Badnarik Endorses Ron Paul

Looks like Michael Badnarik is backing Congressman Ron Paul for President, regardless of party. Badnarik states, however, that he hopes the LP will nominate Paul in 2008.

From Homeland Stupidity...

Michael Badnarik, the 2004 Libertarian Party candidate for President of the United States, has endorsed Republican Congressman Ron Paul (Texas) for President.

“My short term goal for the next two years is to make sure that Ron Paul is elected president in 2008,” Badnarik said Friday night at the New Hampshire Liberty Forum, a pro-liberty conference hosted by the Free State Project.

Free State Project members pledge to move to New Hampshire to work toward greater freedom, within five years of 20,000 others making the same pledge. Of 7,500 members who have signed up to date, almost 500 already live in New Hampshire.

Ron Paul, who is known as “Dr. No” on Capitol Hill because he is willing to break with the Republican Party and vote no on any bill he believes is unconstitutional, has not officially announced his candidacy, though he is expected to do so later in the weekend at the Liberty Forum in Concord, N.H.

In his Friday night keynote address, Badnarik, who is also a member of the Free State Project and plans to move to New Hampshire by the end of 2008, urged over 200 attendees to support Ron Paul for president by making campaign contributions and activating grassroots support.

“You cannot do it yourself,” he said. “You have to have wide, wide grassroots support.”

Badnarik also urged the Libertarian Party to nominate Ron Paul as well. “I hope the Libertarian Party is smart enough to say, ‘Oh ho, somebody we can trust!’ and nominate Ron Paul as our nominee,” he said. “We should set the Republican, Democrat, Libertarian labels aside, and vote for Ron Paul the person.”

Badnarik said that a large campaign war chest would be required to “scare everything out of the Republicans” vying for the Presidential nomination, especially with the media trying to close Paul out of the race and deny him coverage.

“He may be a Republican, but there’s already a news blackout on Ron Paul,” he said. “We are going to have to get that information out to our friends and neighbors without the media.”

Badnarik spoke about how our founding fathers knew, when they signed the Declaration of Independence, “that they were signing their own death warrants.” He asked the audience how many people would be willing to do the same, and nearly everyone raised their hands.

“If we had one last chance to restore liberty without bloodshed, how many of us would jump at the chance?” Badnarik asked. “That is why I’m asking you to dedicate your lives, your fortunes, and your sacred honor to Ron Paul’s campaign, because this may be our second to last option, and none of us want to go to the point where we face the last option.”

109 Responses to “Badnarik Endorses Ron Paul”

  1. disinter Says:

    “We should set the Republican, Democrat, Libertarian labels aside, and vote for Ron Paul the person.”

    Yup.

  2. NH Says:

    Sat Feb 24th—Reception at private home for Ron Paul a smashing success with 150 in attendance and thousands were raised!

  3. Eric Dondero Says:

    There is a Libertarian Party member in Broward County, Florida floating the idea that the LP ought not run a candidate for President, and instead endorse and strongly support Rudy Giuliani for President.

    And top Libertarians Dennis Miller and California Cong. David Dreier just endorsed Giuliani.

    I think this is a good idea worth considering.

    Giuliani is about the most libertarian Republican to come along since Goldwater with a realistic chance of winning the election.

    Look at the example of Alaska. In the last days of the election last year, the Libertarians in Anchorage, including the Gubernatorial candidate, publicly backed Sarah Palin, Republican for Governor. (Palin had attended their meetings, and solicited their support.) Palin has turned out to be more libertarian than they could have ever hoped for. What’s more, she’s got an open door for Libertarians.

    The same scenario could play out for Giuliani. If the LP were to heartily endorse him, one could count on him having an open door to Libertarians and their concerns.

    I know it’s a long shot. The Radicals in the LP would never allow it. But I think we will see a significant amount of Libertarian support for Rudy Giuliani in 2008, maybe a breakaway faction forming “Libertarians for Giuliani.”

    Eric Dondero, Former Senior Aide
    US Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX)

  4. Tom Blanton Says:

    Libertarians For Giuliani?

    Hmmm,

    Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

  5. Devin Ray Freeman Says:

    Hold high the merry one!
    Libertarians for Ron Paul!

  6. Jason Gatties Says:

    Eric made me laugh the other day on his Mainstream Libertarian radio show when he stated his show was heard “Nationwide”. Yup, yours and everyone else who signs up for the free Blog Talk Radio account. Hell I may even start a nationwide show there as soon as I’m finished doing “all the other things I have better to do”.

    Eric has more than a few screws loose if he feels Rudy is a “libertarian”

  7. disinter Says:

    You actually listen to that moron?

  8. LPiberty Says:

    “We should set the Republican, Democrat, Libertarian labels aside, and vote for Ron Paul the person.”

    Yup

    http://www.theonion.com/content/news/giuliani_to_run_for_president_of_9

    A surprising number might vote for RG, but I have yet to meet one who considers themselves to honestly be Libertarian.

    – NY

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/creekrunningnorth/399431525/

    http://pandagon.net/2007/02/23/how-to-explain-things-to-libertarians/

  9. Doug Craig Says:

    Badnarik, I am not impressed. One maybe two years ago this would have carried some wieght.Until Badnarik gets out here and talks about what happen in his last campaign I have nothing to take from him. I am not hammering him for his results but how he handled it.He has hurt my chances for raising money for other candidates going forward.

    On Ron Paul
    He has said he will not run as a third party candidate and right now his campaign is not cathing fire. If he is the republican candidate for president all bets are off.It would be hard for most of us not to vote for him, but his chances are low and I worry he will pull resources from our party that could be used on a candidate that will be on the ballot in NOV. 2008.

  10. LPiberty Says:

    How many votes could Dr. Ron Paul get in the primaries, and how many Americans might see him in debate coverage? How would that compare to the expected outreach of the next LP candidate?

    DC is right that Dr. Paul faces incredible obstacles.
    My hope is that he finds resources outside of the LP, and that the LP uses their resources as wisely as possible.

  11. disinter Says:

    Excellent article on NewsMax about Ron Paul:

    http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/1/30/151713.shtml?s=lh

  12. Doug Craig Says:

    LPiberty

    I do not see a problem supporting Ron Paul, I will vote for him in the Georgia primarty. My state allows you to vote for any party in the primaries. The libertarians do not have primaries in Georgia . We nomonate by convention.I would love for Ron to get a lot of press it will be good for the movement. We do have to think about would it could do to the movement long term if Ron Paul does not get the Republican nod and we have not taken care of business with in the party.We will lose some people to his campaign that might normally work on ballot access for the Lp candidate. We sometimes barley maintain ballot access in many states a loss of a few key people could cost us and not really help Ron Paul that much.

  13. matt Says:

    A) I don’t care what you think about the way Badnarik’s campaign strategies or personnel choices, an endorsement is an endorsement, and an endorsement from Badnarik is an endorsement from a legit guy. He thinks Ron Paul is the guy to get behind, and I agree.

    B) Ron Paul is hot on the web, and he’s getting hot on college campuses. Why anyone would announce his death-knell before the NH primary is beyond me.

    C) Dondero’s ‘Libertarians for Guliani’ thing is just as funny now as it was last year when he was spewing it about. I wasn’t aware he did blogtalk. I’ll have to look it up, if only for comic relief.

    D) So what if Ron Paul runs and pulls away the libertarian resources? Redirect those resources towards winnable races, and maybe switch back to the ‘campaign as ideological strategy’ technique in the next cycle. It’ll be no worse for wear.

  14. Doug Craig Says:

    what makes Badnarik a legit guy?

  15. Robert Milnes Says:

    People, RP will not win the gop nomination. If he deigns to then try for the lp, I for one will not throw myself at his feet. Would you believe ANOTHER indicator of lp 20%? see: www.strawpoll08.com/ dem 38% rep 33% lp 21%. Check out The Libertarian Vote… consistent Gallup polling at 20%. After the nominations 19% then choose democrat or republican. An alliance with the Greens & endorsement of the lp ticket before the nominations can pursuade that 19% to stay. The greens can get the other 14% for the lp. 34-33-33. Where is RP?

