Rich Whitney gives an interview

Rich Whitney, the Green gubernatorial candidate from Illinois, had a remarkable 10% finish in November. In this following article, he grants Pantagraph.com an interview where he briefly discusses his campaign.

Green Party candidate Rich Whitney didn’t have a lot of money to spend on his bid to be Illinois governor.

With about four months to go before the November election, he had about $860 in the bank. Compare that to the $1.5 million Republican Judy Baar Topinka had or even the $12.3 million in Democrat Rod Blagojevich’s war chest.

In the months that followed, Whitney picked up several thousand more dollars, but his two opponents brought in several million.

It was an obvious disadvantage.

Looking back, the Carbondale lawyer said while money wasn’t the most important part of his campaign, he wishes he would have put more effort into fund raising. Still, he finished the election with about 10 percent of the vote, assuring the Green Party a spot on the ballot in 2010.

Most would say you fared pretty well for the amount of money you spent. How much energy did you put into fund raising?

Not as much as I should have. The whole campaign is so overwhelming; particularly when you’re trying to keep your day job.

As a third-party candidate, was it tough to convince people to give?

As a matter of principle for the Green Party, we didn’t accept corporate campaign money. I’m sure there are some people whose calculation was: “This guy can’t win, so I’m not going to donate.” I think in this case, there were countervailing factors. There were more people that really responded to the message, as opposed to writing me off. They liked the fact that I was challenging the two-party system and in particular these two candidates.

So do you think more money would have made a big difference for you?

Certainly, if we would have had more money earlier on, it would have had an impact. For example, we actually cut a TV commercial. We actually did have enough money to get it on some cable markets, but we just ran out of time.

Now that the party has a spot on the 2010 ballot, what should it do next time?

I think part of it is going to be to look at fund raising more seriously as an ongoing obligation, particularly because we do have that handicap of not taking corporate money. The realization has sunk in that if we want to make a bigger impact, we’re going to have to do more with fund raising. That just has to be seen as the necessary evil that it is.

45 Responses to “Rich Whitney gives an interview”

  1. torah Says:

    Peter Camejo runs an investment business. The Greens would fare much better if they were to use that socialist-lite mantra on money and put it to good use.

    Then again, this also shows a downside to allowing a celebrity run under your party’s banner. It’s good for a short time, but your party doesn’t grow as much. Or maybe it did in the Greens’ situation. I wouldn’t complain about 10% though, especially after Ed Thompson’s gubernatorial race in 2002.

  2. Joey Dauben Says:

    The Phillies campaign sent me two stickers. I had to decorate the trash can with something…I’m a collector of stickers.

  3. Joey Dauben Says:

    Oops:

    [IMG]http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b334/joeydauben/Political/Phillies2008BumperSticker.jpg[/IMG]

    And if that doesn’t work, try the link:

    http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b334/joeydauben/Political/Phillies2008BumperSticker.jpg

  4. Robert Milnes Says:

    I’d be positive tentatively about a progressive alliance hybrid executive libertarian ticket of Rich Whitney and Karen Kwiatkowski.

  5. Eric Dondero Says:

    Libertarians have little if anything in common with Socialists. Why would you even think for a minute that Libertarians would consider linking up with Socialist-Greem Whitney.

    Libertarian = Free Enterprise, Civil Liberties & Pro-Defense/Military

    Green = Anti-Free Enterrprise, Civil Liberties only for Special Groups & Pacifism/Defacto support for Islamo-Fascism

    Where’s the common ground here?

  6. Eric Dondero Says:

    Joey, LOL. I listened to Phillies on BlogTalkRadio last nigt. Nice guy, but a total Dweeb! He hasn’t even been elected Dog Catcher and he thinks he can be President of the United States.

    Sheesh! How low has the Libertarian Party sunk??

  7. Trent Hill Says:

    Eric, Eisenhower was not elected to anything before he was elected President.

    Besides, I think he knows he’s not going to be President. But he can run.

    Eric, while no one doubts you are supportive of the libertarian effort. No one here views McCain as a libertarian either.

  8. paulie cannoli Says:

    Eric,

    There’s lots of common ground between Greens and Libertarians.

    Read these links:

    http://mises.org/story/2099

    and

    http://praxeology.net/blog/2006/11/24/greensleeves-was-all-my-joy/

    Libertarians are not pro-offensive military. In fact, if anything, our traditional position is even more anti-military industrial complex than the Greens.

    Recent waffling by some libertarians doesn’t count as “our position”.

    We both by and large support civil liberties for everyone, not only “special groups”. In fact these issues, on which most Greens and Libertarians agree, were central to Whitney’s campaign.

    As for free enterprise, it is true that some Greens, including those that wrote the party’s platform (an even smaller group than wrote the Libertarian platform) support big government means to achieve the Green Party’s “Ten Key Values,” but that there are others who in many cases have left the party who support other means of achieving those goals which fully allow for genuine free enterprise and full compliance with the philosophy of liberty:

    http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf

    It is also equally true that some Libertarians haven’t really fully understood the difference between true free enterprise on the one hand, and support for big business as currently practiced (in practice, enabled by and closely linked to government) on the other.

    Rich Whitney was an excellent candidate for Governor. If the LP picks someone like Boortz or Eric’s holy grail candidate, Wayne Root, I can easily see myself supporting Whitney for the Green Presidential nomination and voting for him in the general election.

    However, I would still vote for Steve Kubby

    http://www.kubby2008.com/

    over Whitney.

    Actually, I’m suggesting we borrow from some of Whitney’s press releases
    for the Kubby campaign on the numerous issues on which we agree.

  9. Eric Dondero Says:

    Wrong Cannoli. Dana Rohrabacher is the official Founder of the Modern Libertarian Movement. Rohracher, now a Republican Congressman from California Chaired the Libertarian Caucus of the Young Americans for Freedom from 1966 to 1969. Every political historian will tell you that the Modern Libertarian Movement was founded out of YAF.

    Dana Rohrabacher was Pro-War, always has been Pro-War, and is Pro-War today.

    It was only in 1974 at the Libertarian Party National Convention that the Anarchist Radical Caucus took over the LP Platform Committee an inserted an unpopular Anti-War agenda. Many of us, first with Mike Dunn’s Libertarian Defense Caucus, have been fighting to reinsert the original language ever since.

    Get your facts straight before you start mouthing off about stuff you know absolutely nothing about Newbie.

  10. Trent Hill Says:

    Paulie, im going to have to agree with Eric on this one. The YAF was not pro-war per se. But would not hesitate to go to war over National Interests.

    However, Libertarians do share SOME issues with Greens. Just like Libertarians share SOME issues with Constitutionalists/Hard-right Reps. This is the invisible divide which seperates your Anarchist/Leftist wing from your Ron Paul/Paleo-wing.

    However, I do believe a Progressive alliance would be a bad idea. It would alienate half your membership, and encourage dissertion at a time when the Libertarian party needs to unified.

