Imperato to dine with George W?

Is this even true?


008 Independent Libertarian Presidential Candidate Daniel Imperato to attend 2007 NRCC President’s Dinner with George W. Bush

Washington D.C. 6/13/07- As a gesture for multipartisan relations, 2008 Independents Libertarian Presidential Candidate Daniel Imperato has agreed to attend the 2008 NRCC (National Republican Congressional Committee) President’s Dinner with United States President George W. Bush.

Tonight’s dinner will take place at the Washington Convention Center at 7pm.

Several key members of Congress are expected to attend along with business leaders from across the country.

Imperato, currently an independent candidate for the presidency, has reached out for several major US parties such as the Libertarians, Greens, Reform, and the Republicans.

“I believe that we must bridge the gap that exists between the American people and our government. The Democrats and Republican have lost touch with the needs and the desires of the American People. I believe that we need to bring all parties together to help revive our nation and bring back the freedoms, liberties and principles that this country was built upon,” stated Imperato.

In addition, the National Republican Congressional Committee invited Imperato to serve as its Honorary Chairman of the United States House of Representatives Republican Trust.

129 Responses to “Imperato to dine with George W?”

  1. Jackcjackson Says:

    Well, George Bush once sent me a personalized picture….

  2. Jake Porter Says:

    They send these out to just about anyone with their own business.

  3. Austin Cassidy Says:

    “In addition, the National Republican Congressional Committee invited Imperato to serve as its Honorary Chairman of the United States House of Representatives Republican Trust.”

    I’m pretty sure Imperato is out of his mind.

  4. matt Says:

    Imperato must bridge the gap between himself and reality,

  5. Jason C Says:

    haha

  6. [email protected] Says:

    I could be wrong here, but I’m pretty sure that the way you get invited to the NRCC dinner (and made an “honorary chairman” of an NRCC function) ... is to make a hefty donation.

    Insofar as the Libertarian Party’s nomination is concerned, one relevant question would be “should we nominate someone who, while seeking our nomination, is financially supporting our candidates’ opponents?” The National Republican Congressional Committee is a PAC that raises money to elect Republicans to Congress.

    Imperato also continues to campaign as an “independent.” Even when he uses the word “Libertarian,” he prefixes it with that word. Another relevant question, then, would be whether the LP should nominate a candidate who continues to hedge his bets vis a vis partisan affiliation.

    A third relevant question, of course, is whether this guy is perhaps three cards short of two pair in the “living in reality” department.

  7. Jake Porter Says:

    My step-dad received an invitation and he has never donated money to the Republican Party. He is a “business leader” who owns his own construction business that employees about five people.

  8. Nigel Watt Says:

    A third relevant question, of course, is whether this guy is perhaps three cards short of two pair in the “living in reality” department.

    The answer becomes a more resounding “yes” daily.

  9. George Phillies Says:

    Tom,

    Perhaps we should start asking your question a little closer to home, namely asking how many national committee members of our party are donating to Federal candidates of another party. I don’t care if they supported a candidate of the Republican Party of Torture or their Domcratic Doormat enablers. That answer might go a way toward explaining the issues that Steve Kubby and I have noticed, namely that the LNC refuses to run political ads in its own magazine LP News, and contrary to past precedent refuses to rent its mailing list (via bonded hhouse or whatever) to Presidential candidates. After all, if you have sunk $600 (that’s public record) or $199.99 (says one source) or $2300 (that’s the legal limit) into a Republican campaign, there is a good reason to try to avoid cancelling your donation by helping your own party’s candidates raise money. Money that your candidate’s opponents did not raise is at least as effective a donation as money that you raised for your candidate. And there’s no legal limit.

    As a start, one might ask if these people have filed a conflict of interest
    statement (there may be a valid timing defense) revealing that they are supporting a Republican or Democrat for President.
    George

  10. Jay Matthews Says:

    Matt, that was great. Well done!

  11. Devious David Says:

    “Independents Libertarian Presidential Candidate”... huh?

    Imperato is insane and not entirely honest it seems. I think that’s like a $5k dinner or something. It’s a fundraiser. I like how he made it out like he was invited because he’s so important and well known.

    Imperato’s candidacy is over. Officially.

  12. Gene Berkman Says:

    First, who cares about Daniel Imperato? He seems to be on an ego trip, with no clear principles, and no commitment to the Libertarian Party.

    As for the comment of Mr Phillies, again, who cares? If people are contributing to Ron Paul’s campaign, they are supporting a candidate with a proven commitment to liberty, and a record of promoting liberty far more than Mr Kubby or Mr Phillies have shown. It is quite different to contribute to an actual Republican campaign organization.

    For Libertarians who want to back Paul without committing to the Republican Party, go to www.libertariansforpaul.com

  13. Jake Porter Says:

    I care. Dammit, we are a political party and when you accept a leadership position within that party you should not work to promote another organization’s candidates while trying to sabotage your own candidates by writing secret memos attacking your own candidates and denying them advertising which would actually make the Libertarian party more money.

  14. Trent Hill Says:

    Phillies,

    You’re a joke. =)
    Ron Paul has 1000x the exposure, as well as 100x the money.
    Oh,and 100x the principles. 100x the experience. I could go on if you wish…

  15. [email protected] Says:

    Mr. Berkman,

    You write:

    “As for the comment of Mr Phillies, again, who cares?”

    Every member of the Libertarian Party should care if LNC members or other LP officials are supporting opposing political parties or the candidates thereof. That’s simply incompatible with serving in a party leadership post and should be answered with immediate impeachment and removal.

    I believe that you and I went around this tree a few years ago, when a number of California Libertarian Party officials chose to publicly support a Republican candidate for governor over the nominee of their own party. There’s not necessarily anything wrong with making such a choice, but there is DEFINITELY something wrong with making such a choice while declining to relinquish a post that that choice inherently disqualifies you from holding.

  16. Joey Dauben Says:

    I smoked a Phillies last night.

  17. Jake Porter Says:

    George Phillies is working to build the Libertarian Party and that is why I support him. Someone who gives as much support as George has to the Libertarian Party is not a joke.

  18. Jake Porter Says:

    The Phillies 2008 volunteers and campaign staff are not a joke. Neither are the radio ads our campaign gave to any Libertarian candidates to use. In fact, they were actually used in the 2006 election, but I guess we should have not helped local candidates because we are a joke?

    http://phillies2008.org/national_campaign_staff

  19. Jake Porter Says:

    Is Freedom Ballot Access also a joke?

    http://www.freedomballotaccess.org/

  20. Nigel Watt Says:

    While I won’t question George Phillies’s or Steve Kubby’s contributions to the Libertarian Party, Ron Paul is doing more to advance libertarian ideas than either of them have the resources to do.

  21. Greg Pettigrew Says:

    Ron Paul is running as a Republican. How is that advancing libertarian ideals? How is that helping to find a political party for the millions of unenrolled voters out there who hold the majority in key states? How is that doing anything other than supporting the two-party system that got us into this mess?

  22. Nigel Watt Says:

    Small-l.

    Let’s not be idiotic partisans. People know that part of the reason Paul’s running as a Repuglican is that as a Libertarian, he has no credibility. He’s said as much himself. Do you seriously not see any of his new supporters saying “hey, most of the people that follow these general ideas are in this other funny party” and supporting mainly Libertarians in later elections?

  23. globalist_elitist Says:

    Ron Paul’s idea of advancing libertarian principles is to support don’t-ask-don’t-tell. At least the Democrats—all eight of them—had the good sense to oppose it. Every single Republican, including Paul, supported it.

  24. timothy west Says:

    Its more fun watching this from the sidelines, I have to admit.

