians don’t lick RepubliCON boots.

    Correct!

    How about the terrorist who is sitting in the White House? He claims to be a Christian. Of course he only claims this so stupid and naive people will vote for him. I don’t think that any real Christian would belong to The Order Of Skull And Bones and Bohemian Grove.

    Right again….

    That was a Muslim man who brutally killed 12 innocent convenience store customers, and others from Maryland to Tucson, including the wife of the former Libertarian Party of Alabama Chairman.”

    Incorrect.

    FYI Lyn Curtis Adams was a 2002 LPA candidate for lieutenant governor but never a state party official; we also have not had anything to do with either Adams before or after 2002 as a state party.

    Kellie Adams, the woman you mention, was in fact shot by Muhammad. A year or so earlier she was robbed at the same location, her place of work (a state liquor store in Montgomery, not in B’ham as you again incorrectly state) by a common street thug, which led to the Curtis’ quixotic races for office. After her second robbery, Mrs. Adams became an advocate of government gun control.

    Yes, John Muhammad and the other punk who robbed her were/are scum. That does not make either of them a fascist. One was a common crackhead, the other a black American military veteran and violent psycho who at one point converted to what he believed to be Islam, but neither was part of any global organization, much less a fascist one.

    A little more about the Adams family. No pun intended.

    Kellie was a worker at a Montgomery state-run liquor store, and Lyn Curtis was (and for all I know, still is) a truck driver for ths state liquor agency.

    After the first time she was robbed he declared for Lt. Gov. That year we were ballot-qualified, which is a fluke for a third party in Alabama; only happened once since the 1960s or early 70s and only LP.

    All kinds of people were running as Libertarians that year because it allowed them to participate in the general elections without going through the D/R primaries.

    When L.C. Adams anounced for office on Jan. 7, 2002 at the state capitol, he made a statement about his wife surviving the first robbery and this spurring him to run for office with a goal of “ending racism.” He did not explain how Libertarians or libertarian policies would end racism or what he planned to do about it.

    Over the next few months as we met him and Kellie at various LP meetings and events they seemed to be broadly speaking libertarian, but still learning about some of our views.

    Kellie ran for Liquor Commissioner of Montgomery County.

    Later, after she was shot by Muhammad, she became a vocal supporter of gun control. I think they may have moved to a small town or countryside in E. Alabama but I’m not sure if that’s the same Kellie Adams. I don’t know what all happened to them since then. I don’t think they are very active in the LP anymore, but maybe that’s just because they don’t live in one of the bigger towns anymore.

    OTOH perhaps because they no longer agree with us, or because we are no longer a major party under Alabama law.

  85. paulie Says:

    3rd try to respond to Andy on immigration.

    “Immigration is not necessarily good or bad. Some immigration is good and some is bad, and what’s good to some could be bad for others and vice versa.

    Government welfare is always a bad thing.”

    Government restrictions on freedom of movement, as long as it is mutually voluntary, and free association are always a bad thing. Much more explanation in the links at the top post in my blog.

  86. paulie Says:

    Hey UA, ever been to the Middle East? I did two tours there, one of which I was stuck on the Island of Bahrain for almost 8 months. I also speak basic level Arabic.

    My guess is that you’re some whiny little man from some nerdy Midwestern state who has never traveled the world and experienced other cultures? Am I correct?

    Ad hominem bullshit.

    Dunno bout UA but there are lots of Muslims in MI.

    I have family in Israel and once almost moved there.

    I grew up in Russia and NYC among people of various races and religions.

    Myself alone, I have ancestors who were Jewish, Russian, Ukrainian, French, German, Mongolian, Siberian native, and probably many other peoples and religions.

    I’ve been to every US (except Hawaii) and Mexican state, every province in Canada, lived three months in Italy, spent a couple of summers visiting and working in every country in Central America and the Caribbean, spent nine months living in the Bahamas, and seven years in Siberia.

    I’ve been back to 42 US states and several Mexican states this decade.

    So don’t try to claim that everyone who disagrees with you is ignorant of other cultures, Eric.

  87. Timothy West Says:

    Think whatever you want, but don’t initiate coercion against us.

    exactly what one does very time the oath is used.

  88. Timothy West Says:

    and please, lets not get into that again. We dont share the same beliefs. But we dont have to!

  89. Chris Moore Says:

    “exactly what one does very time the oath is used.”

    Tim, why do you keep claiming this? No one forces you to take the pledge.

    I think the pledge is useless and could be tossed, and I want more people like you in the party working hard and fighting for liberty, but claiming that a voluntary organization requiring an oath for membership is coercive is false.

    Fight to toss the pledge or change it. I’m with you. But don’t claim others are initiating force against you because membership requires a pledge you don’t agree with.