    However,eric,no need to get rash. “you know absolutely nothing about Newbie”. Name calling is childish,and unbefitting a man of your post Eric. You too Paul. Keep it civil. We are all interested in shrinking government and protecting liberty. (Or Growing Liberty? lol)

  11. paulie cannoli Says:

    Very selective history, Eric..

    Rohrabacher, an ex-libertarian, is “the” founder of what exactly? Sure, he helped popularize a certain flavor of libertarianism, but that was 40 years ago…he’s been a standard Reagan-Bush Republican for quite some time.

    Even if we consider the “modern” libertarian movement as somehow, a different movement from the one that has existed for centuries…

    Murray Rothbard was what? Karl Hess was who? Apparently, you haven’t read Roderick Long’s analysis linked at my post at 11:14 which conclusively proves that the tendencies within self-defined libertarianism which you call the “Modern Libertarian Movement” are in fact a deviation
    from libertarianism.

    As far as Rohrabacher (and a deviant minority in the than-tiny LP) pre-1974, I’ll defer to your knowledge for now, but I’ll ask Eric Garris. Somehow, I’m thinking you’re probably spinning that one, too.

    http://www.rationalreview.com/content/16114

    Provides some historical background, and makes clear that opposition to the Vietnam War was a crucial factor in the formation of the “modern” libertarian movement.

  12. paulie cannoli Says:

    Paulie, im going to have to agree with Eric on this one. The YAF was not pro-war per se. But would not hesitate to go to war over National Interests.

    A split of anti-war members out of YAF (many of whom then joined SDS) is a big part of the founding of what Eric calls the “modern libertarian movement,” although the libertarian movement has existed for centuries.

    Read the link above regarding the St. Louis YAF convention, 1969, the occassion for the split.

    However, Libertarians do share SOME issues with Greens. Just like Libertarians share SOME issues with Constitutionalists/Hard-right Reps. This is the invisible divide which seperates your Anarchist/Leftist wing from your Ron Paul/Paleo-wing.

    Correct.

    However, I do believe a Progressive alliance would be a bad idea. It would alienate half your membership, and encourage dissertion at a time when the Libertarian party needs to unified.

    I believe it would do a lot more good than harm, for reasons explained in great detail in previous threads and links.

    A short way of summarizing it is that dumping warmongers and neoconservative-libertarians overboard, as well as certain racist, patriarchal, cultural/religious bigot, and such tendencies in the
    paleolibertarian wing (another confused concept, I can elaborate at will)
    would open us up to a much larger, more vital influx of supporters and members that would far outweigh in both quantity and quality what they would replace.

    In other words, the conservative side of the libertarian movement is an anchor which is keeping us in port just as avalanche is coming down to bury us in the harbor.

    It’s high time to cut the anchor and set sail.

    However,eric,no need to get rash. “you know absolutely nothing about Newbie”. Name calling is childish,and unbefitting a man of your post Eric. You too Paul. Keep it civil. We are all interested in shrinking government and protecting liberty. (Or Growing Liberty? lol)

    I’m all for keeping it civil, but have you heard Eric’s call-ins on the radio with George Phillies or Harry Browne? Archives available. I can get as uncivil as anyone, and have those tendencies too…but at least I try to keep them in check.

    Anyway, we can play kinda rough, but I like Eric personally and would have a beer with him anytime.

    Also, I think he is doing a great job in pointing out exactly what is wrong with the libertarian movement as presently constituted, although he does not think it’s wrong and wants more of it.

    By the way, why laugh at growing liberty?

  13. paulie cannoli Says:

    Executive summary for Trent:

    I’m all for working with anyone who wants to shrink the regime on whatever issues we agree, but I personally find some issues more important than others.

    War is the ultimate health of and biggest excuse for the state, and those who support war, imperialism, and confuse mercantilist corporate rule with true freedom from the state are in fact working mainly to expand the state, no matter what they think, and are not my allies.

  14. Trent Hill Says:

    Ohk. Paulie, first let me say I was not laughing AT “growing liberty” but rather because I said it. I am a CPer you see, and have not often quoted someone with the views of Kubby.
    Clearly we disagree on wether a Progressive Alliance would be beneficial or bad. My guess would be that you live somewhere northern? Or far-west? If not, you probably live in the South, and if this is the case, you know that ALOT of the Libertarian Party that resides in the south is Paleo-Libertarian. Personally, I have no problem with you making a Progressive Alliance and running all those Paleo’s to my Party of choice,hehe. But I don’t think it would be in the best interests of your party. Shrinking the government is the MOST important issue,and I think you should all be willing/able to cooperate on that issue alone.
    Just like the Disaffiliators should have cooperated on the issue of Abortion with the CP.

    “A short way of summarizing it is that dumping warmongers and neoconservative-libertarians overboard, as well as certain racist, patriarchal, cultural/religious bigot, and such tendencies in the
    paleolibertarian wing (another confused concept, I can elaborate at will)
    would open us up to a much larger, more vital influx of supporters and members that would far outweigh in both quantity and quality what they would replace.”

    This I take offense to.
    A.)I do not believe there IS such a thing as a Neo-conservative-Libertarian as those two ideals are opposed to each other. One advocating big government, the other advocating a shrinking government.
    B.)I am a member of the CP, as such, I identify myself as a Paleolibertarian/Paleoconservative. I know many people who identify themselves the same way. I just recently registered 6 people to the party who described there views as similar to mine. They WERE all white (two female), however there was no sense of racism there. All of us were not even Religious. I happen to be Religious, however that is not my primary motivator in politics, and am tired of being identified as a Religious Right member. Just because I am a Christian, and am interested in politics, this does not mean that one interest is driven by the other. I do not advocate theocracy, or even an unfair leaning towards a certain religion. I just recently got in an arguement with a friend (a Republican) over wether Keith Ellison should be allowed to be sworn in on the Koran or not. (I said he should be able to, as many politicians are sworn in on the bible).
    C.)I am a politically Paleo, and would consider you both a friend and a political ally. On the issues upon which we agree, im betting your arguementative skills could be quite useful. I am not pro-war, and I do not support Imperialism. I do however think that War is sometimes necessary. WWII being one of those times. We will not get into symantics over Vietnam, Iraq, Granada, Somalia, or other conflicts. Suffice it to say, I believe that before troops can be sent overseas, Congress should declare war (Not the case in any of those scenarios).

  15. Andy Says:

    “Libertarians have little if anything in common with Socialists. Why would you even think for a minute that Libertarians would consider linking up with Socialist-Greem Whitney.”

    You are right that libertarians and socialists have little if anything in common (and this includes socialist Democrats and Republicans). On a lot of issues – mostly economic – there is a big divide between Libertarians and Greens. The areas where Libertarians and Greens do have a lot in common civil liberties, anti-military imperialism, and fair elections.

    “Libertarian = Free Enterprise, Civil Liberties & Pro-Defense/Military”

    Pro-Defense is just exactly what it says, Pro-DEFENSE. This does NOT mean engaging in wars of aggression that are based on lies. This is where you seem to have a disconnect with reality.