  25. Tom Gellhaus Says:

    Hey Trent - I don’t think Phillies (or Kubby) is a joke.
    I think they, and Tom Knapp, and Jake Porter, and the others who agree with them are right.

    Having LEADERS of the capital-L Libertarian Party supporting - with money or endorsement - members of any other political party doesn’t make sense, nor should it be condoned.
    Phillies and Kubby have serious ideas, and are working to try and spread them to any who will listen. The national media have their own agenda and are just not interested in giving libertarians, or Libertarians, much time to explain themselves.

    The real jokes in the Libertarian Party are Wayne Root, and Daniel Imperato.
    IMHO, anyway.

    (yes, if you’ve been reading my previous commentary I admit to supporting Ron Paul. I ALSO think that Knapp and Kubby and Phillies make a lot of sense. As do some others.)

  26. Andy Says:

    “I believe that you and I went around this tree a few years ago, when a number of California Libertarian Party officials chose to publicly support a Republican candidate for governor over the nominee of their own party. There’s not necessarily anything wrong with making such a choice, but there is DEFINITELY something wrong with making such a choice while declining to relinquish a post that that choice inherently disqualifies you from holding.”

    You must be talking about the 2003 Recall election where there were like 163 candidates on the ballot. There were 3 Libertarian Party candidates on the ballot, but only one that got officially endorsed by the Libertarian Party of California and that was Ned Roscoe. Ned didn’t run much of a campaign and got lost in the shuffle. He ran a chain of cigarette stores and his biggest campaign issue was “smokers rights” which I thought was a pretty stupid issue to make your #1 priority considering all of the other more important issues out there.

    A libertarian leaning Republican named Tom McClintock was also in that race and unlike Ned Roscoe he was actually making a real impact. In this scenario I think that it made more sense to vote for McClintock than for Roscoe.

  27. Jeff Wartman Says:

    A Libertarian who sells out to the Republican Party is selling out their true ideals.

    The Republicans get their power from their numbers in the House and Senate…and Mr. Paul, however he votes, is strengthening the two-party system by giving up on the Libertarian Party.

  28. Seth Cohn Says:

    “Having LEADERS of the capital-L Libertarian Party supporting - with money or endorsement - members of any other political party doesn’t make sense, nor should it be condoned.”

    BENEDICT, ROBERT C (aka “Wes”)
    AUSTIN,TX 78704
    SELF/POLITICAL CONSULTANT
    2/25/2007 Paul, Ron $600

    See http://www.lp.org/organization/lncdirectory2.shtml
    Someone in Texas (Region 6) want to make a formal stink?

  29. Jay Matthews Says:

    It’s sad that people are still hung up on Ron Paul running as a Republican. (Which he is, albeit an old-school Republican.)

    The alternative is he runs as a Libertarian and winds up in the witness protection program which is third-party candidacy.

    Those of you with this hang-up ask yourselves which is more important to you: Libertarian philosophy actually being practiced in government or the Libertarian Party?

    If it’s the party you are lost. The U.S. Constitution itself is a libertarian document. If all our elected officials, regardless of their party affiliation, actually took their oath seriously and governed in accordance with it there would be no need for an LP or CP.

  30. Devin Ray Freeman Says:

    Wes is a player for contributing amply to the Paul campaign. Right libuhteryun of ‘m.

  31. Steve Says:

    I have no problem with LP members supporting Ron Paul, I am myself, because like Jay says its the movement that is important and not the party. However Jake, Tom, and others are right that our LP leaders should not be contributing to or otherwise supporting any Republican candidate. If they’re backing Paul its perfectly acceptable as I said but they should do so openly by resigning their positions and stepping away from the party temporarily.

    And regarding Imperato - Austin, make sure to publish his press releases from time to time, they’re becoming pretty good for a laugh. But if Imperato had a campaign staff, volunteer, or even casual supporter I would write to him/her and ask them to ask Mr. Imperato to stop dragging the LP’s name into his fantasy world.

  32. Trent Hill Says:

    “The Republicans get their power from their numbers in the House and Senate…and Mr. Paul, however he votes, is strengthening the two-party system by giving up on the Libertarian Party.”

    Ron Paul puts ballot-access bills in Congress all the time. He also has done more for the Libertarian party since he STARTED running for President, than most of you have done in your entire history of activism.
    I’m in a group called StudentsForPaul, there is over 11,000 of us, and a big majority of them claim they’ll vote LP in ‘08 if Paul doesnt get the nomination.

  33. Jake Porter Says:

    Trent,

    You did not answer my questions. Do you really think that the Phillies 2008 volunteers and campaign staff are a joke? Do you believe that George Phillies is a joke? Is the Phillies campaign building the Libertarian Party a joke?

  34. Jake Porter Says:

    Or perhaps you did not like George questioning Libertarian Party officials.

  35. Sean Scallon Says:

    If Ron Paul does well in the GOP nominating process win or not, then hopefully LP members will realize that the LP is better equipped competing on the local stage rather than the nation stage and focus its energies on winning such elections and changing policy and minds from the ground up and use the Presidential nomination for those who best can articulate libertarian views to bring more people and donations to the party. This is the Green model and its a good one to follow.

  36. [email protected] Says:

    With respect to Ron Paul, there are two separate issues here:

    1) Whether or not L/libertarians should support his Republican presidential candidacy; and

    2) Whether or not officials in offices of trust in one party (the Libertarian Party) should be supporting the candidates of another party (the Republican Party).

    On the first question, I can only speak for myself. I’ve concluded that Ron Paul is not a candidate I can support; your mileage may vary.

    And that’s okay.

    The Libertarian Party has to earn the support of its members and voters, and whether or not it has done so is a subjective question that has to be answered by each of those members and voters as an individual. The LP has no magically valid claim versus the other parties on the support of libertarians. If you think that you can do more to advance liberty by supporting Ron Paul than by supporting the LP or an LP candidate, well, I disagree … but it doesn’t really matter whether I agree or not, because I’m not you. I don’t cast your vote, and I don’t write your campaign contribution checks. You do, and you’re the one who has to decide whom to vote for and whom to contribute to.

    On the second question, the issue is much more clear. The Libertarian Party is an organization. It has both explicit and implicit rules for its own internal governance. One of the rules of any political organization, whether that rule is explicitly codified or just implicit in the nature of the organization, is that its officials support it, not its opponents.

    If Howard Dean shows up on Fred Thompson’s FEC reports as a contributor, Howard Dean is going to be out of the Democratic National Committee chairmanship on his ass, and he’s going to deserve it. Similarly, any Republican Party county chairman who’s writing checks to Hillary Clinton will, if found out, not remain long in office.

    In this respect, the Libertarian Party is no different than any other political party. As an organization, one of its main missions is to elect ITS candidates to public office. Working to elect some OTHER party’s opposing candidates to political office is simply not compatible with holding a party office or leadership post.

    Yes, Andy, I was in fact talking about Roscoe v. McClintock 2003. The Libertarian Party nominated Ted Roscoe. That doesn’t mean that all Libertarian voters or party members had a duty to vote for or support Roscoe. It does mean that Libertarian Party officers had a duty to support Roscoe rather than his opponents—just like a guy who has a job driving a forklift for Pepsi has an obligation to load Pepsi onto the trucks instead of tooling the forklift over to the Coke plant and loading their soda instead.

    Sometimes holding an office of trust requires making tough decisions. Some of those decisions may involve sacrificing your preference of the moment in favor of a voluntarily undertaken obligation to support your party’s candidates rather than the opponents of your party’s candidates. That obligation is inherent in holding party office, period, full stop. If you can’t or won’t fulfill it, the right thing to do is to step down from that office in favor of someone who can and will fulfill it.