  16. disinter Says:

    I recently received an email from Bryan Morton that said:

    I’ve read it before, I’ll read it again, I’m sure. In fact, I’ve read it so much that it’s either a conspiracy or it must be true. Ron Paul doesn’t stand a chance of becoming the President of the United States. Now, just to make sure nobody votes for him, I’ll say it one more time. Ron Paul will never be the President of the United States. C’mon lemmings, let’s all chant together, don’t waste your vote on Ron Paul, he’s not going to win. OK, now just the women…

    Gee, I’m starting to believe it myself. I might as well start looking for a legitimate candidate to back ‘cause Ron Paul’s not going to win. You know why Ron Paul’s not going to win? Because people keep saying it. It’s a catchy tune and when the pen hits the ballot there are going to be enough people who have heard Ron Paul’s not going to win to make sure that it comes true. This is the last I want to hear of it. Listen up. If you’re reading this, it is most likely that you recognize what’s wrong with government and realize that unless some serious changes are made quickly, we’re all going you know where in a you know what. You want Ron Paul for President.

    Here’s the course of action I suggest. First, no more negative comments in regard to Ron Paul’s chances at the polls. If you think he’s not going to win, that’s fine. Keep it to yourself. Second, sign up to receive Google Alerts for “Ron Paul” and whenever you read a negative comment about Ron Paul or his chances at the polls, comment back in mass. Every negative comment should be met with massive resistance even if it’ nothing more than 100+ comments that say, “I’m voting for him” or a link to something positive. The evidence of our overwhelming support should be obvious to the point that dissenters look foolish.

    Do not allow the self fulfilling prophesy to germinate and grow. Let’s kill it, now. Operation ‘Nip It In The Bud’ begins today and if we work at it, six months from now we’ll be reading about Paul’s massive following instead of his inevitable defeat.

  17. George Whitfield Says:

    I have supported Ron Paul to the max in his Presidential run. I am also supporting LP ballot drives most recently for North Carolina. Ron Paul is my Plan A. The Libertarian nominee is my Plan B. Press forward.

  18. Cutty Sark Says:

    Why all the fawning over Ron Paul? Granted that he is not a total mobbed up nazi like Giuliani. But come on…he is anti-choice, anti-immigration and anti-gay rights. Those are three key libertarian issues, or at least used to be and should be again. Unfortunately the libertarians are not that libertarian any more, but the Greens and Democrats are still pro big government. So there is not really anybody to vote for. Might as well stay home, get fucked up, and watch yet another country go down the shitter. Really, is there even going to be an election? Bush could probably just call it off and declare himself dictator for life after he stages another terrorist attack. That way he does not have to go to court as a civilian for war crimes after Hillary or Obama gets in office.

    Oh yeah, and no, Ron Paul is not going to win the Republican primary much less the election. And whoever the Libertarians, Greens or Constipation Party nominate will also not win. None of them will come close. Sorry, guys, but that is reality. You can jump up and down, get red in the face and shit in your pants but it will still be true. I hate to say this because the top name candidates with an actual chance of winning suck. But nevertheless it’s true. What can I say? Keep your powder dry.

  19. Andy Says:

    “Eric Dondero Says:

    February 25th, 2007 at 9:46 am
    There is a Libertarian Party member in Broward County, Florida floating the idea that the LP ought not run a candidate for President, and instead endorse and strongly support Rudy Giuliani for President.”

    I don’t know who this Libertarian Party member in Broward County is but if he endorses Rudy Giuliani he must be an idiot.

    “And top Libertarians Dennis Miller and California Cong. David Dreier just endorsed Giuliani.”

    Dennis Miller and David Dreir Libertarians? BAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    “Giuliani is about the most libertarian Republican to come along since Goldwater with a realistic chance of winning the election.”

    Myself and others have already proven on several threads that Giuliani is not even close to be a libertarian. He’s a censorship supporting, gun grabbing, police state loving fascist.

    “I know it’s a long shot. The Radicals in the LP would never allow it. But I think we will see a significant amount of Libertarian support for Rudy Giuliani in 2008, maybe a breakaway faction forming ‘Libertarians for Giuliani.’”

    Why do you continue to peddle this horseshit?

  20. Cutty Sark Says:

    Why does a bear shit in the woods? Why ask stupid questions?

  21. Andy Says:

    “C) Dondero’s ‘Libertarians for Guliani’ thing is just as funny now as it was last year when he was spewing it about. I wasn’t aware he did blogtalk. I’ll have to look it up, if only for comic relief.”

    Let’s see, Dondero started “Libertarians for Bush” which is like Libertarians for Hitler. He started “Libertarians for Lieberman” which is like Libertarians for Stalin. Now he wants to start “Libertarians for Giuliani” which would be like Libertarians for Mussolini. Maybe next he’ll find somebody who can fit the role of Castro or Pol Pot and pretend that they are libertarian.

  22. Devious David Says:

    Libertarians for Castro! That’ll be the next Dondero project.

    The issue is 1)Dondero is an idiot. and 2)He has a personal vendetta against Ron Paul. End of story.

    I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again. Ron Paul ISN’T going to win without us. But with us, he just might. The nomination is a ways away. A war with Iran or monetary crisis etc etc could happen any day now. The other candidates are invested in those items. RP is not.

    Also, strategically, Ron Paul is the only Republican that would stand a snowball’s chance in hell of defeating Hillary. Only a kool-aid drinking GOP-at-all-cost idiot (Like Dondero) would beleive otherwise after looking at the evidence and rationale. So, it doesn’t matter what anyone thinks. This race is Hillary versus Ron Paul. You can have Hillary or Hillary Versus Ron Paul. But you only get the latter if he wins the nomination.

    If you go to Free Republic, there’s all this dumb Duncan Hunter, Tancredo, Newt garbage. None of those guys could beat Hillary even if their wet dreams come true and one of them get the nomination. Giuliani and McCain are toast as well. Ron Paul would soundly snag all the red states AND really rip things up in the swing states. Nevada? No problem, New Hampshire? No problem. Florida, close but I call check. Ohio could be a problem.

    Overall, it comes to the fact that Ron Paul would have Hillary cornered on EVERYTHING. In particular, the war. And THAT will be the arbiter of success. The Republican will HAVE to be more anti-war than Hillary and Ron Paul is the only one that fits that bill.

  23. Cutty Sark Says:

    Dude, are you high? The major corporations (money) and religious right (volunteers) will shellack Ron Paul in the primary.

    If he were to make it into the general election, which he won’t, Hillary or Obama would smoke him on the drug war, social security and entitlements.

    You can bank on this.

    He ain’t winning shit. Noway, no how.

    By the way check out the follow up article on Homeland Stupidity. Badnarik stands by his man Hacker, and George Phillies likes the Federal Reserve.

    http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2007/02/25/badnarik-answers-charge-of-abandoning-party/

  24. Devious David Says:

    No, I’m not high! Of course, the major corporations, central bankers and religious freaks will shellac him! They will do whatever the hell they have to to ensure Hillary is President before Ron Paul. That doesn’t mean it would be enough. Truth is stranger than fiction. Sometimes.

    You are dead wrong about the general however. Hillary/Obama beating him on the drug war? I think not. Social Security and entitlements, yeah. Everyone wants more of those. But there is certainly some value in the truth. Ron Paul could put them in a bad place when an explanation of how that is all going to be paid for is due. Besides, the big issue is the war and Ron Paul beats all comers.

  25. Devious David Says:

    Thanks for the link, Cutty. Phillies just sealed his fate with me. He’s obviously unfit. Overly and unneccesarily partisan and a Fed lover.

  26. Andy Says:

    “Most outside observers agree that Paul makes a much better choice for president than Phillies, especially given Phillies’ declared support for the “Federal Reserve system of fiat currency, inflation and economic slavery. Phillies told dozens of Free State Project members this weekend that he supported the Federal Reserve because they maintained “the elasticity of money.”

    Ron Paul said Sunday that he opposes the Federal Reserve and wants to return the U.S. to value-backed currency, the gold standard, to stave off imminent economic collapse.”

    So George Phillies supports the Federal Reserve System. Has he not read G. Edward Griffin’s “The Creature From Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve” (available at www.realityzone.com) or any of the other exposes on the Federal Reserve fraud?

    If George Phillies supports the Federal Reserve System it looks like I’m not going to be supporting his campaign.

  27. Jay Matthews Says:

    Cutty Sark, where have you read RP would run on a pro-life platform. It’s my understanding he personally is pro-life but he believes in choice and he would run on a pro-choice platform.