  16. paulie cannoli Says:

    My guess would be that you live somewhere northern? Or far-west? If not, you probably live in the South, and if this is the case, you know that ALOT of the Libertarian Party that resides in the south is Paleo-Libertarian.

    I live on the road and travel full time. To the extent that I have a home, it’s in Alabama, where I lived for the decade of the 1990s and still had an apartment which I was barely ever at for my first two years on the road (2000-2002). I no longer maintain an apartment. I usually stay in motels or with friends. Sometimes I camp, stay in hostels, etc. Such things as I have which are not on the road with me live in a garage in Alabama, which coincidentally where I am right now.

    I grew up in Siberia and then NYC and have traveled to 49 US states and about 20 countries including every state in Mexico, every province and territory of Canada, and every country and major island in the Caribbean and Central America.

    In addition to the ex-USSR and the US I have also lived in Italy, Honduras and Bahamas.

    I’m well aware of the paleo-libertarian Southerners as well as the Boortzers here, thanks. The former group includes some friends of mine.

    A.)I do not believe there IS such a thing as a Neo-conservative-Libertarian as those two ideals are opposed to each other. One advocating big government, the other advocating a shrinking government.

    I agree with you that there is a gaping contradiction in there. Nevertheless, this confused mindset does in fact exist, and some examples include Neal Boortz and Eric Dondero.

    As far as points B and C, I haven’t called you a racist or a theocrat at all, but those views and tendencies do certainly exist among “paleos” and while it is true that there are certainly people who call themselves paleolibertarian, many of whom I know, I contend that y’all are indeed confused in employing the term and concept.

    Let’s start with the term itself. Paleo means old/older. Is paleolibertarianism an older form of libertarianism? No, it’s a mix of libertarian views with those of the Old Right Paleoconservatives.

    Old Rightists were and are indeed both anti-state and anti-war, and they have written a great deal of excellent analysis on those subjects, which I often read and quote.

    Nevertheless they also do have those other tendencies, as mentioned above, and I can elaborate if you wish.

    I certainly count “paleolibertarians” far more as my allies than I do the Boortz/Dondero “neoconlibertarians” (some of them call themselves neolibertarians). The problem with both is, as the terms themselves indicate, they see libertarianism – whether explicitly or implicitly – as a subset of conservatism.

    But, if you just go back and actually read the links from my post at 11:14 most of discussion would be unnecessary. Why reinvent the wheel?

    Andy

    On a lot of issues – mostly economic – there is a big divide between Libertarians and Greens. The areas where Libertarians and Greens do have a lot in common civil liberties, anti-military imperialism, and fair elections.

    Some Greens have economic views that are not in any way libertarian. Then again, some libertarians hold economic views that, when you look just a little below the surface, are not truly libertarian either.

    There are in fact Green/Libertarians who are both anti-state and anti-corporate. And I don’t just mean Henry Georgists.

    The bottom line of Green philosophy is goals-oriented: they have certain goals to their political participation:

    http://gp.org/tenkey.shtml

    And most Greens, including the leadership of the Green Party, have come up with means of achieving those goals which are incompatible with the philosophy of liberty.

    Libertarian philosophy is means-oriented: we have certain means we find unacceptable to employ (initiation of coercion), no matter what the goals. Libertarians don’t have to agree on goals: whether our ideal society is compliant with the Greens’ ten key values, or with the values of Polygamist Mormon splinter sects, as long as we don’t use initiation of force to achieve those goals, we are consistent libertarians.

    On the other hand, as can be seen in the second link from my post at 11:14, there are some Green/Libertarians who have come up with detailed and consistent ways of employing Libertarian means to achieve Green ends:

    In other words, we are fully consistent Greens and fully consistent libertarians at the same time.

    Of course, if Green and Libertarian were inherently contradictory, this would be impossible. Therefore, I contend there is nothing inherently contradictory between the two – the differences lie only in how some Greens implement their goals and how some libertarians imagine an end-state of society.

  17. Trent Hill Says:

    Paul, I can agree with your theory on Green-Libertarian participation. Im not sure how many Libertarians/Greens you could pull into this “progressive alliance”, but I wish that the best of luck,as lnog as it doesn’t involve Socialists.

    As far as “Paleolibertarians” go. I don’t think the taxonomy involved in their names discredit their beliefs. I understand you do not consider Ron Paul and his ilk (I guess I should say my ilk) as credible Libertarians because they are Conservative-Libertarians.

    Lastly. GOTO THE LAST STATE! I would be pissed off if i’d been to 49 states. I would make immediate plans to visit the last! (Prolly Hawaii eh?). Just to be able to say that I lived in every state in the Union, the flight would be worth it.

  18. Kn@ppster Says:

    Quoth Eric Dondero:

    “Dana Rohrabacher is the official Founder of the Modern Libertarian Movement.”

    The use of the word “official” indicates that some organization, recognized historian or historical text, etc., has recognized him as such. Please cite your sources “Eric Dondero says” does not a fact make.

    “Rohracher, now a Republican Congressman from California Chaired the Libertarian Caucus of the Young Americans for Freedom from 1966 to 1969. Every political historian will tell you that the Modern Libertarian Movement was founded out of YAF.”

    The key word is OUT of. The libertarians—not including Dana Rohrabacher—left YAF in 1969 and, along with some SDSers who were also leaving their organization, founded or contributed to founding various groups, including the Society for Individual Liberty (which still exists, with “International” at the front of its name now), and eventually the LP.

    “Dana Rohrabacher was Pro-War, always has been Pro-War, and is Pro-War today.”

    Dana Rohrabacher has been selectively and occasionally pro-war. If I recall correctly, he vociferously (and correctly) opposed the 1998 Kosovo war.

    “It was only in 1974 at the Libertarian Party National Convention that the Anarchist Radical Caucus took over the LP Platform Committee an inserted an unpopular Anti-War agenda. Many of us, first with Mike Dunn’s Libertarian Defense Caucus, have been fighting to reinsert the original language ever since.”

    Wow—I’ve never heard you claim to have been in the LP in 1974 before. What were you, like, 4 years old?

    “Get your facts straight before you start mouthing off about stuff you know absolutely nothing about Newbie.”

    Not having your facts straight has never stopped you—why should it stop anyone else?

    Tom Knapp

  19. Kn@ppster Says:

    Here’s the thing: If the anti-libertarian elements in the GOP (or for that matter the Constitution Party) aren’t enough to preclude libertarians working with them, then why should the anti-libertarian elements in the Democratic Party (or the Green Party) be?

    The LP and the Greens have a lot more in common, on the ground, right now, than the LP and the GOP.

    The LP and the Greens oppose the war on Iraq and other fake “war on terror” aggressions. The GOP supports them.

    The LP and the Greens support immigration freedom. The GOP opposes it.

    That’s two of the likely three big issues in 2008.

    The third is the economy. The LP doesn’t agree on a lot with the Greens there, but we don’t agree much with the GOP, either (or at least with what the GOP actually DOES, rather than just occasionally SAYS).