  37. Devin Ray Freeman Says:

    Wes Benedict himself announced openly right here on Third Party Watch some while back that he’d donated that amount to the Paul campaign … for the record

  38. George Phillies Says:

    The notion that you can advance liberty by electing someone sympathetic to some of our positions to an office, when they are not a member of our party, simply represents a misunderstanding of how government works. Party, not personality, is totally dominant in real politics. Those of you who were around when Nixon was President, and the Democrats controlled Congress, may remember this. Nixon’s budgets were dead on arrival at Congress.

    The observation that a Congressman has submitted bills gives you no information about any action being taken to advance liberty. If you are a Congressman, submitting Bills does nothing, except convince a certain number of people to mail you money. Congressmen submit all sorts of bills all the time. This action has no effect on anything. For example: Some of you may have noticed Congressman McCarthy saying she was submitting a gun control bill. The NRA knew an opportunity for profit, and took it with fundraisers. Anyone with the least understanding of Congress noted that the Democratic Chair of the relevant Congressional Committee promptly announced that he would not hold hearings on it, meaning that the bill was dead. The chair did this because the Democratic Party as a party has ceased to support gun control because it is a losing issue. Of course, the NRA won’t talk about this, because it would lose them money, and the Democrats won’t make a point of this, because there are a certain number of useful idiots who vote for them and give them money as the gun control party, whether they are or not.

  39. Trent Hill Says:

    “Trent,

    You did not answer my questions. Do you really think that the Phillies 2008 volunteers and campaign staff are a joke? Do you believe that George Phillies is a joke? Is the Phillies campaign building the Libertarian Party a joke?”

    I didn’t realize this was directed at me. To answer you in a work: Yes.

    I do think it’s a joke. Here is why, there is a MUCH better candidate, getting MUCH more exposure, who has MUCH better ideas.

  40. globalist_elitist Says:

    It’s pretty lame of you to refer to a leading candidate for the third largest party’s nomination as a “joke” on a blog that is (supposed) to deal exclusively with third party candidates and parties. If George Phillies is a joke, then this entire site is a joke, and we’re all jokesters for posting here.

  41. Andy Says:

    “George Phillies Says:

    June 14th, 2007 at 11:22 am
    The notion that you can advance liberty by electing someone sympathetic to some of our positions to an office, when they are not a member of our party, simply represents a misunderstanding of how government works.”

    This is a false statement. Ron Paul is a LIFE MEMBER of the Libertarian Party. Ron has never disavowed his LIFE MEMBERSHIP in the Libertarian Party. So Ron is a LIBERTARIAN PARTY MEMBER who is using the Republican Party merely as a tool for seeking office and getting more coverage than he would if he ran under the Libertarian Party label.

    Right now, I’d say that Ron Paul is doing more to spread the message of liberty than ANYONE else, including all of the declared candidates for the Libertarian Party’s Presidential nomination combined.

    The Libertarians who are attacking Ron Paul clearly do not understand how infiltration works.

  42. George Phillies Says:

    Ron Paul is running as a Republican. He has been elected as a Republican for a decade now. His campaign literature never mentions ‘libertarian”. He always calls himself a ‘conservative’. He is running on purely conservative issues, some of which are not neocon issues. There is a very clear piece of infiltration here, namely a Texas conservative—I think Ron Paul is an honest man and when he consistently calls himself a conservative he is telling the truth—infiltrating the Libertarian Party and persuading Libertarians to give financial support his anti-liberty stands on gay marriage, on abortion, and on a range of other issues.

    In addition, Ron Paul has taken stands on Libertarian Party candidates, namely he has repeatedly sent letters to Libertarians urging them to abandon our Party and vote for a Republican.

  43. Eric Dondero Says:

    It’s ironic that you all are bashing libertarians who choose to work within the Republican Party the very day after President Bush just appointed one of the top Libertarian activists in the country to a major post.

    For those of you still unaware, Leon Drolet was appointed by Bush to Chair the US Civil Rights Commission for the State of Michigan. Leon is a longtime Republican Liberty Caucus member, and a very close friend of the Michigan Libertarian Party (Tim O’Brien of the MI LP serves as one of his closest advisors and allies).

    Leon introduced and helped pass the bill to greatly lower ballot access requirements for 3rd parties.

    Leon in the MI Legislature for 6 years, had a 100% perfect Libertarian voting record. Leon is now a Macomb County Commissioner. And serves as Chairman of the Michigan Taxpayer’s Alliance.

    For the full story: www.mainstreamlibertarian.com

  44. Nigel Watt Says:

    Can we for once NOT sink to our opponents’ levels of partisan hackery? Jesus…

  45. Trent Hill Says:

    “It’s pretty lame of you to refer to a leading candidate for the third largest party’s nomination as a “joke” on a blog that is (supposed) to deal exclusively with third party candidates and parties. If George Phillies is a joke, then this entire site is a joke, and we’re all jokesters for posting here.”

    GE,

    Duh.
    And specifically—I think George Phillies is a joke because there is a candidate who represents libertarian values BETTER than him, running a STRONGER ticket, with MORE money, and MORE media exposure. And he is taking pot-shots at the guy. If Steve Kubby did that, i’d say the same.
    Now, if Elaine Brown of the GP said this, it would be different.
    It’s also slightly different if Jerome Corsi says this (which he doesnt. He backs Paul).
    The stupid part is, in the process of attacking Paul, you guys will LOSE possible converts. I mean, just about everyone in StudentsForPaul (a 12,000 member group) is discussing wether to move over to the LP or the CP when Paul loses the nomination. He is gauranteeing you the first large influx of members since Harry Browne.
    But if people start to come over here, and then see George Phillies bitching about how Ron Paul wasnt a REAL libertarian then they’ll head for the Constitu…..on second thought. Keep it up Phillies.

  46. Jake Porter Says:

    George Phillies on a Ron Paul Campaign:

    I will be happy to welcome Ron Paul to the Presidential campaign, if as
    rumored he finally declares. I know there are people who expect the
    Libertarian Party to close up shop during a Ron Paul campaign. I am not
    one of them. My stand on the Ron Paul campaign is:

    (i) I am running for the Libertarian nomination. Ron Paul is running
    for the Republican Party nomination. We are not competing with each other.

    (ii) I am a major contender for our nomination. He is not a major
    contender for his nomination. As time approaches, I will welcome his
    supporters into my camp and our party: We are in agreement on a wide
    range of important issues.

    (iii) Ron Paul is highly unlikely to win the Republican nomination,
    because his party is dominated by the religious right, neocons,
    militarists, and the like.

    (iv) I will not withdraw. Withdrawal would be a craven act proving to
    all Americans that we are a gaggle of Republican sock puppets. It would
    be a complete disaster if our Presidential candidate quit during the
    race. We would become a joke. No matter who my opponents are, if
    nominated I will campaign vigorously for our party.

    (v) I am running to build an effective Libertarian political movement in
    America. To do that, we must have effective campaigns from top to
    bottom. Only Libertarian candidates can move us toward this goal. An
    isolated Libertarian who is elected while running as a Democrat or a
    Republican may leave a few footprints in the sand, but they will be
    washed away by the next wave of candidates from his party.