    Also, I realize he is old news, but can someone explain to me why there is so much venom out there for Michael Badnarik? Forget the lousy election results, it seems so many of you didn’t like him even before the election.

  28. Andy Says:

    “Jay Matthews Says:

    February 26th, 2007 at 12:24 am
    Cutty Sark, where have you read RP would run on a pro-life platform. It’s my understanding he personally is pro-life but he believes in choice and he would run on a pro-choice platform.”

    Ron Paul is pro-life but he also thinks that abortion should be decided on at the state level and since he’s running for a federal office I don’t think that his pro-life stance is that relavent.

    “Also, I realize he is old news, but can someone explain to me why there is so much venom out there for Michael Badnarik? Forget the lousy election results, it seems so many of you didn’t like him even before the election.”

    I like Michael Badnarik. I was disappointed in his campaign for Congress as it turned out to be a poorly run failure, but it doesn’t mean that I dislike the guy.

  29. Wes Benedict Says:

    I just contributed $600 to Ron Paul’s campaign. He’s a long shot, but worth the try. Carter and Clinton were long shots and won.

    By March of 2008, it will probably be clear whether or not Ron Paul has a chance or not of winning the Republican nomination. The Libertarian Party convention isn’t until May 2008. If Ron Paul is still a contender by May 2008, regardless of any official stances of the Libertarian Party, Libertarian Party members will probably support Ron Paul in droves. However, if Ron Paul has been eliminated by that time, most will support the Libertarian Party nominee over someone like McCain or Giuliani.

    Incidentally, Eric Dondero is seen as irritable to most Republican Liberty Caucus Texas folks as he is irritable to most Libertarian Party members in Texas. And, his predictions have consistantly been way off base.

    I am not speaking on behalf of my position as Executive Director of the Libertarian Party of Texas, which just reached a strong fundraising goal:
    http://lptexas.org/

  30. matt Says:

    If he were to make it into the general election, which he won’t, Hillary or Obama would smoke him on the drug war, social security and entitlements.
    ===========================
    Say what you want to say about the general election. It’s a long time away, and those of us who are behind Ron Paul can’t disprove a word of it (yet). With proper support (which we can provide), and with the power of his good ideas (most of which are VERY libertarian) Ron Paul can make waves in the primaries. If he makes a significant showing (which will be all the more impressive due to his lack of big money), the following might happen.

    A) Libertarian-minded Republicans realize their own strength and finally leave the party.

    B) The GOP rethinks it’s drug-war policy, it’s war-all-the-time policy, etc.
    or
    C) The GOP splits. Good for 3rd parties in general.

    Another possibility is this:
    Ron Paul’s GOP run fizzles out before the primaries because he can’t get libertarians behind him. Phillies/Kubby/Chapman/Smith/McManigal/Root battle it out for the LP nomination and recieve less than 2 percent of the popular vote as their reward. Libertarians win either 1 or 0 legislative seats since their ideas are on the back burner and they can’t buy publicity.

    Which scenario would you rather see?

  31. George Whitfield Says:

    Congratulations Wes on the LP of Texas reaching the fund raising goal. That is great news.

  32. George Phillies Says:

    Andy quotes:

    “Phillies told dozens of Free State Project members this weekend that he supported the Federal Reserve because they maintained “the elasticity of money.”

    I have no idea who Andy is quoting but no one at the New Hampshire event—at least not where I could hear it—used this peculiar phrase ‘elasticity of money’. Of course, I did have someone try to convince me that ‘inflation’ has nothing to do with changes in the prices of goods, and such people often hear one thing and put their own unique interpretation on it.

    George

  33. Andy Says:

    George, Cutty Sark posted this link to an article where it says that you support the Federal Reserve System.

    http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2007/02/25/badnarik-answers-charge-of-abandoning-party/

    Since I wasn’t there I have no idea about the validity of the comment. Perhaps you could clear this up by telling everyone exactly where you stand on the Federal Resrve System and fiat currency.

  34. Kn@ppster Says:

    Ron Paul’s run for the GOP nomination may have some negative side effects for the LP in the short term—at least to the extent that some people may put their money and support behind him in preference to backing a candidate for the LP’s nomination—but it’s good for us in every other way:

    – If Paul gets the GOP nomination, then we’ve got a fine libertarian running on a major party ticket, with perhaps a chance of winning the presidency. Gotta love it.
    – If Paul doesn’t get the GOP nomination (and I’ll be straight here, I just don’t see it happening), and if the LP fields a reasonably good candidate of its own (cough, Kubby, cough … sorry, had to clear my throat), then we have a good shot at picking up lots of “disgruntled Republican” votes from people who were giving the GOP one last chance to start acting like a party of limited government and who just aren’t going to stand for jingoistic big-government “RINOs” like Romney, McCain or Giuliani . That’s better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick, anyway.

    Of course, right now I’m feeling those early negative side effects. Paul’s candidacy is just one more hit on the Libertarian presidential campaigns trying to get support, raise money, etc. in advance of the election. That’s just how it goes.

    Tom Knapp

  35. Trent Hill Says:

    Until recently, I was on the fence as to wether i should support Phillies or Kubby as LP nominee. I recently came to a conclusion.

    After listening to the debates in Nevada, in which Kubby could not be present,but still tried hard. And reading about all the candidates. I’v decided Kubby is definetly the way to go.

  36. Robert Milnes Says:

    Matt, I must say I feel deeply resentful in not being included in your impromptu list of lp candidates. By my reasoning not only should I be included, but Root, McManigal, Chapman and Kubby should be excluded, leaving Smith, Phillies & me. Root & McManigal have not declared for the lp nomination. This is probably the reason McManigal is not listed on politics1.com. Chapman, well, is Chapman. Kubby is conducting an absurd candidacy. Could you imagine the discontent of the majority of Americans who disapprove of marijuanna use seeing the president light up every day? Now, I refer you all to: www.strawpoll08.com/ and www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6715 The Libertarian Vote. The poll AND the Gallup Governance Survey both point to 20% libertarian vote. The only question is: Can it be expanded to 34%-slim victory in a 3 way race.

  37. matt Says:

    As far as raising money goes, I know that the conventional wisdom is that ‘early money is like yeast; it grows into more money later’.

    I question how applicable that principle is to LP and CP candidates. For the big 2, early money creates a media buzz and helps win the nomination. I don’t think any amount of money could make the MSM pay attention in Feb 07, and I think that LP people are evolved enough to support the candidate they agree with most and not just side with the guy who has the biggest war chest.

    Ergo: Early money for Ron Paul, late money for Kubby/Phillies. Or, depending on how well Ron Paul does, early money for him and late money for him.

  38. georgia Says:

    I can remember when Mike said he was a ‘Austin resident’ for life.

  39. Robert Milnes Says:

    And where is RP in all this? Wasting time with the gop.

  40. matt Says:

    Robert,
    My apologies, I was typing in the middle of the night and wasn’t at my sharpest. I find your campaign far more credible than that of several people I did include. I disagree about Kubby. Marijuana isn’t the taboo subject that it once was, and even if it were, it’s a personal rights issue, which we are dutybound as libertarians to support. Kubby has good positions.

    If Libertarians win with 34%, and our ideas work, which they do, then we could count on a good many more votes the next time. Nothing succeeds like success.

  41. matt Says:

    In New Hampshire, wasting time in front of cameras, on politics’s biggest stage, spreading libertarian ideas and convincing people that it’s ok to be antiwar. Garnering high-profile endorsements, raising big money, advocating individual rights, sticking it to the military industrial complex, all while ensuring a big platform for his views.

    What a waste!

  42. Robert Milnes Says:

    Matt, yes, marijuanna use is a personal rights issue. However, one does not have the right to be the President of the UNITED STATES.

  43. Robert Milnes Says:

    Matt, I may have said that incorrectly. Every citizen over the age of 35 born in the USA has the right to be the president, but must be elected to actually be the president. You really think a candidate who lights up every day & blows the smoke defiantly could get so elected?

  44. Robert Milnes Says:

    Matt, Tom is right about this. RP is sucking the air from lp candidates. Trying to convince republicans to vote libertarian. That’s a waste in my view.

  45. Trent Hill Says:

    Robert,

    JFK did it. Why not? hehe.