  90. Timothy West Says:

    but claiming that a voluntary organization requiring an oath for membership is coercive is false.

    it depends on if you think a person can be a libertarian wihout the pledge. I do. The pledge is simple coercion – I either sign it or I cant join the LP. It makes me swear to something I dont believe in, a world ithout government. – a creed that cannot follow – no difference than if I had to swear fealty to communism. I dont care and I never have tht many libertarians define it by ZAP NAP - but I want institutional indifference shown by the LP to the various beliefs.

    WE CAN ALL BE IN THE SAME PARTY AND MAKE IT WORK! But a political party that demands everyone subscribe to a single principle is doomed. You could educate for 100 years and still not get enough members, money, and support to challenge the status quo. To make the LP a political org but then stop the support possible just mkes no sense. It’s like saying you gonna cut off your hands becuase they might reach too high.

    I also resent my monthly donation money being used to this purpose. It shows that there is a “approved” version of libertarianism represented in the pledge and that it contains and another kind ( my kind, minarchist, or small limited government) which I think is being given second class status by the party.

    Real political parties are broadly driven affairs, driven around MANY concerns and principles, not only one. When I say that the very nature of being a libertairian has to broaden, that whats I mean. I have faith that we wont go off the track. But we cant ever change the system unless we can build enough of a liberty leaning coalition in 08 an 012 to get there.

    The first step is to realize there is no perfect libertarian, and no perfect libertarianism. Only our best efforts which we can reconcile if we try.

  91. Kn@ppster Says:

    Tim,

    You make a good case against the pledge, but the idea that it’s “coercive” is not part of that case, and as a matter of fact is balderdash.

    Nobody is forced to join the party.

    Nobody has a “right” to join the party without meeting its membership qualifications any more than anyone has a “right” to join a church without undergoing its confirmation procedure, a health club without paying the membership fee, or a book club without buying the required number of books.

    Disagreeing on what the qualifications for part membership SHOULD be is one thing—but any group of people have a right to associate, and to set qualifications for admitting new associates into the group.

    Why the f—k are we arguing this subject here, of all places?

    Tom Knapp

  92. Timothy West Says:

    dont know. I’m gonna stop. Im tired. I should be takin care of myself. I’m not in the best of shape.

    but any group of people have a right to associate, and to set qualifications for admitting new associates into the group.

    only if they dont then accept the money and resources of those who do not agree. tht is different. I thought the pledge meant something else whn I signd it. If th LP is truly principled, then hey need to kick me out and stop accepting my monthly pledge n effort. You cant have it both ways. eiher stop taking my money nd support if there is a pledge standard or enfranchranse me as a libertarian equal to others in good standing.

    sorry abo spelling too hard.

  93. Andy Says:

    “Yes, John Muhammad and the other punk who robbed her were/are scum. That does not make either of them a fascist. One was a common crackhead, the other a black American military veteran and violent psycho who at one point converted to what he believed to be Islam, but neither was part of any global organization, much less a fascist one.”

    Unless you count the one guy’s stint in the US military.

  94. Andy Says:

    “Government restrictions on freedom of movement, as long as it is mutually voluntary, and free association are always a bad thing. Much more explanation in the links at the top post in my blog.”

    What you are forgetting is that many people don’t want the “immigrants” in question here and that many of the “immigrants” are in fact violent criminals.

    I know that in Arizona a bunch of ranchers formed a group called Ranch Rescue because of all of the illegal aliens going on their ranches and stealing, assulting, murdering, raping, and destroying property.

    As I’ve said on numerous occassions, the REAL solutions are to return all land that is held by government back into the hands of the people and to end the welfare state. Then people can go where they are wanted and will not cost anyone anything.

  95. paulie cannoli Says:

    Unless you count the one guy’s stint in the US military.

    I meant at the time of the crime. Eric is making it sound like the sniper was an Al Qaida operative or something.

    Yeah, he had a military record. Guess what….so do a lot of other common criminals and nutcases, but it does not make them agents of some worldwide movement.

    What you are forgetting is that many people don’t want the “immigrants” in question here and that many of the “immigrants” are in fact violent criminals.

    Those who don’t want them can set rules for their own land.

    If we accept that the whole country is common property to be managed by the government, we have to accept that the government can do anything at all on its land.

    Also, you can’t judge individuals by the actions of others based on group identity (that group being defined by regime travel papers). Saying many of them are this… or many of them are that… and then using it to justify government policy is the essence of collectivism.

    You could say many members of ethnic group x or users of drug y are violent criminals, but what does that have to do with the ones who aren’t?

    I know that in Arizona a bunch of ranchers formed a group called Ranch Rescue because of all of the illegal aliens going on their ranches and stealing, assulting, murdering, raping, and destroying property.

    That’s fine, it’s their right with their own money on their own land. This, however, is not:

    http://www.reason.com/links/links091906.shtml

    As I’ve said on numerous occassions, the REAL solutions are to return all land that is held by government back into the hands of the people and to end the welfare state. Then people can go where they are wanted and will not cost anyone anything.

    I agree.