  47. Jake Porter Says:

    The clearest example I can provide of this is on the issue of taxes. My opposition to taxes was never clearer than when I was the Libertarian Party’s presidential nominee. Yet, it is as a Republican congressman that I have helped revive the tax-cutting fervor of the early 1980s; it is since the Republicans took over majority control of the House of Representatives that we have enacted a series of significant, family-friendly tax cuts, including the per-child deduction. In the year 2000, it is extremely unlikely that anybody other than Al Gore or George W. Bush will be elected president. One of those two individuals will have the power of nominating justices to the U.S. Supreme Court and deciding on whether, for example, partial-birth abortion legislation will be signed into law. Both of these things are so important that education is not enough. Those who would see life preserved, and a riotous court bridled, must seek to be effective.
    -Ron Paul is a member of Congress from Texas

    http://www.worldmag.com/articles/4086

  48. globalist_elitist Says:

    Ron Paul is not a “real” libertarian because he is anti-gay, anti-globalization, anti-immigration, and anti-reproductive choice.

    If like minds run to the CP, then they will not be missed.

  49. Trent Hill Says:

    He is not anti-gay, or anti-globalization.
    And he isnt anti-immigrant. He is anti-illegal.

  50. globalist_elitist Says:

    He opposed gay adoption. He supports government discrimination via don’t-ask-don’t-tell.

    He opposes trade agreements that expand global trade. He also proposes drastically realigning the financial system, which would create massive global instability and bring all trade to a halt.

    He is anti-immigration. He is xenophobic. He believes in America as a mono-culture society, and not a society of 300 million inidividual cultures.

  51. globalist_elitist Says:

    Of course, the major problem is that George Phillies shares Ron Paul’s absurd, anti-libertarian, anticapitalist views on immigration and trade. He doesn’t stand out there! Hell, even Alan Auguston is more libertarian on the vital issue of immigration than Paul or Phillies.

  52. Gene Berkman Says:

    When I ran for Congress on the Libertarian ticket in 1992, I asked Ron Paul to endorse me, and he sent a very nice letter backing my campaign.

    I think if more Libertarian candidates had asked for his endorsement, he would have done the same.

    Ron Paul has spoken at many Libertarian conventions, both national and state LP conventions, and has represented the pro-freedom viewpoint very well in Congress and in his campaign for President. I agree with Sean Scallon that the Libertarian Party has to focus on local races where the media pays attention to our candidates, and where our candidates have credentials adequate to the office they seek.

    If Mr Phillies or Mr Kubby are concerned with building the Libertarian Party, please put some effort into it. Criticizing pro-freedom allies because of their party alignment is bogus for a libertarian - where is “Party Loyalty” a libertarian principle?

    Financial contributors to the Ron Paul campaign include David Nolan, founder of the Libertarian Party; Joe Cobb, several time candidate for Congress on the Libertarian ticket, and Jacob Hornberger, of the Future of Freedom Foundation.

    I agree with what

  53. Jake Porter Says:

    If Mr Phillies or Mr Kubby are concerned with building the Libertarian Party, please put some effort into it.

    We at the Phillies campaign are working to build the Libertarian Party. The Libertarian Activist Disk, Ballot Access, new members into the party, helped revive Rhode Island LP, radio ads for a State House candidate in Des Moines, Iowa, etc.

  54. Andy Says:

    “George Phillies Says:

    June 14th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
    Ron Paul is running as a Republican. He has been elected as a Republican for a decade now. His campaign literature never mentions ‘libertarian”. He always calls himself a ‘conservative’. He is running on purely conservative issues, some of which are not neocon issues. There is a very clear piece of infiltration here, namely a Texas conservative—I think Ron Paul is an honest man and when he consistently calls himself a conservative he is telling the truth—infiltrating the Libertarian Party and persuading Libertarians to give financial support his anti-liberty stands on gay marriage, on abortion, and on a range of other issues.”

    This is absurd for several reasons.

    First of all, as I have pointed out on NUMEROUS OCCASSIONS, ABORTION IS NOT A DEFINITIONAL LIBERTARIAN ISSUE. One could just as easily say that people who support abortion are anti-liberty since they advocate that it is OK to initiate force against a fetus, as in murdering them. Also, RON HAS SAID THAT ABORTION SHOULD BE DECIDED ON BY THE STATES! If one is pro-abortion, the worst thing that would happen if Ron Paul were elected would be that abortion would go back to the states and perhaps a small handful of states might actually outlaw it. So maybe abortion would become illegal in Utah or Wyoming or something, but it would STILL BE LEGAL IN THE REST OF THE COUNTRY. Heck, the legislature in South Dakota tried to outlaw abortion last year and it got overturned by a referendum, and this was in freakin’ South Dakota which is a pretty conservative state!

    As for gay marriage, Ron has correctly stated that the government should not even be involved in marriage in the first place. Ron Paul OPPOSED the anti-gay marriage amendments! ONCE AGAINST IN CASE ANYONE MISSED THIS, RON PAUL OPPOSED THE ANTI-GAY MARRIAGE AMENDMENTS! Yes, Ron did vote for a bill that said that states that don’t have gay marriage don’t have to recognize gay marriages that happened in other states, but this was to prevent a bunch of bullshit law suits that could occur with gays going to one state and getting married and then going to another state and stupid, frivolous law suits. The REAL libertarian goal should not be so gays can get state marriages, but rather to ABOLISH state marriage licenses for everyone! How is it libertarian for people to have to go to the state and pay money for pieces of paper that says that they are married? Marriage is a private religious ceremony and the state should have NOTHING to do with people getting married. The state should have no authority to “bless” people’s marriages.

    The word “Libertarian” has definitely been mentioned on numerous occassions with the current Ron Paul for President campaign and in fact Ron Paul himself has publically acknowledged having been the Libertarian Party’s Presidential candidate in 1988 and in fact STILL being a member of the Libertarian Party to this day. The only reason that Ron Paul is running as a Republican is because he knows that he can get more attention this way, which is CLEARLY APPARENT.

    Yeah, Ron also uses the word “conservate” but so what? “Conservative”, “Liberal”, “Libertarian”, these are all just LABELS. Ron is a conservative in that he wants to conserve the Constitution and the concepts of liberty on which this country was founded. Ron could also be called a liberal or a Libertarian. The only reason that he’s using the term “conservative” is because it plays well with a lot of the crowd whose votes he is trying to get. This is kind of like what the socialist did when they took over the Democratic Party back in the early half of the last century. The socialist called themselves “liberals” so that people would accept their agenda. Would anyone not agree that they were successful?

    It sounds to me like George is suffering from a case of jealousy.

  55. Andy Says:

    “Trent Hill Says:

    June 14th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
    ‘It’s pretty lame of you to refer to a leading candidate for the third largest party’s nomination as a ‘joke’ on a blog that is (supposed) to deal exclusively with third party candidates and parties. If George Phillies is a joke, then this entire site is a joke, and we’re all jokesters for posting here.’

    GE,

    Duh.
    And specifically—I think George Phillies is a joke because there is a candidate who represents libertarian values BETTER than him, running a STRONGER ticket, with MORE money, and MORE media exposure. And he is taking pot-shots at the guy. If Steve Kubby did that, i’d say the same.
    Now, if Elaine Brown of the GP said this, it would be different.
    It’s also slightly different if Jerome Corsi says this (which he doesnt. He backs Paul).
    The stupid part is, in the process of attacking Paul, you guys will LOSE possible converts. I mean, just about everyone in StudentsForPaul (a 12,000 member group) is discussing wether to move over to the LP or the CP when Paul loses the nomination. He is gauranteeing you the first large influx of members since Harry Browne.
    But if people start to come over here, and then see George Phillies bitching about how Ron Paul wasnt a REAL libertarian then they’ll head for the Constitu…..on second thought. Keep it up Phillies.”