    And all of our presidents have drank almost every day.

    Let me clarify what I said about Phillies/Kubby earlier. I did not mean I would be actively campaigning for Kubby,or voting for him in a primary,as I am a member of the CP.
    What I meant was that I hope he gets the nomination so that the LP will perform at its best.

  46. Kn@ppster Says:

    Trent,

    I’m glad Steve convinced you,

    Bob, you characterize Kubby’s campaign as “absurd.”

    Um … I guess I have to give you that one: Apparently, smoking medical marijuana has kept Kubby from coming up with brilliant, vote-total-enhancing ideas like paying black people to leave the country and setting up “positive eugenics” programs for American Indians. I’ll get right on that, okay?

    Tom Knapp

  47. Chris Moore Says:

    Concerning Robert’s past career goals:

    I am a frustrated scientist. Depression has forced me to fail at college and not be able to pursue a scientific career. I was a chemistry major in college.

    While using marijuana to, you know, NOT DIE, Steve Kubby has led a National Geographic expedition up Mt. Shasta, flown jet fighter aircraft at the US Navy’s “Top Gun” school, skied most of the world’s most prominent slopes, conducted exploratory scuba dives in Aruba, Bonaire and the British Virgin Islands, published the number one ski magazine in seven countries, and built a successful property management company, which he sold and which remains in business.

    And if a scientist is what the LP needs, then there happens to be a MIT PhD graduate running for the nomination.

    You flunked out of college and have not held a single position where you were required to manage even one other individual. You are not even a Libertarian considering the following:

    Your “plans” for African Americans:

    The most viable methods I came up with would be voluntary emigration with subsidy for Americans and positive eugenics including surrogate motherhood … A tentative, realistic figure I came up with would be about $50,000 with $25,000 at first, $5000/yr. for 5 years. For example, if 25 million black Americans emigrated with subsidy, that represents 1.25 trillion gross in capital.

    Concerning government-funded cryogenics:

    It occurred to me that one possible consequence of a government cryogenic program could be to offer the American people the option of preservation of their genetic and reproductive material, including post mortem (sic) corpse.

    You also want to make Afghanistan and Canada “states” within the United States, build a giant and expensive “smart” wall around the country, and break up Iraq into three separate countries using the might of the US military.

    I’ll take the pot head.

    (Yes Tom, I know Kubby isn’t actually a pot head.)

  48. Robert Milnes Says:

    Chris, if you are going to criticize, then you should get what you are criticizing. A voluntary emigration subsidy program is not a “plan”. More like a proposal. If nobody volunteers, then it doesn’t happen. A “plan” implies volunteer or get volunteered. And the figure of 1.25 trillion is to show seriousness as compared to the paltry tens of billions that Gates has. And, do you realize how many species go extinct just about every day? If we were to have the foresight to cryogenicly preserve samples, I believe in the near future, especially if we can stop pissing away billions in Iraq, we can restore them. Why not offer the American people the option of cryogenic storage? I’d be interested in how many would opt in if they could. I think I would. I never said Kubby was not right about medical marijuanna. & he’s right about imprisonment should not be a knee-jerk negative. The circumstances of imprisonment are what is important. Thoreau is said to have said when asked what are you doing in there?(prison) What are you doing out there? But marijuanna use is associated with recreational use- getting high. I’m sorry but whether he has to take it to-you know, not die, or not, it is still under the influence. I hope he enjoys his daily dose. But I and a LOT of other people don’t want their president high. Could you imagine a president having to take a daily IV injection of meth or heroin? But a daily injection of insulin would certainly be fine. One of the several differences being insulin doesn’t get one high! “Make” Afghanistan & Canada states; no. Get a treaty forming 1/2 of Afghanistan into a colony-state would certainly bring them out of the stone age quickly. To be cont. because I have to go on an errand…

  49. rj Says:

    I’m pretty amazed some people on here are discrediting Paul’s chances cause he will not win, yet genuinely thought Libertarians could’ve won elections in recent times, like Badnarik in ‘06 and various smaller candidates.

    When you find a libertarian more electable for President than Paul, please let me know.

    The election cycle for 2008 is very, very weird. With no incumbent of any kind, we have six BIG HUGE MONSTROUS candidates, three for each party (Rep-McCain, Romney, Giuliani; Dem-Hillary, Obama, Edwards), and every one of them has pretty glaring errors, and with the very early start to public posturing for the nomination are opening themselves up to being bludgeoned before the race begins. I think for that reason we could see burnout and someone unexpected wins for either nomination.

    I am asking purely as a hypothetical: can Paul get nominated by the Libertarian Party and not be a member of the party? Would the FEC allow that? Think of if Paul was the Libertarian on the ballot and someone like Giuliani or Romney (southerners are not going to vote for a Mormon from Massachusetts, end of story) got the Republican nod.

  50. Bill Wood Says:

    rj, In order to be the Libertarian Party Candidate you have to be a member of the Libertarian Party. Ron Paul is a Life time member according to several sources.

  51. matt Says:

    The big 6 are big-spenders and neo-connish hawks. Also, they have a very tenuous grasp on anything resembling principle.

    Ron Paul looks fantastic by contrast.

  52. Robert Milnes Says:

    Trent, JFK did what? Tried to pursuade republicans to vote libertarian? hehe. Smoke pot? I’m sorry, I don’t believe he did that nor pork Marilyn. Where is the proof? Or evidence-munchies, laughing jags, procrastination? & all of our presidents have drank almost every day. Really? Again, I don’t believe that. Where is the proof? Or evidence? & if Kubby’s nomination causes the lp to perform at its best, why not get all lp members stoned & gauge our performance?

  53. Chris Moore Says:

    Chris, if you are going to criticize …

    I did not criticize. I stated facts and directly quoted your website. Are you upset that I directly quote your stated positions? The only thing that I wrote that could be construed as criticism is when I state that you are “not even a Libertarian considering …” However, I know very few who would consider a government-funded cryogenics program to be a very Libertarian goal.

    I’d be interested in how many would opt in if they could. I think I would.

    You can. The free market is a wonderful thing:

    http://www.cryonics.org/

    I’m sorry but whether he has to take it to-you know, not die, or not, it is still under the influence. I hope he enjoys his daily dose. But I and a LOT of other people don’t want their president high.

    You state that Kubby’s use of medicine is a disqualification for President. I consider your admitted chronic depression to be a disqualification. You could not even finish college because of it. How do you expect to manage the federal government for four years? What happens when an immediate decision has to be made that concerns the lives of millions, and you are too depressed to think properly? If you couldn’t concentrate well enough to get through college, then what makes you think you would be able to sit through negotiations with other world leaders?

    Kubby has cancer and has been using marijuana for decades, yet he has accomplished quite a lot. You use depression as an excuse for accomplishing very little, and then tear down those who have made an impact in this world despite dealing with illness.

  54. Trent Hill Says:

    Robert,

    I said that JFK smoked pot. Then I laughed, you determine how serious I was, and then get back to me, k dumplin?

    As for Kubby being stoned. I dont believe his med marijuana useage getsd him stoned.

    Even if it did, id ten times rather an accomplished stoner with cancer than a drop-out depressed scientist who doesn’t understand that a “plan” and a “proposal” are the same thing.

  55. rj Says:

    At the top left hand corner of this site is a YouTube video of Ron Paul questioning Fed chief Ben Bernanke this past Bernanke visit.

    http://www.itulip.com/

  56. Wes Benedict Says:

    George,

    Thanks for the congratulation and thanks to you for supporting many libertarian causes.
    —Wes

  57. Robert Milnes Says:

    Chris, it is painfully obvious to me you are not understanding depression. I have learned to live with it & cope without drugs. I do not get too depressed to think properly. & you do not take into consideration the huge amount of assistance & resources available to the president, as opposed to being by oneself,depressed with little resources. I have found that fatigue is the primary symptom which most closely resembles paralysis. Assistance cancels out fatigue. No, I’m not upset that you quote directly from my stated positions/websites. I’ve put a lot of thought into my ideas. Sorry I don’t have a resume of flying on assignment like Kubby or Kyra Phillips(CNN) or skiing worldwide or climbing Mt Shasta. I never had the energy and I had better things to do-like come up with solutions to AIDs in Africa, war in Iraq & the Palestine problem & languishing Native Americans-except where they have casinos! The big difference between Kubby’s medical situation & mine is the difference between marijuanna & no marijuanna. If you want stoned hiking Mt. Shasta, fine. If you want real solutions to some of the worst problems in the world, I have some worth trying. Starting with getting a progressive elected in the first place. Not to mention enough Congresscritters to get something done. Remember, even if an independent gets elected, that person would only be able to do what Congress allowed. Very little more. & Congress allowed the debacle in Iraq. Now they want to repeal that law i.e. a do-over. After the fact-war. Marijuanna is inappropriate to the presidency; depression/gravitas is appropriate in such serious matters.