    Any inter-party alliance is very iffy, but the Greens are much more eligible candidates for such an alliance than the GOP. The GOP is a dead end for libertarians. There’s nothing there worth saving.

    Tom Knapp

  20. Trent Hill Says:

    Knappster,

    While I agree with you on everytihng you said. I believe you left out a key portion of this conversation. Why not an alliance with the Constitution Party?
    The large Ron Paul wing of the party would certainly back a Tom Tancredo, Jim Gilchrist, or even Ron Paul run. And hopefully most of the party could get behind it if someone like Kubby or Phillies (I personally like Phillies, because of his orginizational skills) were VP.

  21. paulie cannoli Says:

    As far as “Paleolibertarians” go. I don’t think the taxonomy involved in their names discredit their beliefs. I understand you do not consider Ron Paul and his ilk (I guess I should say my ilk) as credible Libertarians because they are Conservative-Libertarians.

    It’s a matter of semantics. I don’t mind it at all if y’all are part of a libertarian coalition. Right now, I think the most important issue is the war, along with civil liberties being destroyed in its name, and Ron Paul is a strong ally on those issue as is his other former staffer (not Dondero), and my acquaintenance, Lew Rockwell.

    Lew does not even register to vote anymore, on principle, and I have strong sympathies for that position as well. In fact, Lew gave a great speech at a peace rally in Birmingham, where Alabama libertarians marched alongside leftists. I wish there was more of that sort of stuff going on.

    We do have some important differences, like immigration, but we agree on most issues. For that matter, we agree with Dondero on many issues, but the ones where we disagree most strongly just happen to be the most important ones, especially right now.

    Lastly. GOTO THE LAST STATE! I would be pissed off if i’d been to 49 states. I would make immediate plans to visit the last! (Prolly Hawaii eh?). Just to be able to say that I lived in every state in the Union, the flight would be worth it.

    One day. Yes, Hawaii. Not right now, though, I’m boycotting commercial flights as a protest against the airport fascism these days.

  22. Kn@ppster Says:

    Trent,

    You write:

    “While I agree with you on everytihng you said. I believe you left out a key portion of this conversation. Why not an alliance with the Constitution Party?”

    That’s not my cup of tea, and I think it would be a bad strategic move right now, but in principle, what I’m saying is this: An LP alliance with any party could be—would have to be—based on both the common ground they share and the strategic value it might represent.

    Eric wants to posit a GOP/LP alliance based on common ground and ignoring the conflicts, while nixing the idea of a Green/LP alliance based on the conflicts and ignoring the common ground. I’m not going to let him have it both ways. The criteria for either alliance should be the same, and the determining variable, if commong ground can be found, should be the strategic value of such an alliance at the time of the alliance.

    As far as a CP/LP alliance is concerned, I don’t see it as strategically plausible right now, and the potential candidates you name explain why: Immigration is a “front-burner issue.” It’s not common ground that the two parties could unite on, and it will be too prominent an issue in this cycle for either party to set aside.

    Regards,
    Tom Knapp

  23. Andy Says:

    Is Kubby planning to take a stand against the North American Union? Is Kubby even aware of the plan for a North American Union? If so, does he even oppose it?

    Full Steam Ahead For The North American Union
    http://www.infowars.com/articles/nwo/north_american_union_full_steam_ahead.htm

    I wish that Aaron Russo was running this time. Aaron Russo hits the nail on the head with the most important issues that we are facing: The Federal Reserve & IRS scam, the war, The Patriot Act, 9/11 Truth, and The North American Union.

  24. Kn@ppster Says:

    Andy,

    I suspect that on closer examination, the North American Union wil prove to be another pile of paperwork and regulations like NAFTA, in which case I expect Kubby will oppose it.

    However, I don’t know what his position on it is yet—he’s just back in communication again after several days without power, phone, etc., and I haven’t had a chance to ask him to look into it, or to look into it myself and get him pertinent information to go through.

    Do you have any links to well-organized factual articles on the subject? The Alex Jones article is (as per usual) high on noise, low on signal. The only thing that really popped out at me in it was the line “Strengthening the borders is not on the Agenda here, the American Union is all about DISSOLVING the borders” ... to which I have to ask, “okay, so, what’s the down side?”

    Regards,
    Tom Knapp

  25. paulie cannoli Says:

    okay, so, what’s the down side?

    The same downside as the European Union has.

    Largely, being a huge bureaucratic supergovernment.

    It’s just in a much more nascent stage.

    Regarding Russo, I supported him in 2004 and volunteered and voted for him at the convention.

    Except for the immigration issue, I like his work.

    Unfortunately, he is somewhat vastly over the hill in the quality of his product. Unlike Kubby, I think his health is a real issue.

    His constant party-switching isn’t doing him any favors. His latest, I gather, is that he thinks he can make a dent in the NH GOP primary and, somehow, Iowa. This is probably delusional – especially Iowa.

    His current troubles with the IRS will help him out with the patriot/tax resister/militia types. Unfortunately, it will also hurt his effective fundraising abilities.

    I get the impression that his money and Hollywood connections are far from what they were in the 1970s and 1980s, and that he has even gone significantly downhill from the days when he ran for office in Nevada and helped pass state initiatives there.

    Kubby is even better than Russo on the issues thus far, and has more energy. I don’t think he’s as prone to go berserk, either – better focused.

    Regarding the NAU

    Check out

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul341.html

    and

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/manion/manion70.html

  26. Kn@ppster Says:

    Paulie,

    You may or may not remember, but I was Russo’s communications director in 2004. I love the man, and I’m not going to criticize him on either issue or work product right now (I haven’t seen America—Freedom to Fascism yet), even where we disagree.

    But … I think the one chance he had to make an impact in a presidential race was in 2004 … and I think he’d have done so had the LP nominated him. That’s water under the bridge, though. Between his health, the party flip-flopping, and just bygones being bygones, I don’t think he’d do very well running in 2008. From the comments I’ve seen on America—Freedom to Fascism, it seems like he’d have more impact continuing to work in film.

    He’d probably enjoy himself more, too. Since I can’t explain why I keep signing up for the heartbreak of Yet Another Campaign except that I’m a junkie, I can’t imagine why anyone else would want to do it, and as a candidate to boot.

    Regards,
    Tom

  27. matt Says:

    If Russo can get 5 or 10% in NH, he will be able to screw things up and get some attention to boot. I’d say that’s good for 3rd parties on the whole.

  28. paulie cannoli Says:

    You may or may not remember, but I was Russo’s communications director in 2004.

    Yeah, I remember.

    I love the man, and I’m not going to criticize him on either issue or work product right now (I haven’t seen America—Freedom to Fascism yet), even where we disagree.

    I’ve seen it. The material is excellent. It starts out somewhat slow and disorganized and builds up to some really good stuff. Unfortunately, there is that immigration thing we keep talking about here.

    It’s nowhere near as well-done as his earlier major budget productions.

    The marketing so far has been a huge mess of hype and flop.

    I just don’t see major theaters touching it in any big way. It’s too hardcore for a mass audience – way more Alex Jones than Michael Moore.