    Trent just hit the nail on the head. Ron Paul’s campaign has given the Libertarian Party a very unique opportunity by exposing libertarian ideas to a lot of people who may not have heard them otherwise. If even just a small percentage of these people end up joining the Libertarian Party or even just vote for Libertarian candidates for other offices it will be a big boost for the party, especially given that the LP has been in an overall decline since the year 2000.

    These “Libertarians” who are attacking Ron Paul risk alienating alienating a lot of Ron Paul’s supporters who are not currently with the LP - especially if they are new or relatively new to being Ron Paul supporters - and this is really pissing me off. A lot of people are hearing Ron Paul for the first time and some of them will look into “this Libertarian Party thing” that Ron Paul is affiated with, and when they do this if they hear/see the biased/exagerrated comments from some of you people it is going to turn them off.

    Ron Paul has done and is doing more for the the cause of liberty than most of you people will ever do in your entire lives.

  56. Andy Says:

    “globalist_elitist Says:

    June 14th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
    Ron Paul is not a “real” libertarian because he is anti-gay, anti-globalization, anti-immigration, and anti-reproductive choice.

    If like minds run to the CP, then they will not be missed.”

    Wow, more lies & propaganda from GE!

    I’ve already covered the abortion thing above. Abortion should be OFF THE TABLE when determining whether or not one is a libertarian. I’ve said that you aren’t a real libertarian, but when I said this it had nothing to do with your pro-abortion stance.

    As for Ron being “anti-globalization”, it depends on what you mean by globalization. Ron CLEARLY supports peace & commerce among nations. However, Ron does oppose the concept of global government so he opposes the United Nations, the IMF, the World Bank, the International Criminal Court, etc…

    I have already PROVEN here in numerous posts that Ron Paul is in favor of free trade. Ron does oppose NAFTA, GATT, the WTO, CAFTA, and the FTAA, not because he opposes free trade, but because these agreements are NOT really about free trade. They are about government managed trade that is set up to benifit select corporations which are backed up by tax subsidies. They are actually mercantilist agreements and impose on freedom. Ron Paul has voted AGAINST increasing tarriffs which is protectionism. ONCE AGAIN FOR THOSE WHO MISSED IT, RON PAUL HAS VOTED AGAINST INCREAING TARRIFFS WHICH IS WHAT PROTECTIONISM IS.

    Anyone who says that Ron Paul is anti-free trade either doesn’t know what they are talking about or is a LIAR. Since these facts have already been brought to GE’s attention, the fact that he’s still repeating the same tired nonsense says that he is a LIAR.

    As for “anti-immigration”, this is also not true. Ron Paul is in favor of legal immigration. He simply opposes illegal immigration and this is because the people who enter illegally are an un-necessary drain on the welfare system, in addition to the fact that many of them are criminals.

  57. globalist_elitist Says:

    Andy - I have reformed my comments about Paul to reflect what you say is true of his position on trade. I did not say above that he was against “free trade.” He is against global trade agreements which have the effect of increasing global trade and global prosperity. He is an impractical man, more content with the status quo than in making meaningful reforms—i.e. expanding global trade even if it isn’t “free trade” by his definition.

    I don’t care if you think I’m a “libertarian,” because I would not want to be associated with the band of miscreants and losers that populate the Libertarian Party—conspiracy theorists, militiamen, Luddites, anarchists (who are actually tribalist/socialists), etc. But the point is, pre-Ron Paul, there was no real anti-woman (i.e. “pro-life”) movement in the LP. Even your racist/socialist idol Murray Rothbard was staunchly pro-choice. But Paul is not only against Roe v. Wade, he wants to criminalize abortions at the national level.

    Ron Paul is a cultural racist who bemoans the supposed “Balkanization” of the U.S. He hates that people speak a language that he doesn’t understand. He wants to control language and thought. And he wants to force conformity and deny individuality. Period.

    Finally, he is obviously anti-gay and in favor of government discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. He has proven this time and time again.

  58. Gene Trosper Says:

    I’m a long time libertarian who has been registered to vote Libertarian since I was able to do so in my early 20’s (I’m now 41 years old). My “loyalty” to the LP has benn pretty solid up until a few years ago when I realized that liberty is a higher value than mere partisanship. I want liberty and I frankly do not care if the candidate is Democrat, Republican or Libertarian. I will support whoever is doing the best job. At this juncture, Ron Paul is kicking ass. Because of that, he has my FULL support. I have donated financially to his campaign, organized a local Ron Paul meetup, distributed some information to co-workers about Dr. Paul and written a published letter to the editor in support of his candidacy.

    Is Ron Paul perfect? Absolutely not. But he is the best candidate for liberty we have at this moment and likely will have until the moment he loses the GOP nomination (which he most assuredly will).

    Though the LP is my political home, every so often, I must leave that home to get away from the pettiness and dysfuncionality is exhibits on a regular basis. I have loads of respect for Steve Kubby and George Phillies, but let’s face reality: both candidates combined will be lucky to garner even a fraction of the publicity Ron Paul has thus far received.

  59. Nigel Watt Says:

    he wants to criminalize abortions at the national level.
    Congratulations, you have committed libel. Paul has repeatedly said abortions should be a state issue.

  60. globalist_elitist Says:

    Not true, Nigel. He has supported various measures that would define life as beginning at conception.

    I think it is great that Ron Paul is running. I think he is doing a great service by highlighting the GOP’s foreing policy hubris. I think it is great that he is talking about the Constitution. But he is an old-rightist and not a classical liberal.

  61. globalist_elitist Says:

    Oh, and by the way: Murray Rothbard was against the very idea of “libel” since there is no property damage or infringement. An individual doesn’t own his own reputation—it is a product of the minds of others. Just thought I’d add that in.

  62. Wes Benedict Says:

    I advertise my contribution to Ron Paul on my blog here:

    Note that the title says: My $600 says the Ron Paul Presidential Campaign benefits the Libertarian Party

    http://wesbenedictforlnc.blogspot.com/2007/05/my-600-says-ron-paul-presidential.html

    Below are some comments I sent to the Radical Libertarian Caucus e-mail group yesterday:

    I don’t know if I’ve ever met Thomas Knapp in person, but in general I find myself agreeing with much of what he posts on blogs and this list. He’s quite reasonable (aka radical in my opinion), though I do sometimes disagree with his logic.

    I disagree with his characterization of Ron Paul’s contribution to the Libertarian Party, particularly here in Texas.

    Ron Paul was the keynote speaker at the LP Texas 2006 Convention and a featured speaker at our 2004 Convention as well. I believe Paul’s participation with the LP Texas boosted attendance and motivated attendees. He spoke very positively about the important role the Libertarian Party plays, and very negatively about our US Congress.

    Additionally, here in red-state Bush-country Texas, we have some new people who get involved with the Libertarian Party, some of whom are disaffected Republicans who aren’t 100% libertarian when they first get involved (like me when I first got involved in Michigan). I expect many of you have come across former Republicans and Democrats interested in the LP as well who weren’t 100% libertarian at first.

    I believe Ron Paul has had a significant positive effect by educating and persuading some of those former Republicans who are new Libertarians (and more open to arguments from Ron Paul than from others) to oppose the war in Iraq and the drug war. I understand many so-called “LP reformers” discount the value of LP education, but I equally discount the value of most of the knuckleheaded “reform” efforts in the LP.

    While Texas is a red state, the City of Austin, Texas is true blue, but also the most Libertarian population center in Texas. Some people call it San Francisco, Texas. Paul’s campaign for President is reaching progressives in this very liberal Austin publication:

    http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/column?oid=oid%3A477963

    I encourage strong loyalty to Libertarian Party candidates regardless of how libertarian those candidates are based on arguments many of you have presented before. I vote straight party Libertarian. But I also recruit candidates to run under the banner of the Libertarian Party even if they don’t hold 100% libertarian views. I think for the most part their affects on building the party out way any negative affects of confusing the public on libertarian principles.