  58. Cutty Sark Says:

    Milnes,

    Is depression contagious? I think I may be catching it every time I try reading
    your horseshit.

  59. Cutty Sark Says:

    Knappster,

    I like Kubby’s new broadcast on his website.

    But I think Stanhope will probably be better when he gets his shit together.

  60. Cutty Sark Says:

    “As far as raising money goes, I know that the conventional wisdom is that ‘early money is like yeast; it grows into more money later’.

    I question how applicable that principle is to LP and CP candidates.”

    Very applicable. If they can get organized early and reach out to likely and potential supporters, and then use those to reach more, etc., they can do a great deal better down the road a year or two later than if they get that same process started a year later. Unfortunately they never learn this lesson, and keep re-inventing the flat tire.

    I think Harry Browne (second run) understood this better than most third party candidates. He didn’t end up with huge numbers, but a lot of that had to do with a very close race beween Gore and Bush, and positioning himself ideologically too close to Pat Buchanan, plus Nader’s strong run that year. But consider that Buchanan did not do much better even though he spent multi-millions and had been a prominent face on national TV.

    Also, Browne’s machine suffered from a split in his party over allegations of corruption on his staff and the collapse of the dot com boom.

    He had LP membership and activity at a higher plateau than it had ever been before or since.

  61. Andy Says:

    “and positioning himself ideologically too close to Pat Buchanan,”

    Harry Browne was not in the same ideological neighborhood as Pat Buchanan.

  62. Robert Milnes Says:

    Cutty, Mr. Milnes to you.

  63. Devious David Says:

    I definitely beleive Paul has a chance. I know he wouldn’t bother if he didn’t think he did either and frankly, Ron Paul is very politically saavy.

    It’s not at all outside the realm of possibility for Ron Paul to pull a Howard Dean. Minus the scream. It may be critical to get lefties to cross the isle in open primary states to pull for him though. Lefties are smarter than conservatives though, so it shouldn’t be too difficult to explain this to them and what the ramifications are… “want to end the war?”

    Ron Paul has never disavowed his Libertarian affiliation and is proud of it. He told me to my face that he was a life member of the LP and I have since heard him repeat that statement. If he does get the nomination there has to be a procedure to get the LP to nominate him as well or campaign NOTA for the Presidential slot.

    I agree with Knapp’s assertion of sucking the wind out of other campaigns. Both good and bad. But let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

    After Phillies pro-Fed remarks, I’m done with him. He won’t even elaborate or explain. I’m not too pleased with the LP candidates so far, but I’m still very open – I want to see more. Kubby can get a lot of lefty votes and publicity ala Loretta Nall. He’s also a renaissance man of sorts. I almost feel like saying the hell with it and supporting Kubby, but I want to see more from all the candidates.

    Besides honestly, Ron Paul is my candidate. LP, GOP, DNC, GP, Communist Party… I really don’t care what label he runs under. Ron Paul is the man. He really is the best qualified in every way. Everyone I know knows who Ron Paul is because of me.

    Oh and Wes B, you are doing great work over there in TX, man keep up the good work!

  64. Timothy West Says:

    C) The GOP splits. Good for 3rd parties in general.

    Th number 1 option by far is to get the bible thumpers, neo cons, and country club R’s to divorce each other. The LP would pick up significant money and support.

    Iraq has to fail, totally and miserably, ( which is well on the way to happening) to pit the neo cons against the country clubbers. The bible beaters will drift away when they realize their money cant save the split.

  65. Robert Milnes Says:

    Devious David, “lefties”? You want the big government, socialist, tree hugger types to vote for RP? Hmmmm. Since they are “smarter than conservatives” there is no need to ask them. & no need to form any agreements or understandings. And no need to thank them. He can thank the republicans for the nomination.

  66. matt Says:

    So far, Phillies has effectively alienated the anti-Fed , pro-life , 9/11 truth , and the pro-immigration factions within the LP. Am I missing any?

  67. Mike Says:

    Nothing against Ron Paul, but it’s almost laughable to see Michael Badnarik, who squandered nearly $440,000 while pretending to run for Congress last year, giving advice to Libertarians. Has this man no shame?

    Perhaps this is all part of a strategy to rehabilitate himself in the eyes of Libertarians across the country, to the thousands who gave generously to his make-believe congressional campaign.

    But the fact of the matter remains that Badnarik’s disastrous congressional campaign last autumn has already had a chilling effect on the fundraising efforts of other Libertarian candidates, including current LP presidential hopefuls George Phillies and Steve Kubby. There’s little question that Badnarik’s poor excuse for a campaign last year will probably hurt Libertarian Party candidates across the board—- from President on down—- during the 2008 election cycle, if not beyond. That’s quite a legacy…

    Besides, there’s something a little unsettling, almost disturbing, about watching Badnarik ask Libertarians to to dedicate their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to Ron Paul’s uphill campaign for the Republican presidential nomination. Not only does it ring hollow, but it also sounds eerily similar to some of those strange and long-winded fight-to-the-death appeals made by a certain congressional candidate’s campaign manager last year…

    If he had an ounce of dignity left, Badnarik would quietly exit the stage. The LP doesn’t need his advice. Neither does Congressman Paul, for that matter.

  68. Cutty Sark Says:

    Yeah, what Mike said.

  69. Chris Campbell Says:

    The Constitution Party, the 3rd largest political Party in the United States of America, has for sometime been concerned with the usurpation of power by the Federal Government. We also have been concerned with the Real Id Act of 2005, a Division B of an act of the United States Congress entitled Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-13, 119 Stat. 231 (May 11, 2005).

    This Act, set to take Effect on May 11, 2008, would:
    -impose undue financial costs on the State of North Carolina
    -take from the State of North Carolina powers left previously only to it, of the issuance of drivers’ licenses
    -place a citizens personal information on a card that could be used for criminal gain, with the possibility of financial and medical information. This card would be swiped through readable technology, instead of the traditional method of police interview.
    -Be used for possible checkpoints throughout the United States.
    As Congressman Ron Paul (R-Tx) has said:
    This legislation gives authority to the Secretary of Homeland Security to expand required information on driver’s licenses, potentially including such biometric information as retina scans, finger prints, DNA information, and even Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) radio tracking technology. Including such technology as RFID would mean that the federal government, as well as the governments of Canada and Mexico, would know where Americans are at all times of the day and night. (Ron Paul -A National ID Bill Masquerading as Immigration Reform, Before the US House of Representatives, February 9, 2005)
    Therefore, we the members of the Constitution Party of North Carolina-in solidarity with the Legislature of Maine and several other states now considering similar measures, call on our elected North Carolina State Legislators to pass this resolution:
    WE, the Members of the Legislature of the State of North Carolina now assembled, most respectfully present and petition the President of the United States and the United States Congress, as follows:
    WHEREAS, the federal REAL ID Act of 2005 mandates an unfunded national driver’s license on the people of North Carolina, and;
    WHEREAS, implementation of REAL ID would cost North Carolina taxpayers approximately $200-$400 million (conservatively out of the $11 billion total cost), and;
    WHEREAS, the REAL ID national database will invite theft of identity and invasion of privacy, and;
    WHEREAS, REAL ID will impose inconveniences and higher taxes on North Carolinians with no attendant benefit such as protections from terrorism; now, therefore, be it
    RESOLVED: that North Carolina State Legislature refuses to implement the REAL ID Act and thereby protest the treatment by Congress and the President of the states as agents of the federal government; and be it further
    RESOLVED: That the North Carolina State Legislature implores the United States Congress to repeal the REAL ID Act of 2005; and be it further
    RESOLVED: That official copies of this resolution, duly authenticated by the Secretary of State, be transmitted to the Honorable George W. Bush, President of the United States; the Honorable Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff; the Honorable Michael Easley, Governor of the State Of North Carolina; Richard Cheney, President of the United States Senate; Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives; and each member of the North Carolina Congressional Delegation.