    Nothing against Aaron – I don’t know him near as well as you do, but I’m a fan of his work in many fields, including politics. The crucial point though is, as you say yourself…

    But … I think the one chance he had to make an impact in a presidential race was in 2004 … and I think he’d have done so had the LP nominated him. That’s water under the bridge, though. Between his health, the party flip-flopping, and just bygones being bygones, I don’t think he’d do very well running in 2008.

    And that’s the bottom line. That was then and this is now.

    From the comments I’ve seen on America—Freedom to Fascism, it seems like he’d have more impact continuing to work in film.

    He’ll keep trying to make a go at politics, of some sort, because he’s passionate about issues and wants to make a difference, and as a networking/fundraising tool. I just don’t see him breaking into the big time in politics, and unfortunately at this time I don’t see a huge market for the movie either.

    It’s a great tool, though, and I am glad it exists. It’s not a “101” course by any means.

  29. Kn@ppster Says:

    Let’s set aside for a moment the question of whether or not it’s likely that Russo could get, say, 5% in New Hampshire, and look at what that would mean.

    In the 2000 New Hampshire primary, Steve Forbes and Alan Keyes both got more than 5% of the vote. As a matter of fact, John McCain beat George W. Bush in that primary by quite a margin. Did Forbes or Keyes “screw things up” for Bush? Did their performances materially affect his later policy?

    In that same year, Lyndon LaRouche polled more than 5% in the Democratic primary in several states, including more than 10% in one state and more than 20% in two states. I know the eventual nominee, Al Gore, lost the general election, but I’ve never seen any evidence that LaRouche’s primary performances had anything to do with that … or that they affected the Democratic Party’s agenda.

    Of course, New Hampshire wasn’t one of those states … but I don’t see that Pat Buchanan’s unusually good performances in New Hampshire were what derailed Bush the Elder or Bob Dole, either, and it would be difficult to argue that they had much effect on GOP policy or we wouldn’t be in Iraq, in NAFTA, etc. right now.

    Playing the spoiler in a major party primary is far less effective than doing so in the general election as a major party candidate. The primary and caucus procedures tend to “even things out” versus the effects of the minor players.

    But, if one wants to make some noise in a major party primary, that’s fine. Pick one where it’s more likely to result in a high vote total. You can walk from one end of New Hampshire or Iowa to the other in an election year without touching the ground. You can just hop from bale to bale of GOP and Democratic money.

    Go to a “throwaway” state—one with small convention representation that the other candidates virtually ignore … and CARRY that state. Then refuse to release your delegates, so that you force your name to be voted on the floor of the convention. Stand out like a sore thumb.

    Russo could probably get a plurality or majority in Alaska, Nevada*, Idaho, Hawaii or Montana, all of which have their primaries after the nomination has likely been decided, for less than it would cost to get 5% in New Hampshire. And all of those states with the possible exception of Hawaii are likely to be more receptive to his message from the git-go than New Hampshire would.

    Regards,
    Tom Knapp

    • Nevada’s Democratic primary is scheduled for January that year, before the New Hampshire primary, but their GOP primary isn’t until April. There’s a bit of a foofooraw going on about that in the Democratic Party. Nevada being Russo’s stomping ground anyway, and a number of areas there being very amenable to his views, that might be his best bet. But I’d still rather he made a movie instead.
  30. Andy Says:

    “I just don’t see major theaters touching it in any big way. It’s too hardcore for a mass audience – way more Alex Jones than Michael Moore.”

    If “America: From Freedom To Fascism” had been more in the Michael Moore direction the film would have completely lost its effect and might not as well have been made.

    I thought that the movie was outstanding I highly reccommend that everyone see it and then get other people to watch it. Aaron has actually posted the movie on Google Video where anyone can watch it free of charge. Click the link to watch the movie.

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4312730277175242198

    www.freedomtofascism.com

  31. paulie cannoli Says:

    I agree, everyone should watch it, it’s great.

    But after watching it, ask yourself how a major commercial film run was ever thought possible.

    You can’t feed the general public this kind of stuff without a lot of sugar coating.

    Those two goals are incompatible.

    The same is true with having a hardcore radical message and having mass appeal in the big parties. It’s one or the other.

    If Russo wants both, he’s trying for something laudable, but I don’t see him or anyone else capable of achieving it.

    Too many chips stacked against us there.

    Still, ways of getting info out there are getting a lot less controllable.

    That’s why I wish the material was organized better – the first half hour or so will get a lot of people to not even watch til the end.

    But I agree – it’s really good, everyone should see it, along with TerrorStorm.

  32. Andy Says:

    TerrorStorm
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5948263607579389947

  33. Andy Says:

    Here is another film that everyone should see. It was made by a guy that was a Bush Republican up until he started researching 9/11.

    9/11 Mysteries: Demolitions
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003&q=911+mysteries+demolition

  34. paulie cannoli Says:

    While I agree with you on everytihng you said. I believe you left out a key portion of this conversation. Why not an alliance with the Constitution Party?

    According to

    http://constitutionparty.org/

    Seven Principles of the Constitution Party are:

    1. Life: For all human beings, from conception to natural death;

    Most libertarians oppose the idea that separate human life begins at conception, and even of the ones that do believe that it does, many argue that the rights of the mother to self-ownership of her body override those of the unborn child. In other words, they believe that no one has the right to claim the resources of another without consent, view the fetus as a trespasser and abortion as a form of eviction. There are exceptions:

    http://l4l.org/

    But that is a minority position within libertarianism, and contrary to the current platform of the LP.

    http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml#reprodright

    2. Liberty: Freedom of conscience and actions for the self-governed individual;

    Certainly something we can agree on, if the CP means it.

    3. Family: One husband and one wife with their children as divinely instituted;

    This is anathema as a government-enforced policy to libertarians, although many (but not all) consider it socially desirable. Obviously, the CP means that they should use state coercion justified by theocratic rhetoric to enforce their idea of family values.

    To secular libertarians, this is a dangerous violation of natural human rights and a singularlly bad justification for state initiation of force.

    To libertarians of faith, it presents the additional problem of the state taking upon itself the role of judging in the name of God, thus usurping His throne – the same crime for which Lucifer was cast out of heaven.

    Libertarians can never use divine will to justify coercive anti-liberty policies by the state.

    4. Property: Each individual’s right to own and steward personal property without government burden;

    Something we agree on, if the CP means it.

    5. Constitution: and Bill of Rights interpreted according to the actual intent of the Founding Fathers;

    Presumably, as Amended – otherwise, this leaves the distinctly bad impression that the CP favors disenfranchising women and 18-20 year olds and legalizing chattel slavery, among other things.

    While many libertarians support Constitutionalism as a pragmatic first step towards liberty, it is not consistently libertarian, granting some powers to initiate coercion to the state.

    Some libertarians, such as Lysander Spooner, reject the notion of constitutionalism altogether.