    Libertarian Party activists face tension on two important fronts regarding candidate support:

    1. How libertarian must a Libertarian Party candidate be to gain the nomination of the Libertarian Party (as opposed to leaving the race up to Republicans and Democrats)?
    2. How libertarian must a Republican or Democrat be to gain a libertarians’ support?

    My standards on number 1 are very loose, far too loose for some of you radicals (and I support some too radical for many reformers as well). My standards on number 2 are very strict. Ron Paul and one other in Texas are the only two Republicans to have ever gained my support since I became a Libertarian Party activist in 1998. In both cases I made it clear I was only pulling for that Republican candidate in the Republican primary but that I wouldn’t be voting in the Republican primary anyway because I would be supporting the Libertarian candidate. I did spend some time volunteering for that Republican candidate (and will for Ron Paul).

    I respect George Phillies’ die-hard support for himself as a Libertarian Party Candidate for president. However, I expect his publicly expressed negativity towards Ron Paul will cost him quite a few delegates at the National LP Convention, and will also cost the Libertarian Party some support of people who now support Ron Paul for President but who might have supported the Libertarian Party if (or when) Ron Paul fails to win the Republican Party nomination.

    Nevertheless, I appreciate everyone who seeks to run as a Libertarian Party candidate. I know first hand how much work it is. I probably won’t decide who I support for the Libertarian Party nominee for President until the 2008 convention. None of our current candidates have proven themselves clearly better than the rest in my opinion. At the 2004 Convention, I flip-flopped between Russo and Nolan up until voting time, even though I was from Texas, and considered Badnarik to be a friend. In the end, I whole-heartedly supported Badnarik’s campaign. While his recent campaign for Congress left lots to be desired, I think he ran an admirable campaign for president considering the circumstances.
    —Wes Benedict
    possible future founder of the Bold Libertarian Caucus

    Thomas L. Knapp wrote:
    >

    > Paul has continuously exploited his prior LP presidential
    > candidacy as a tool for raising funds from Libertarians for his
    > Republican campaigns, and the LP has gone out of its way to avoid
    > running candidates against him in his US House District. That
    > relationship has been a one-way street. Paul uses the LP, but the LP
    > has gotten very little use from Paul since 1988.

  63. Wes Benedict Says:

    You can see in the article below how my association with a Republican candidate ended up publicizing the Libertarian Party and clarifying the Libertarian Party platform to the public.

    Scroll down and read the third paragraph of the section that has the subtitle:

    “Flying With Only a Right Wing in District 50”

    http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/story?oid=oid%3A344540

    Something else to keep in mind, working on campaigns for Republicans and Democrats can provide valuable experience.

    The Libertarian Party doesn’t have a lot of experienced candidates running full-fledged campaigns where activists like me can get experience working on full-fledged campaigns with a chance to win.

    I learned a lot helping a Republican candidate. I got experience working on a phone bank designed to determine the issues that were important to voters. I got experience working under the direction of a professional campaign consultant on door-to-door get out the vote efforts, and more.

    I think most Libertarian Party members would benefit enormously by volunteering for a Republican or Democrat candidate campaign or for a non-libertarian in a non-partisan campaign simply for the experience of learning first hand the nuts and bolts of campaigning.

    You might feel a little dirty afterwards, but . . . but, but, well in my case I’m kind of dirty, but I think most of you can find a legitimate angle on this point.

  64. Andy Says:

    “globalist_elitist Says:

    June 14th, 2007 at 11:32 pm
    Not true, Nigel. He has supported various measures that would define life as beginning at conception.”

    Yes, but since Ron has said that abortion should be decided on at the state level it would only be prosecuted at the state level if made illegal in a state (which is not likely to happen in many states any time soon, if it were to happen in any state).

  65. Andy Says:

    “globalist_elitist Says:

    June 14th, 2007 at 11:34 pm
    Oh, and by the way: Murray Rothbard was against the very idea of ‘libel’ since there is no property damage or infringement. An individual doesn’t own his own reputation—it is a product of the minds of others. Just thought I’d add that in.”

    Just because he said that you committed libel it does not mean that he thinks that you should be prosecuted. He was just making a point that you weren’t being honest.

  66. Andy Says:

    “I think it is great that Ron Paul is running. I think he is doing a great service by highlighting the GOP’s foreing policy hubris. I think it is great that he is talking about the Constitution. But he is an old-rightist and not a classical liberal.”

    This from a guy who scored a 37 out of a possible 160 on the Libertarian Purity Test.

    Ron Paul is more of a libertarian than you are so you’ve got no room to talk.

  67. Andy Says:

    “Finally, he is obviously anti-gay and in favor of government discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. He has proven this time and time again.”

    If this was true then why did he OPPOSE the anti-gay marriage amendments?

  68. Andy Says:

    “globalist_elitist Says:

    June 14th, 2007 at 9:04 pm
    Andy - I have reformed my comments about Paul to reflect what you say is true of his position on trade. I did not say above that he was against ‘free trade.’ He is against global trade agreements which have the effect of increasing global trade and global prosperity. He is an impractical man, more content with the status quo than in making meaningful reforms—i.e. expanding global trade even if it isn’t “free trade” by his definition”

    These agreements are not free trade by the real definition of free trade - which is an abscense of government in trade. I’m all for free trade but these agreements suck.

  69. Devin Ray Freeman Says:

    Andy’s right.
    Saying Ron Paul is not a real libertarian is like saying Houdini was a wuss, or saying Will Rogers couldn’t do rope tricks.

    Timothy West has already been to saying here that it’s this “real libertarian” talk that’s so detrimental to the cause of Liberty. As a regular rule of thumb, if you’ve got nothing good to say about somebody who does more to promote freedom than you, it would be better to say nothing, or at least keep to constructive criticism.

    Ron Paul, George Phillies, Steve Kubby, fine libertarians all.

    g_e’s dissing of Paul is way out of line.

    “Ron Paul is a cultural racist who bemoans the supposed “Balkanization” of the U.S. He hates that people speak a language that he doesn’t understand. He wants to control language and thought. And he wants to force conformity and deny individuality. Period.”

    This from out of the mouth of anglocentric elitist g_e. None of this is true of Ron Paul, and you, g_e are a language snob. I thought you were all right, g_e, til you started to sound like Dondero.

  70. globalist_elitist Says:

    Andy - First of all, I was being honest. Ron Paul belives life begins at conception, and at various times, he has supported federal legislation and even a constitutional amendment that stated this. I did not commit libel because what I said is true.

    My score on the “purity test” means nothing. If I want to cut a government agency by 47%, as opposed to 50%, I get zero points. Ron Paul is a bigot, xenophobe, and anticapitalist. He gets -100 points on those issues from me. Ron Paul is an Old Rightist and not a classical liberal. What does my purity test score have to do with that?

    Ron Paul IS in favor of government discrimination! If you are gay, he wants the government to tell you that you cannot adopt a child. If you have the audacity to ADMIT that you’re gay, he thinks you should be kicked out of the military. The fact that he did not support the marriage amendment means nothing. John McCain and George Will—both anti-gay, pro-tradition bigots—also opposed that amendment.

    Ron Paul has done as much to expand global trade as Dennis Kucinich. Whatever his philosophy, he’s done far less for liberty than Bill Clinton.