    We, the Members of the Constitution Party of North Carolina, do call upon the elected Legislators of the State of North Carolina, to pass this resolution without delay. We call on the North Carolina Legislature to pass laws interposing the power of the State of North Carolina, between her citizens and this unconstitutional attack on their liberties and welfare.

  70. rj Says:

    How’s the CPNC’s ballot access going?

  71. undercover_anarchist Says:

    “So far, Phillies has effectively alienated the anti-Fed , pro-life , 9/11 truth , and the pro-immigration factions within the LP. Am I missing any?” Don’t forget free trade.

  72. Timothy West Says:

    Re Real ID:

    Your using the wrong arguments. Simply point out that the cost of getting the persons next drivers license is going to go up to anywhere between 100 and 400 dollars depending on state becuse of Real ID. People understand that.

    ads based on that will have an effect.

  73. matt Says:

    UA,
    My bad, the hits just keep on coming!

  74. Cutty Sark Says:

    Phillies is against free trade?

    I missed that one.

    Got a link?

  75. Cutty Sark Says:

    Tim:

    Good thinking on REAL ID. We need more of that type of reality based approach for outreach to non-extremists.

  76. undercover_anarchist Says:

    From http://www.phillies2008.com/issues?page=1

    Free Trade – When a country is a dictatorship that suppresses labor unions and shoots labor organizers, the goods it exports are stolen property, stolen from the workers coerced to make them. Stolen goods cannot be traded freely. We should not engage in ‘free trade’ in stolen property. Furthermore, it is only fair that all manufacturers pay the same taxes. We may differ as to what those taxes should be. However, there should not be one tax rate for Ford Motors, and another much higher tax rate for General Motors. When we place a financial burden however labeled on American manufacturers, fairness dictates that foreign imports be subject to the same burden, a tax equivalent to whatever minimum wage and environmental restrictions foreign manufacturers are avoiding.

    NAFTA, CAFTA – A ‘free trade’ agreement that takes hundreds or thousands of pages to spell out has nothing to do with free trade, and everything to do with state socialist managed trade. All those thousands of pages are written with someone’s interest in mind: For almost all readers, that someone is not you. It’s whoever made the right campaign donations. Phony ‘free trade’ agreements should be ended.

  77. Eric Dondero Says:

    Response to Wes Benedict:

    Mr. Benedict says that “most RLC folks in Texas find me irritable.” I guess that’s why they’ve been calling me all day long trying to get me to join them in a van pool to Austin for March 1 to lobby state legislators.

    Mr. Benedict lives in Austin. He does not live in Houston, America’s 4th largest city, nor does he know the Libetarians or Libertarian Republicans here.

    He may be interested to know that Guy McClendon, Harris County Libertarian Party Chairman had me come to speak to the LP meeting last month (20 came), on getting Libertarians appointed to the Draft Board. My speech was very well-received. No LPers threw any eggs at me, or told me that they found me “irritable.”

    Once again, Benedict is dizzied by LaLa Land. Otherwise known to us Houstonians as Austin.

  78. Andy Says:

    “undercover_anarchist Says:

    February 27th, 2007 at 10:28 pm
    From http://www.phillies2008.com/issues?page=1

    Free Trade – When a country is a dictatorship that suppresses labor unions and shoots labor organizers, the goods it exports are stolen property, stolen from the workers coerced to make them. Stolen goods cannot be traded freely. We should not engage in ‘free trade’ in stolen property. Furthermore, it is only fair that all manufacturers pay the same taxes. We may differ as to what those taxes should be. However, there should not be one tax rate for Ford Motors, and another much higher tax rate for General Motors. When we place a financial burden however labeled on American manufacturers, fairness dictates that foreign imports be subject to the same burden, a tax equivalent to whatever minimum wage and environmental restrictions foreign manufacturers are avoiding.

    NAFTA, CAFTA – A ‘free trade’ agreement that takes hundreds or thousands of pages to spell out has nothing to do with free trade, and everything to do with state socialist managed trade. All those thousands of pages are written with someone’s interest in mind: For almost all readers, that someone is not you. It’s whoever made the right campaign donations. Phony ‘free trade’ agreements should be ended.”

    Phillies is right about NAFTA, CAFTA, etc… He also brings up some good points about China. This does NOT make him anti-free trade.

  79. Trent Hill Says:

    Andy, UA is a Demo-tarian.

  80. Cutty Sark Says:

    Andy say what?

    “When we place a financial burden however labeled on American manufacturers, fairness dictates that foreign imports be subject to the same burden, a tax equivalent to whatever minimum wage and environmental restrictions foreign manufacturers are avoiding.”

    In your opinion this is a free trade position?

  81. Chuck Says:

    Steve Kubby and George Phillies are both excellent candidates but I’m behind Stanhope 100%. He’s kicking his campaign for the nomination into gear in late-March. He’s our only hope to reach out to the younger voters and hopefully make people more aware that voting for President is more important than not missing American Idol.

  82. undercover_anarchist Says:

    Call me what you want, I’m into making money. I’ll let you guys debate 18th century philosophies and Ahmish economics.

  83. Joseph Says:

    What if the GOP nominates Ron Paul and Walter Williams and the LP nominates Bob Barr and Neal Boortz?

  84. Andy Says:

    Cutty, what I was refering to is that George Phillies correctly pointed out that the situation with China is not real free trade. The REALITY of the situation is that China is a corrupt dictatorship that is being propped up by the US government in conjunction with US government connnected corporations. Buying goods from China is in essence buying goods that were produced with slave labor, and much of the capital used to produce those goods came from stolen revenue.

    Now I don’t think that the ultimate real solution is to prop up tarriffs, however, as the real solution is to withdrawl all of the US government investment funds which are invested in China and bring them back to the people whom they were stolen from (ie-the American people), and to also cut taxes and regulations at home and eliminate the Federal Reserve and fiat currency.

    Walter Burien hits the nail on the head in the article that I posted below. Be sure and check out his website which is www.CAFR1.com. Also check out www.CAFRman.com.

    WJB Replies To The Trade Deficit – 01/22/05

    IN REPLY TO; Ground Control to Mr. Bush

    http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/1881/

    The Trade Deficit – Money and Control

    by Walter Burien

    01/22/05

    The motive! Money, Money, Money, Control, Control, Control….

    People seem to believe by the Media spin presented that the US Government is allowing the trade deficit to enlarge out of ignorance or ineptness. Wrong!

    They believe the massive purchases of goods from China are just happening based on that 5c per hour wage in China. Wrong!

    Well, here is your WAKE-UP CALL to know the REALITY!

    First and foremost, the largest group of investment capital of this world is owned and controlled by US local and Federal government.

    Now these investment funds, in their composite from the tens of thousands of “individual” government entities total no less than a conservative sixty (60) trillion dollars.

    From the 1930s to about 1965 most of these government investment funds were restricted from investment in “Foreign” investments. Most had a limit cap of 5% or 10% that could be invested outside of the US.

    But then, let us backdate to 1946 and the implementation of the plan to change government from a pay-as-you-go structure into an administrative “Corporate” structure for revenue collection and profit;

    In 1946 an elite private group, with enormous power backing called Government Financial Officers Association (GFOA) introduced the new government “corporate” accounting standard of the CAFR (Comprehensive Annual Financial Report). The CAFR was structured as the typical private sector’s Annual Financial Report and was designed to begin separating government’s pay-as-you-go Budget from the investments of government and venture projects, projects that could become very profitable such as toll ways, ports, state universities, and even, as things developed, government owned golf courses and sports authorities with these government “Enterprise” authorities from across the land having a worth in the hundreds of billions of dollars, if not in the “T” figure.

    With that being said and disclosed, let us return to the 1970s. The CAFR structure was now the fundamental basis for all local governments now mandated by federal law at the request of GFOA in 1978.

    Massive amounts of investment wealth were building within local government accounts, investment wealth shown on the CAFR but not on the selectively created “Budget” reports, presented by local governments for the taxpayer and general populace’s consumption.