    6. States’ Rights: Everything not specifically delegated by the Constitution to the federal government is reserved for the state and local jurisdictions;

    States rights can be seen in two distinctly different lights from a libertarian perspective: decentralism away from the concentration of power in the hands of the federal government on the one hand – something most libertarians support – and, on the other, the idea that states have rights.

    Ultimately, libertarian philosophy rejects the idea that states have any rights at any level of government, holding that all rights reside solely in individual sovereignty.

    In some practical cases, such as segregation at the state level coming in conflict with federal desegregation efforts, there is controversy within libertarian thought as to whether individual rights or decentralism was the more important principle.

    Paleolibertarians might hold that decentralism is the more important principle, but many libertarians disagree.

    7. American Sovereignty: American government committed to the protection of the borders, trade, and common defense of Americans, and not entangled in foreign alliances.

    We can agree on foreign alliances. We disagree about trade.

    Paleolibertarians are on the side of the CP on immigration, but this is a position at odds with libertarian logic:

    this blog does not “do” this URL well, so you may be able to cut and paste:

    http://catallarchy.net/blog/archives/2006/07/04/
    rothbardians-cannot-consistently-support-increased-enforcement
    ofimmigration-restrictions/

  35. paulie cannoli Says:

    Additional point regarding Constitutionalism as interpreted by the founders: which ones? Hopefully not the ones who passed the Alien and Sedition Acts.

  36. paulie cannoli Says:

    Here’s the text of that long link:

    ==================================

    Rothbardians Cannot Consistently Support Increased Enforcement of Immigration Restrictions
    Posted by Micha Ghertner

    The libertarian argument against open immigration, and in favor of increased efforts in keeping illegal immigrants from getting into the country, goes something like this: These illegal immigrants are mostly just unproductive leeches seeking to live the good life of an American welfare dependent. Since we native-born Americans, as taxpayers, are forced to pay for a whole host of social services, we can think of this set of social services (which includes, but is not limited to: public schools, hospitals, retirement funds, public roads, public parks, and so forth) as collective property owned by taxpayers. In other words, we taxpayers who have paid into the system have a greater claim to this property than do citizens of other countries who did not pay into this system. We can therefore treat this collective property as if it were private property, owned by the taxpaying aggregate, and we can therefore legitimately exclude those outside our group from entering the country and stealing our collective stuff.

    Of course, these libertarians argue, in a perfect world, there wouldn’t be any public (i.e. state-controlled) property, so there wouldn’t be any need to exclude non-natives from crossing the border. But we don’t live in a perfect world, so we have to make do with the options available to us. As long as public property exists, we must treat it as if it were private property collectively owned by taxpayers, and we do this by protecting the border.

    Note that libertarians who oppose immigration use this argument not only to justify the status quo (i.e. keep the current level of immigration fixed), but go even further and argue for an additional crackdown to reduce the current level of illegal immigration.

    So you can imagine how pleased I was to read the following on the LewRockwell.com blog:

    “Unfortunately, large chunks of the libertarian movement continue to ignore Rothbard’s strategic insights, particularly the importance of never advocating increases in state power. For whatever short-term gains one may think one is making by watering down the libertarian message or accepting increase in state power A in exchange for reduction in state power B, is more than outweighed by long-term losses from, among other things, confusing the public as to whether or not libertarians really are consistent advocates of liberty.”

    The implication should be obvious. Regardless of whether you think the tradeoff is worth it, limiting immigration necessarily entails increasing state power, period. Whatever short-term gains one may think one is making, these gains are more than outweighed by long-term losses from, among other things, confusing the public as to whether or not libertarians really are consistent advocates of liberty.

    Consistency, please?

    Update: A few hours after writing this post, while researching a different subject, I came across an interesting tidbit in Bryan Caplan’s intellectual autobiography. Apparently, great minds think alike.

    “I lost a lot of respect for Rothbard around 1990 when he reversed his lifelong support for free immigration. If anything ever deserved Rothbard’s classic “monstrous!” denunciation, it is our “kinder, gentler” Berlin Wall built to keep people from living and working in the U.S. because they happened to be born elsewhere. Rothbard had always refused to justify one injustice with another, but overnight the welfare system became his rationale for cutting immigration below its already heavily restricted level. When Libertarian Party presidential candidate Ed Clark made the same argument in 1980, Rothbard was outraged, citing it as “probably the greatest (or perhaps the second greatest) single scandal of the Clark campaign”:

    ” Note, also, how Clark has been brought to this shameful point of having locked himself into a measured, prepared order of destatization. He has already asserted that we can’t slash the welfare state until we have achieved “full employment”; he now adds that we can’t have free and open immigration until we eliminate the welfare state. And so it goes; the “gradualists” lock us permanently into the status quo of statism.”

    Rothbard also noted the empirical weakness of Clark’s position: “Undocumented aliens, including Mexicans, have not gone on welfare for the simple reason that they would have exposed themselves to arrest and deportation. These ‘illegal’ aliens, as in the case of most immigrants in the past, have proved themselves to be among the most productive, hard-working members of society. Clark kicks them in the teeth, and unjustly.”

  37. paulie cannoli Says:

    Here’s another Constitution Party outfit that is even less libertarian, The Veterans Coalition, linked prominently from the CP front page.

    Their key issues:

    1. Secure Borders

    2. Strong National Defense

    3. Punish Employers of Illegal Aliens to the full extent of the law

    4. Limit Taxes to those for Constitutionally authorized expenditures(to include abolishing the IRS and replacing the current tax system)

    5. Eliminate Taxpayer Subsidies and Social Programs for Illegal Aliens

    6. Attain Energy Independence within five years

    I disagree strongly on 1, 2, 3 and 5.

    I believe the only legitimate borders are individual property lines, and the only legitimate defense is mutually voluntary. If the “defense” in question is funded coercively and the borders are used to establish an involuntary collective property right which interferes with natural freedom of association, they are in fact a transgression of rights.

    This is demonstrated conclusively in point 3, where interference in commerce and mutual association is the whole point.

    On #4, I would certainly abolish the IRS, but “replacing” it sends up a huge red flag. In practice, it is a lot harder to get rid of a tax – much less permanently – than institute or raise one. So, the most likely result of a massive tax structure overhaul – rather than merely cutting the current system until it is eliminated – is double taxation.

    In this instance, the CP is advocating tariffs, which they also do for the purpose of protectionism. This is a very harmful economic policy that tends to wreck the economy and lead to wars, which gets back to the CP’s advocacy of secure borders and strong national defense.

    As far as eliminating taxpayer subsidies and social programs, while I would
    certainly privatize charity, I would do so in a non-discriminatory manner. Since I don’t believe the government is the owner of the country, I do not believe that the government has any right to make immigrants illegal; and since I don’t believe that the idea of “illegal” immigration is legitimate, except if you mean trespass against the property of a legitimate property owner, using it as the basis of policy that discriminates in favor of some people and against others is also illegitimate.