    Devin - I’m a “language snob”? 1) I’ve recently been on one side of a multiparty debate in which a clowder of elitists were bemoaning the modern vernacular as a sign of cultural decay. 2) Unlike Ron Paul, I do not believe that America should have a national language, a national culture, etc. Ron Paul talks about the “Balkanizaton” of America and the need to maintain our cultural idenity. That’s why he’s featured on David Duke’s web page.

    Ron Paul = Pat Buchanan stating his foreign policy ideas more aggressively, and his social conservatism more politely. Is Pat Buchanan a libertarian? Because he and Ron Paul are in almost perfect alignment on the issues. It is a matter of tone and emphasis.

  71. Trent Hill Says:

    “He opposed gay adoption.”
    =No, he opposed a bill that funded adoptions in D.C. (based on the fact that it was using taxpayer money incorrectly). The amendment that made it specifically for gay couples was added later. Look it up. At LEAST do the research.
    Next you’ll say, “Oh my god, he opposed the Amber Alert System Bil! He hates Children too! He is anti-children!”

    “Ron Paul belives life begins at conception, and at various times, he has supported federal legislation and even a constitutional amendment that stated this.”
    =Ron Paul does believe life begins at conception, and proposed the Sanctity of Life Act, which makes him pro-life. He has said he would remove Abortion from the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (via Congrssional vote) and then leave it up to the states. However, because his Sanctity of Life Act would define life as beginning at conception—it would be difficult for a state to vote for abortion to be allowed. A brilliant legal move.
    and no, Ron Paul has never supported a Constitutional Amendment for this. You are lying.

    “If you have the audacity to ADMIT that you’re gay, he thinks you should be kicked out of the military. The ”
    No. Go back and listen to the debate again GE. He said that rights are not defined by what GROUP you belong to. He said if a gay person’s behavior is disruptive, they should be kicked out. But if a straight person’s behavior is disruptive, he should be kicked out too.

  72. globalist_elitist Says:

    He said he supports don’t-ask-don’t-tell. He then danced around the issue, but he said the current policy was working.

    If I’m wrong about the Human Life Amendment, I apologize. But you admit that Ron Paul would remove abortion from the jurisdiction of the states. And as far as removing it from the jurisdiction of the Court, nothing short of a constitutional amendment could do this since the Court has found that a right to an abortion (up to the point of viability) is a CONSTITUTIONAL right. A simple law cannot undue a constitutional right.

  73. Chris Moore Says:

    Ron Paul is definitely against abortion and does not claim otherwise. This is contrary to the views of a majority of Libertarians, as is his immigration policy positions. However, he is not a Libertarian. He is a Republican.

    It is unfair to misconstrue his vote to not federally fund adoptions for gay couples as being anti-gay. However, there is no dancing around the fact that during the debate he specifically said that Don’t-Ask-Don’t-Tell is good policy. Of course, his explanation as paraphrased by Trent completely contradicts his position, unless straight men are discharged from the service when it becomes known that they are heterosexual.

    I also agree with g_e that his mission to rid the world of the Fed is misguided. (BTW, I just read the Fed comic books you suggested and they are pretty good.) However, by comparison on the issues that matter most to me, he is the best Republican presidential candidate. Bill Richardson is the best Democratic candidate. And Steve Kubby is probably the best Libertarian candidate. If all three win their parties nominations, then I will have a tough choice.

  74. globalist_elitist Says:

    Chris Moore: Hey, I believe that Ron Paul is the best Republican too! But don’t worry about him winning the GOP nomination, it is pretty much impossible the way delgates work. Bill Richardson, on the other hand, is a more “legitimate” hopeful.

    I saw Rudy G on Kudlow & Company awhile back, and I liked 100% of what I heard from him. Now I’ve seen him in these debates, and his true totalitarian nature is clear.

    My campaign for the fake presidency: http://www.u4prez.com/index.php?do=rate&act=profile&id=2128

  75. globalist_elitist Says:

    Oh, and by the way: That’s awesome that you got those Fed comics. They are not only informative, they are also (unintentionally) hilarious, don’t you think?

    My campaign for the fake presidency: http://www.u4prez.com/index.php?do=rate&act=profile&id=2128

  76. Chris Moore Says:

    I loved the one set on the island with the little stone dimes. The History of the Fed and the “Too Much, Too Little” one were good, too. They both did a pretty good job of highlighting why commodities make bad money, and why you need a flexible money supply to allow for growth in an economy.

    Of course, the comics would not be a hit with most others here.

    And yes, some of the jokes were so incredibly lame that they were actually really funny.

  77. Andy Says:

    “Chris Moore Says:

    June 15th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
    Ron Paul is definitely against abortion and does not claim otherwise. This is contrary to the views of a majority of Libertarians, as is his immigration policy positions. However, he is not a Libertarian. He is a Republican.”

    Ron Paul’s position on abortion may be contrary to the views of SOME Libertarians, but it is NOT contrary to libertarianism. Libertarianism says that individuals do not have the right to initiate force against others. If life begins at conception then one could make a legitimate arguement that a fetus is an individual that has individual rights and that abortion is murder which is an act of aggression. The whole thing rests on when life begins and when rights begin. There is nothing inconsistent with Ron’s view here even though some Libertarians do not agree that life begins at conception.

    As for immigration, Ron is not against immigration. In fact, Ron is in favor of immigration. What Ron opposes is an invasion. Many of the people posing as immigrants today are not really immigrants, they are invaders. An invader is not a peaceful person.

  78. Andy Says:

    “Trent Hill Says:

    No. Go back and listen to the debate again GE. He said that rights are not defined by what GROUP you belong to. He said if a gay person’s behavior is disruptive, they should be kicked out. But if a straight person’s behavior is disruptive, he should be kicked out too.”

    “globalist_elitist Says:

    June 15th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
    He said he supports don’t-ask-don’t-tell. He then danced around the issue, but he said the current policy was working.”

    Trent hit the nail on the head.

  79. globalist_elitist Says:

    Andy- Hit what nail on the head? Ron Paul supports government discrimination. If you say, “Yes, I am gay,” he thinks it is perfectly “libertarian” to kick you out of the military.

    Ron is only for immigration if the government (not markets!) control it and immigrants who come here are forced to “assimilate,” i.e. conform. He hates individuality, so long as that individuality is expressed in a language other than English.

    My campaign for the fake presidency: http://www.u4prez.com/index.php?do=rate&act=profile&id=2128

  80. Andy Says:

    globalist_elitist Says:

    June 15th, 2007 at 7:08 pm
    “Andy- Hit what nail on the head? Ron Paul supports government discrimination. If you say, ‘Yes, I am gay,’ he thinks it is perfectly ‘libertarian’ to kick you out of the military.”

    The military is a statist organization. In a true anarcho-libertarian society it would not even exsist! As it is now, the military is used in an unconstitutional manner. Why would anyone even want to be in the military?

    “Ron is only for immigration if the government (not markets!) control it and immigrants who come here are forced to “assimilate,” i.e. conform. He hates individuality, so long as that individuality is expressed in a language other than English.”

    Ron recognizes that we’ve got a welfare state of which millions of immigrants take advantage. They have their kids in American hospitals and the bill gets passed on the the tax payers and then the kids get counted as American citizens are get even more tax payer subsidized benifits. If you can’t see that there is a problem with this then there is something wrong with you!

    Also, I recall several weeks back you said that you thought that immigrants entering the country should have to pass through a screening at the border. You mentioned something about taking their finger prints and doing a background check on them. Under your system, what would you do if somebody went around this screening and came in anyway?

  81. Andy Says:

    globalist_elitist Says:

    June 15th, 2007 at 7:08 pm
    “Andy- Hit what nail on the head? Ron Paul supports government discrimination. If you say, ‘Yes, I am gay,’ he thinks it is perfectly ‘libertarian’ to kick you out of the military.”