    The CAFRs (which over 86,000 separate local government entities produce each year as of 2003) or Government’s Annual Financial Report, was for all intents and purposes intentionally kept secret, and the public did not have a clue for decades as to what the new “Corporate”-for-profit government was developing right under their own noses, as shown in the accounting columns of the CAFR.

    To do this government needed the full cooperation of the controlled News Media and organized Education. The reality of the situation for the nation per disclosure, or should I say Non-Disclosure of the CAFR shows that they have accomplished that objective.

    That decades long cooperation from the controlled News Media and organized Education has since that time greased a many pockets and put a great many news outlets and educational administrators eagerly on the bloated sow’s nipple. . http://CAFR1.com/Philly.html

    Government’s newfound massive investment wealth needed an outlet for higher returns and diversification of that ever-building wealth.

    The top administrators knew that the real profit was in exploiting the cheap labor from around the rest of the world! The laws and statutes limiting the participation of government’s investment funds outside the US were then quietly and, in effect, secretly removed. Thus now…

    1970 – 1980; Hmmm… Cheap labor in Mexico! Then come NAFTA and GATT. Billions of dollars flowed from the US Government investment funds into Mexico and South America. Investment returns on those investments jumped to 40, 50, 80, 200% return per year!

    1980 – 1990; Hmmm… Our government investment funds now own the majority of the fortune 500 companies stock from within their institutional fund holdings. We own Seventy to eighty percent of the totals in some cases. Let us promote and encourage those companies to shift their operating plants to countries with cheap labor. They will then be able to get hefty profits from exploiting cheap labor resources and in turn our stock holdings in those US corporations will double and maybe even triple in value!

    1990-2000; Hmmm… The biggest and cheapest labor force in the world? China!! Over 1.4 to 2.0 trillion dollars flows into the China market directly from government investment portfolios and from those Fortune 500 companies at the direction and encouragement of US Government administrators. Profits are obscene.

    2000-2005; Hmmm… 65% of our investments are now directly or indirectly held internationally and in most cases are valued in those foreign government’s currencies and not the dollar. If we devalue the dollar, on the currency exchange rate we can make a killing! Let us push for those international imports which we now own through investment, create a trade deficit, keep interest rates very low to deter investment in the dollar, and if we can push the dollar index down from 105 to 75 on our international investments held outside of the dollar we will make 40% on the currency exchange rate and our return for our international investments will double or triple by so doing!

    Additionally, we will balance the international wealth for all of the people of the world and have finalized the New Corporate blueprint to make this truly a New-World-Order global market place at our string and pull!

    But, we must take cares of those “independents” out there that are not part of our plan. Let us first focus on Non-Game-Players where we can secure our strategic needs. That guy Saddam would be a good start so let us secure our launching grounds in Afghanistan first. But how do we pull off that type of military venture without our local populace becoming irate with us and banging down our doors? Well, we just need to create an event that will get them so outraged at our created enemy that we can do whatever we want and they will not be the wiser. But how do we do it? Don’t worry, we will figure something out.. Hey, we have been operating under the Annual Financial Report accounting structure for over 60 years; now, right under the public’s nose they are none the wiser, the door is wide open, we can do what we want, and they will buy it!

    With our multi trillion-dollar cash flows that we have created since the 70’s we can also get all other international players in our club eagerly eating out of our hand as we implement our objectives! Hey, those international players, they are who they are now by our design. They are not going to bite the hand that feeds them OR the hand that can destroy them!

    Here is looking forward to our New World Order and the continued massive returns and control of our holdings! Yours Truly, US Government (corporate) administration..

    Submitted FYI and hopeful for your corrective action from:

    Walter Burien

  85. matt Says:

    Call me what you want, I’m into making money. I’ll let you guys debate 18th century philosophies and Ahmish economics.
    =====================================
    Debate or refrain from debating at your leisure, UA, but none of us would be making any money right now without the principles of 18th century economics. Read a brief defense of the Gold Standard sometime. Not everything old is obsolete.

  86. timothy west Says:

    gold standard is not a cure all for this. Stopping out of control speculation on money is. WHen your money cant be redeemed, it’s s worthless as fiat money is. People would quickly hoard every gold and silver coin there was made if we went back to gold standard – rendering the paper irredeemable and worthless. It’s happened before.

    here’s some info for you gold bugs: ( and I used wiki because I’m lazy, you may look for other sources if you wish) – the facts are not in much dispute.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1837

  87. Cutty Sark Says:

    Cutty, what I was refering to is that George Phillies correctly pointed out that the situation with China is not real free trade.

    And what I was referring to is that Phillies’ position is not free trade either.

    Do you agree or not?

  88. Devious David Says:

    ... and the good money would push out the bad. Which is to say that the fiat system would be abolished by the people and a sound monetary system would be effectively established by default. What’s so bad about that?

    The only reason we are on a fiat system is because it is codified into law via legal tender laws. That’s why people are NOW hoarding gold and silver, rather than using them as a medium of exchange. Nobody is going to take a silver eagle $1 coin and use it to buy $1 worth of goods. And so they hoard it because it’s intrinsic value is greater. This isn’t rocket science, folks. Fiat money is theft and taxation plain and simple. Practically slavery even. It also concentrates wealth in the worst of places and causes massive malinvestments within the economy, to speak nothing of the boom/bust business cycle.

  89. undercover_anarchist Says:

    I’ve already fought my fight on the gold standard. It’s idiotic. The money supply cannot grow with productivity, which leads to deflation and no economic growth.

    I’ll live in the real world. You guys can work on schemes to turn back the clock and return to agrarian-fuedalism. I’ve made my case and you guys aren’t convinced, so be it.

  90. Cutty Sark Says:

    Knuckleheads around here have mostly moved on to the Platinum standard.

  91. undercover_anarchist Says:

    The biggest horder of all is the U.S. government. It holds something like 25% of the world’s gold. Without this artificial price support, gold would be essentially worthless. It has no tangible or intrinsic value. It’s only worth is as adornment or idolatry. I’m surprised you CP guys don’t see it as such.

  92. U08 Says:

    Growing A Third Party

    By David S. Broder
    Sunday, February 25, 2007;

    Somewhere in America, there are 35,000 people looking at the preliminaries to the 2008 presidential race from a different perspective than that of millions of their fellow citizens.

    They are the people who have signed up so far to participate in Unity08, the effort to launch a bipartisan third-party campaign with the first Internet nominating convention in history. I wrote about this unusual venture when it was launched last year by Hamilton Jordan and Jerry Rafshoon, both formerly of Jimmy Carter’s White House; Angus King, the former independent governor of Maine; and Douglas Bailey, a veteran Republican consultant and political adviser.

    I contacted Bailey recently to ask what had happened to this bold gamble, and he was the source of that 35,000 figure for the number of people who have lent support to the scheme. They obviously have a long way to go before they can claim to be a viable political force, but they are making slow, steady progress.

    When I called Bailey, it had been just a week since the group announced that anyone who was interested could sign up at http://www.unity08.com as a voting delegate to a national convention planned for June 2008. Most of the sign-ups came before that formal start, Bailey said, in response to last year’s publicity about the formation of Unity08.

    “The need [for a third party] is as great as it’s ever been,” Bailey said. “The partisan bickering in Washington continues nonstop, and the contest for the nominations in both parties is likely to make it worse.”

    He pointed to two problems that many of us have decried. “The leading candidates in both parties have suggested they will decline federal matching funds and plan to spend unlimited sums,” he said. “They expect the bundlers—the people collecting for them—to raise a million dollars each, and what do they [the bundlers] expect in return?”

    Second, Bailey said, “the likelihood is that the nominees of both parties will be determined by the first three or four primaries, which means that 99 percent of the people who will vote in November will have absolutely no say in the names that are on the ballot. It’s not surprising that they may be looking for an alternative.”

    None of that is implausible. But where does the alternative come from? Bailey and his partners have an answer, but the process they have in mind still strikes me—as it did when it was first outlined—as extremely cumbersome.

    In a few weeks, they will outline provisional rules for their own nomination process, determining how candidates will qualify and how the voting will be conducted. The goal is to pick either a political independent for president or to form a ticket with both a Democrat and a Republican. Feedback will be welcomed before the rules are made final, he said.