    That leaves only one point of agreement, which is energy independence, but I’m quite sure we mean to achieve it differently. What they probably mean is opening up protected areas to oil drilling, deregulating nuclear power, etc – while at the same time maintaining government-insured corporate limited liability. That would create a massive incentive to create environmental damage, while short-circuiting the responsibility that a truly free marketplace would enforce against the risks and costs of pollution through government corporate protectionism.

    Unlike the Greens, whose Ten Key Values I can find fully libertarian policy solutions to achieve, I can’t see how my views would be compatible with the CP, especially since their most important core value is, apparently, the implicit idea that the government owns the country, as revealed by the courting of Tancredo and Gilchrist, both best known for Know-Nothing Nativism.

  38. Trent Hill Says:

    Paulie, you clearly don’t know much about Tom Tancredo OR Jim Gilchrist.
    Nativism is not behind either of their causes. If you’ve ever seen a Minuteman Border Patrol,you’d know that there are many blacks, jews, and hispanics in the group (although it is predominantly white). My fiance is Cuban,and there are 3 of her family members in this group. Also, considering Tom Tancredo is an Italian, im not sure how he could espouse “Know-Nothing Nativism” which has always been backed by the Anglo-Americans (Like me, and probably you).

    Your explanation of Protectionist Tarriffs is WAY oversimplifying it, but I will agree that Protectionist Tariffs aren’t good, for different reasons than you.

    As for denouncing Clark, bad way to go. Considering he garnered your highest vote total in history, leave him alone. I agree he was working within the government’s limitations (which is an incredibly slow and nearly impossible practice), but he got alot of media attention for you guys over in the LP.

    Also, I could give less of two sh*ts that you, or the current LP platform doesnt agree with the CP. The fact is that about half of all LP members DO.
    From the LA LP site.
    “Unlimited permanent immigration to the United States is not desirable at the present time, and it will not be for the foreseeable future. Whatever limitations on immigration are lawfully enacted by the United States Congress should be fully enforced while they are in effect. Serious violations of immigration laws should be punished by deportation. Legal penalties should be imposed on persons and businesses hiring illegal aliens as well as on the illegal aliens themselves.”
    Many more (southern and western) states share this position on immigration, and quite a few other positions with the CP. You’re doing exactly what Eric Dondero was doing. Pointing out only the good points of one Alliance,and only the negative sides of the other prospective alliance. The fact that you, personally, have no desire to make an alliance with the CP (on certain issues or candidates) isn’t important. I asked what about the LP (which you most certainly do not embody, as you are a Radical,even for the LP) and CP cooperating on certain initiatives.

    I could care less about Murray Rothbard, as he never completely made up his mind on the issues, always flip-flopping from Radical Libertarianism to Pragmatic, or somehwere inbetween. This represents your entire party. There are realistic Libertarians, who recognize and respect the legitimacy (and genius) of the Constitution. Then there are the radicals, who view it as a mere contract, which can be renegotiated (sounds like a Democrats or Republican to me). This more Radical side of the LP siezed control pretty recently, and i’m sincerely hoping their reign is almost over, so the LP can get back to building, as opposed to “Purifying”.

    Lastly, the Alien and Sedition acts were not implemented by our Founding Fathers, no where even near. They were enacted by the Whigs. Henry Clay’s ilk.

  39. Andy Says:

    “Anglo-Americans (Like me, and probably you).”

    Paulie’s roots are not Anglo-American.

    The immigration subject is debated to death in Libertarian circles. I happen to think that opening up the flood gates (more so than they are now) is a bad idea due to the exsistance of the welfare state and the huge amount of government held property. Also, when Libertarians talk about “open borders” it makes them sound like they are playing into the hands of the globalist “New World Order” crowd. I think that their intentions are good but this is the way that they come off. If we had a real libertarian society I believe that the immigration situation would fix itself. However, we aren’t going to solve any of these problems overnight. As much as I hate the Social Security program I also believe that it is something that could not be ended overnight, it would have to be phased out. The same goes with immigration.

  40. Andy Says:

    I’ve got no problem in working with the Constitution Party or any other group on issues where they agree with Libertarians. Below is a repost of some of my thoughts about the Constitution which I originally posted on a different thread.

    “Andy Says:

    January 6th, 2007 at 4:42 am
    Good post Travis.

    I’ve been a member of the Libertarian Party since 1996. I’ve talked politics with a lot of people since then. Out of those who identify with a political party other than Libertarian I seem to have the most common ground with Constitution Party members.

    I like the fact that the Constitution Party is pro-gun, anti-income tax, anti-Federal Reserve, and anti-United Nations. I’m glad that they want to get the government out of Social Security, healthcare, education, and welfare. I also really like the fact that they oppose US military imperialism, the military draft, and domestic police state measures like the Patriot Act.

    My differences with the Constitution Party are as follows…

    1) The War On Drugs. In addition to the fact that the drug war has actually escalated drug abuse, I believe that people have a right to put whatever they want in their own bodies. The Drug War has also taken a great toll on our civil liberties and not to mention the enormous cost in taxes.

    I know that the Constitution Party says that the only role they see for the federal government in regaurds to drugs is to keep drugs out of the country. They would keep the drug war going at the state level.

    As long as drugs are illegal there will be a black market for them. It is impossible to fight the drug war without violating the Constitution. Drug abuse is stupid, but making it illegal does not solve the problem, it only makes things worse.

    2) Gambling. I believe that people should have a right to do what they want with their own money. If a person wants to risk their own money in a game of poker or blackjack, or a slot machine, or a horse race, or a even a risky investment, they should be free to do so. There are all kinds of “gambles” that people take in life. Taking a job can be a gamble. Getting married can be a gamble. Moving to a new location can be a gamble. There is no such thing as a risk free life. People should be able to decide for themselves what risks they take.

    3) Pornography, prostitution, and homosexuality. These activities should all be legal. If a person doesn’t like pornography then they shouldn’t look at it. They don’t have a right to tell other people what they can and can’t see. Prostitution is a voluntary activity. Homosexuality – unless of it is a case of rape – is a voluntary activity as well. One can disagree with these activities but they do not have the right to put others in jail for them. Anti-gay marriage amendments are absurd in addition to being anti-freedom. The government shouldn’t have the right to tell people who they can and can’t marry. The government shouldn’t even be involved in liscensing marriage in the first place! People should mind their own business!

    I remember hearing Constitution Party Presidential candidate Howard Philips say that the government should put a tax on entertainment that is “dirty” or violent. Why? This indicates that he’s got a right to dictate what other people can watch or they’ve got to pay an extortion fee. How is this constitutional? This is no better than leftists who want to attach punishment taxes to guns or cigarettes.

    4) Trade. I agree with the Constitution Party that NAFTA, GATT, the WTO, CAFTA, and the FTAA are all a big sham. Libertarians oppose these agreements (although there a few sell out and idiot “libertarians” who embarrassingly support these agreements) not because they are free trade but because they are actually not free trade but rather government managed trade for the benifit of politically connected corporations.

    Where I believe that the Constitution Party gets it wrong is that they are for protectionist tarriffs. Ideally, I do not believe in any tarriffs. Tarriffs just bring in more money for the government and the expense gets passed on to the people in the form of higher prices. High tarriffs also breed resentment from other countries and influence them to raise their tarriffs. If there are any tarriffs they should be kept low.

    I believe that Americans can compete on the international market but to do so we need to eliminate barriers that hold back production. Reduce or eliminate as many taxes as possible and get rid of idiotic regulations. Cut off foreign aid and take back all tax payer funded investment funds that are invested in other countries. Visit www.CAFR1.com and read about the massive amounts of money that US government agencies have invested in other countries. Shut down the Federal Reserve and end fiat currency. If we take these steps we can have real free trade and greater prosperity.

    5) The Constitution. I’m a constitutionalist from the stand point that as long as our government exsists I think that they it should obey the Constitution. However, I do not believe that the Constitution is the be all and end all of liberty. The libertarian philosophy runs deeper than the Constitution. Taking the libertarian philosophy to it’s logical conclusion there wouldn’t be any government. The ultimate goal is a voluntary society. Is this achievable? I don’t know. I do know that the Constitution only goes so far. For instance, do we REALLY need a government run Post Office?

    The Constitution Party is named after the Constitution but does it really strictly ahere to the Constitution all the time? I would say no. The Constitution says NOTHING about restricting drugs, gambling, pornography, prostitution, and homosexuality. I haven’t read all of the state constitutions but out of the ones that I have read I’ve never seen anything that gives the states authority over these issues either. Maybe the party should be called the Almost Constitutional Party or the Paleo-Conservative Party or something like that.

    6) Religion. The Constitution Party seems to intergrate religion into politics and pushes the myth of America being a Christian nation. Yes, a lot of this country’s founders were Christians but not all of them were. Some of them were actually deists. Most of them also understood the danger of mixing religion with politics and feared a theocracy. While there is nothing wrong with being a Christian (real Christians are good people, unfortunately many of them are phonies) it does not give one the right to force their views on everyone else. In fact, I would say that forcing your views on another person is actually anti-Christian. Here are a couple of articles that are on-line that I’d suggest that people read about Christianity and libertarianism…

    “Libertarian Christian vs. Statist Christian” by Jacob Hornberger

    “Jesus Was An Anarchist” (not sure who the author is)

    Also check out Libertarians For Life to see that one can be a libertarian and oppose abortion.”

  41. Trent Hill Says:

    Andy, on 1,2,and 4 we completely agree.
    Im not sure tarriffs should be eliminated COMPLETELY, but at least lowered dramatically. In an ideal Libertarian society,this wouldnt be needed. However, in an ideal libertarian society, a nearby Authoritarian society would own their asses and make them into slaves. hehe.

    On 3 and 5, I heavily disagree. But id rather concentrate on our similiarities.

    Number 6 is the most important part.
    I also agree that Theocracy,or even that government influenced too heavily by religion is an awful thing. However,we disagree minorly here.
    Alot of the founders WERE deists,this can be agreed upon. Hell, Franklin was a member of the Hellfire Club. The good news is, the CP does not force members to be Christian (although it does ask that it’s candidate’s believe in Jesus.) There are many members of the CP who are not even Christian. I know personally a few deists and athiests. I personally am a Christian. The CP is not trying to persecute any non-religious people under government theocracy. Rather it is influencing its own politics with religion (Helping to decide some moral issues/social issues) and holding its candidate’s up to the same standard. Jefferson himself wrote “Endowed by our Creator.”
    Not everyone believed in a “Creator” at that time, but he wrote it anyway. Why? Because he personally believed in it, and the majority of the nation did too.
    Lastly, while the founding fathers did indeed fear a theocracy, they did mention God many times,even in Government documents. In the Declaration of Independance, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers. And many State Governments did the same.
    Furthermore, I have spoken with many CP leaders on this issue and have heard,many times over,that they would not wish to convert or pressure anyone unduly into Christianity. To quote one,anonymous, source from California…”Religion is private. I will not force it upon anyone. However, if 55% of people elect me, knowing I will use my Christianity to back up some laws, then I believe I have a mandate from the people to exercise my own faith in some political matters, although not in any way that advocates theocracy,or government sponsored religion. Furthermore, if 55% of people elect a non-religious man, they are voting the same for him. They want a man who will not legislate according to Christianity. However, he is stilll legislating according to his Religion. The fact that his religion is Athiest is simply detail. And as long as he is supporting his constituents’ beliefs, then it is acceptable.”
    I will say this, I wish the platform would use more ambiguous wording. Such as “Belief in our Creator” or even “Belief in God” rather than Jesus. Although I know for a fact the CP has run a Religious Jew for candidacy before. The Platform implicitly states that the CP will not hold prejudice against any other religious affiliations. But it says also that any candidate who does not %100 agree with the platform must point out their differences.

    Im well aware one can be a Libertarian and pro-life.
    I am little “L” libertarian and pro-life.

  42. Andy Says:

    Why do you disagree on number 3? Do you believe that people should go to jail over voluntary activities? Whose rights are being violated? Should the government put cameras in people’s bedrooms?

    On point number 5, as much as I consider a strict adherence to the Constitution to be better than what we’ve got now, I do not consider the Constitution to be perfect? Do you honestly believe that the Constitution is perfect? One small example is I do not see any legitimate reason to have a government run Post Office, do you?

    “Religion is private. I will not force it upon anyone. However, if 55% of people elect me, knowing I will use my Christianity to back up some laws, then I believe I have a mandate from the people to exercise my own faith in some political matters, although not in any way that advocates theocracy,or government sponsored religion. Furthermore, if 55% of people elect a non-religious man, they are voting the same for him. They want a man who will not legislate according to Christianity. However, he is stilll legislating according to his Religion. The fact that his religion is Athiest is simply detail. And as long as he is supporting his constituents’ beliefs, then it is acceptable.’”

    We are not supposed to be a pure democracy, we are supposed to be a constitutional republic, remember? Mixing religion with politics leads down a dangerous path.

  43. Joe Says:

    I believe that civil government has a duty to investigate and prosecute unlawful acts. Pornography, gambling, and fornication (of both the hetero- and homosexual variety) are unlawful.

    “I believe I have a mandate from the people to exercise my own faith in some political matters, although not in any way that advocates theocracy,or government sponsored religion” is confusing double-speak. Theocracy does not mean “government sponsored religion.” The word for that is ecclesiocracy. Theocracy means “God rules.” That is what happens when civil magistrates properly exercise their Christian faith in office. At the 2004 convention in Valley Forge there was an effort to replace the crown rights of Jesus proclaimed in the Constitution Party’s platform with something more politically correct. I would hope that anyone who was present for that debate would not want to revisit it.

  44. pffqkouc Says:

    pffqkouc

    pffqkouc

  45. Montessori Kindergarten Says:

    Montessori Kindergarten

    Sie wurde von der Universität Amsterdam mit dem Ehrendoktor und als außerordentliche Hochschulprofessorin gewürdigt und mit dem Orden von Oranien und Nassau ausgezeichnet.

Leave a Reply