    Then comes the hard part. Thirty-nine states allow a new party to petition its way onto the presidential ballot, without having a named candidate, but the deadlines and numbers of signers required vary widely. The first test will be whether Unity08 attracts enough volunteers and money to carry out that effort.

    And then comes the challenge of recruiting a candidate or candidates for Unity08 to back. If its organizers had a compelling person already lined up, their task would be much easier, but they do not.

    I suggested to Bailey that the underlying premise of this campaign—the need to cure the partisanship of Washington—might be undercut if the Republicans and Democrats nominated people who are not closely associated with those partisan battles—mentioning Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee on the GOP side and Barack Obama and Bill Richardson among the Democrats.

    “To the degree that the nominees of the two parties recognize that bipartisan leadership is essential, then it shows the political process has made a self-adjustment, and that is good,” he said. “But the usual game is to target the base of your party, rile it up with wedge issues and ignore the middle.

    “If they do that again, we will be ready. It is possible the parties can right the ship themselves, but I don’t have a lot of confidence in that happening.”

    davidbroder AT washpost.com

  93. Peace 2008 Says:

    So far, Phillies has effectively alienated the anti-Fed , pro-life , 9/11 truth , and the pro-immigration factions within the LP. Am I missing any?

    Wow, that sounds impressive.
    But I believe all those voters should get behind one candidate, but then when Mr. Phillies pulls ahead they will like what he brings to the table.

  94. Cutty Sark Says:

    LOL. What makes you think he would pull ahead or be that candidate?

  95. Devious David Says:

    The money supply certainly would grow with productivity. Because it would require production to produce (mine) more money! In fact, money supply growth would generally be a very good mirror of economic growth. Prices would be stable as a result. The boom bust business cycle would be eliminated. The distortions and malinvestments within the economy would be quelled and purged. Government would be stricly limited to spending that which it raises via taxes. The distribution of wealth would become dramatically more even.

    Oh yeah. Much of the US’s gold reserve has been leased away… for good. It doesn’t have near as much as it says it does due to this, double counting and other Enron-style accounting practices.

    Doesn’t it tell you something that central banks hold gold at all if it is an utterly worthless relic? Why don’t they trust their own monetary schemes as much as you do? Why did FDR bother with a confiscation? The answer to these questions is because gold is real money. Fiat paper is not.

  96. matt Says:

    I’m not married to the concept of a Gold Standard, but it sure would be nice to use something inherently valuable as a medium of exchange rather than a scrap of paper that Uncle Sam has randomly deisgnated to be money.

    Furthermore, I’ve noticed that precious metals are much more easily transferable than these other commodities:

    barrels of oil
    pork bellies
    hundredweights of soybeans
    papal indulgences

  97. Tom Blanton Says:

    Joseph asks:

    “What if the GOP nominates Ron Paul and Walter Williams and the LP nominates Bob Barr and Neal Boortz?”

    I guess I might just vote for the GOP slate in that case.

    But, what if the sun doesn’t come up on election day?

    Dr. Paul is a long shot for the GOP nomination, but I sure hope he is present during the GOP nomination debates – that in itself is worth
    supporting Ron Paul for now.

    In fact, what’s wrong with supporting candidates in multiple parties? For example, I’d like to see Mike Gravel in the Dem debates – or Kucinich – even though it is unlikely either would win the nomination. Chuck Hagel may get into the Unity08 thing – he’s worth hearing on a few issues.

    Any message is better than the crap the top 3 or 4 candidates in the GOP and Dems are peddling. As usual, the LP candidates are being ignored by the media – along with all the other third party candidates.

  98. Eric Dondero Says:

    Here’s some sobering facts for Ron Paul for President supporters:

    Latest poll has Rudy Giuliani with 53% of the GOP Primary vote and climbing. Ron Paul is at 1%.

  99. Eric Dondero Says:

    Chuck, you say Doug Stanhope is “kicking his campaign into gear…” It’s about friggin’ time. Could you elaborate, please?

    I originally supported him when he first announced. But that was so long ago, I fear he’s lost too much support since he suspended his campaign.

    As a campaign professional I can tell you that you need to keep the momentum up in politics. Stanhope has lost it. I hope he does some MAJOR campaigning to win back his former supporters.

    I could still see myself supporting Stanhope, if something were to happen to Giuliani. The Leftwing smear machine is already out bashing Giuliani this morning on multiple fronts. While I heartily support Rudy, I admit, this is rough and tumble politics, and if something sticks and Rudy takes a dive, many Libertarians will be left without a candidate to support.

    We ain’t gonna back non-Celebrity Unknowns like Kubby and Phillies.

    But we would be attracted to Stanhope. Still HE NEEDS TO ACT DECISIVELY with his campaign and stop dithering around.

  100. matt Says:

    1% in a media blackout is impressive. In 2000, McCain went from having 3% against Bush’s 49% to almost winning the nomination. Counting Ron Paul out early is a self-fulfilling prophecy, so I’m not going to do it. I’d rather have a good president than a bad one.

  101. undercover_anarchist Says:

    “The money supply certainly would grow with productivity. Because it would require production to produce (mine) more money!”

    So in other words, tens of thousands (hundreds of thousands? millions?) of able-bodied men would be wasting time “mining” money? What a complete and total waste of fucking time. How does this add to productivity or wealth? These same men could instead be building legitimate businesses that served the needs of man, creating new technologies, or just producing something (anything!) with real, intrinsic value.

    The government hordes gold because releasing it on the market would roil the markets – because of the morons who hold it and think it has value. It does not. It in no way sustains life. It can used for little/nothing other than the masturbatory fantasies of juvenile idiots who don’t understand economics.

  102. timothy west Says:

    and not one voter in 10,000 gives a shit about the Fed, fiat currency, the gold standard, OR ECONOMICS. OR FREE MARKETS!

    the only thing they care about is do their (pay, SS, lawsuit, whatever)CHECKS CASH? As long as they do, nothings wrong.

    start translating this abstract BS into terms people can understand.

    HEY! UNLESS WE START MEANS TESTING SS NONE OF YOU ARE GONNA GET SQUAT!

    they might listen to that. At least it will will get their attention.

  103. undercover_anarchist Says:

    Here is what I will translate for people: Bomb the Fed, like idiotic “Libertarians” want to do, and we will all be poorer. Period.

    It isn’t my fault that people are stupid.

  104. LPiberty Says:

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/nh/new_hampshire_republican_primary-193.html

    We could have Romney or Giuliani or McCain or Gingrich. ...
    Thanks. I guess Libertarians should be relieved?

    Is there another party other than Republicans?
    Afraid another 4 years with an elephant in the White House would be too much.

    ***
    “HEY! UNLESS WE START MEANS TESTING SS NONE OF YOU ARE GONNA GET SQUAT!”

  105. Chris Campbell Says:

    Ballot access is sloooow and few workers willing to do something.

    70,000+ signatures needed to be certified.

    Would help if anyone was willing to help the CPNC with the Real ID push above. So far, no response from “freedom fighters” Alex Jones, Aaron Russo or even posting said petition on this site-hence the reason I posted it here.

    I need help putting pressure on Legislature and also, media. This would help us too.

  106. S@muel Says:

    As a Democrat, I would support im before I would support anyone elese at running at this point.

    Period!

    “Red or Blue, A Vote For Ron Paul Is A Dream Come True!”

  107. S@muel Says:

    As a Democrat, I would support him before I would support anyone elese running at this point.

    ************Period!*************

    “Red or Blue, A Vote For Ron Paul Is A Dream Come True!”

    RP™ 2008 :-)

  108. Badnarik Endorses Ron Paul « Tons of Fresh News Says:

    [...] March 9, 2007 at 10:51 am · Filed under Uncategorized Badnarik Endorses Ron Paul Presidential candidate Ron Paul gains endorsement and plea for 200 others to follow suit from ‘04 Libertarian Presidential candidate Michael Badnarik at Vermont rally of Independence For Vermont group. He also makes a plea for the Libertarian Party to nominate Paul, citing qualities as found in the Founding Fathers.[news][world & business][political news] [...]

  109. spyder Says:

    Ron Paul is ‘anti-ABORTION’ (not anti-choice) however he believes it is up to the states to decide abortion laws, so really his position on abortion is not a bad thing to either side. GET A FUCKING CLUE PEOPLE.

    Less government and more freedom is a good thing.

Leave a Reply