    Another point here is that gays can serve in the military right now. In fact, I’ve talked to gay people who’ve told me that they were in the military. They just kept being gay on the down low.

    Women are allowed in the military but notice how they don’t stick women in the same living quarters as men. In the military troops often live together in a barracks where they have to shower together. Women are kept seperate from men because if they were put together it would create all kinds of problems with sexual affairs and harrassment and even rapes.

  82. globalist_elitist Says:

    Why would anyone want to be in the military? I don’t know. But I do know that under the 14th amendment, individuals are entitled to equal protection under the law, and equal access to state privelages. Ron Paul does not support the Constitution when it applies to gay people, and you keep dancing around this FACT.

    If someone went around the screening system, per my plan, they would be criminal. It would be a lot easier to catch them if they couldn’t hide amongst the flood of capitalist labor. Check my presidential campaign page.

    http://www.u4prez.com/index.php?do=rate&act=profile&user_id=2128

    But again, you dodge the issue. Ron Paul is concerned about race mixing. The “Balkanization” word is not something I put in his mouth. And if you want to use the welfare state as an excuse for anticapitalist tyranny, then you should definitely be for forced sterilization of black women. Are you?

  83. globalist_elitist Says:

    Andy - You are such a bigot. Why should someone have to deny their individuality? If someone is “disruptive,” that’s fine, but merely saying, “I’m gay” is not disruptive. The homophobic assholes who harrass the gay guy are the ones being disruptive, and THEY should be discharged.

  84. Chris Moore Says:

    Ron Paul’s position on abortion may be contrary to the views of SOME Libertarians, but it is NOT contrary to libertarianism

    I never said his position was contrary to libertarianism (small l). However, his position IS contrary to the platform of the Libertarian Party and a majority of its members. That is not a problem, though, since Ron Paul is a Republican, not a Libertarian.

    Many of the people posing as immigrants today are not really immigrants, they are invaders.

    Please define an “invader”. Nearly every study ever done demonstrates that the majority of illegal immigrants in this country are here to work and contribute to society. See my comments here:

    http://www.lastfreevoice.com/2007/01/04/immigration-and-the-2008-lp-presidential-race/

    Trent hit the nail on the head.

    During the debate Ron Paul specifically said that Don’t-Ask-Don’t-Tell is good policy. Of course, immediately after saying this he completely contradicted this position. Unless straight men are discharged from the service when it becomes known that they are heterosexual, then DADT is discriminatory.

    Overall, I like Ron Paul. I’m glad he is in the race, and I support him for the Republican nomination. But you guys are drinking the Kool-Aid if you think he is the greatest living champion of freedom, and that DADT is not a discriminatory policy.

    At least Bob Barr gets it:

    http://www.bobbarr.org/default.asp?pt=newsdescr&RI=860

  85. Andy Says:

    “globalist_elitist Says:

    June 15th, 2007 at 7:28 pm
    Andy - You are such a bigot. Why should someone have to deny their individuality? If someone is ‘disruptive,’ that’s fine, but merely saying, ‘I’m gay’ is not disruptive. The homophobic assholes who harrass the gay guy are the ones being disruptive, and THEY should be discharged.”

    If sexuality is no big deal then why not have men and women in the same barracks in the military? Why not have men and women showering together in the military?

    “globalist_elitist Says:

    June 15th, 2007 at 7:27 pm
    Why would anyone want to be in the military? I don’t know. But I do know that under the 14th amendment, individuals are entitled to equal protection under the law, and equal access to state privelages. Ron Paul does not support the Constitution when it applies to gay people, and you keep dancing around this FACT.”

    I’m not dancing around any fact. You are getting hyped up over propaganda and bullshit. State marriage licenses should not exsist so therefore there is no need for gays to get state marriage licenses because state “marriages” are not legitimate. A Libertarian friend of mine was married for 8 years (his wife died) and he and his wife never got a state marriage license. Gays should not even want a state marriage license because state marriage licenses are bullshit. The military is bullshit as well. I don’t consider joining the military to have anything to do with advancing the cause of liberty. If anything, gays should WANT to be barred from the military.

  86. globalist_elitist Says:

    Andy’s answer to state discrimination is to say that gays should not want to be in the military or get married. Well, that may be. But the 14th amendment is still in violation, as well as the 1st.

  87. Andy Says:

    “I never said his position was contrary to libertarianism (small l). However, his position IS contrary to the platform of the Libertarian Party and a majority of its members. That is not a problem, though, since Ron Paul is a Republican, not a Libertarian.”

    Ron is still a Life Member of the Libertarian Party and has never renounced his membership. Also, who is to say that pro-abortion Libertarians are not right? Maybe anti-abortion Libertarians like Ron Paul are the ones who are right. Since the subject is so debatable I think that it should be kept off the table when defining who is and who isn’t a libertarian.

    “Please define an ‘invader’. Nearly every study ever done demonstrates that the majority of illegal immigrants in this country are here to work and contribute to society. See my comments here:”

    An invader has one or more of the following characteristics…

    #1) Enters the country and committs crimes (as in “street” criminals who engage in acts of violence, theft, and destruction of property). Many of these so called “immigrants” belong to ethnic based criminal gangs such as MS-13, etc…

    #2) Collects various welfare benifits. Some come here intentionally to do this while others may not have intended to do it but end up doing it anyway. A lot of times the statistics for this do not include the benifits given to the offspring of these so called “immigrants” because they get counted as “Americans citizens”.

    #3) Enters the country and then supports or even lobbies in favor of policies that go against the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. As in supporting things such as government welfare programs, gun control, rent control, global government, financial and/or military aid to the country of their origin, etc…

  88. Andy Says:

    “Overall, I like Ron Paul. I’m glad he is in the race, and I support him for the Republican nomination. But you guys are drinking the Kool-Aid if you think he is the greatest living champion of freedom, and that DADT is not a discriminatory policy.”

    Since Ron is not campaigning on an anarcho-capitalist platform one could say that he is not a purist, however, I think that Ron is about as “pure” as one can get and still have any chance at getting elected.

  89. Andy Says:

    “If someone went around the screening system, per my plan, they would be criminal. It would be a lot easier to catch them if they couldn’t hide amongst the flood of capitalist labor. Check my presidential campaign page.”

    LOL! So under your plan there would be still be illegal immigrants! This exposes you as a HYPOCRITE! LOL!

    “But again, you dodge the issue. Ron Paul is concerned about race mixing. The ‘Balkanization’ word is not something I put in his mouth.”

    The radical La Raza/MECHA crowd has OPENLY announced that they are on a mission to take over a bunch of western states in what they call La Reconquista. They have even talked about a Plan Of San Diego which is to kill all of the non-hispanic men in these states and to rape all of the non-hispanic women. This is not made up, it is a part of the public record. They are actually very racist but people like you deny this. Ron Paul’s concerns about this are justified.

    “And if you want to use the welfare state as an excuse for anticapitalist tyranny, then you should definitely be for forced sterilization of black women. Are you?”

    Funny that you bring up black women being sterilized. You must be a racist.

  90. Andy Says:

    “globalist_elitist Says:

    June 15th, 2007 at 8:14 pm
    Andy’s answer to state discrimination is to say that gays should not want to be in the military or get married. Well, that may be. But the 14th amendment is still in violation, as well as the 1st.”

    Not really, because state marriage licenses violate the Constitution and the way the military gets used violates the Constitution as well.

  91. globalist_elitist Says:

    Not a hypocrite. I want a sensible policy that reflects market realities. Yes, if someone wants to immigrate to the U.S. to blow up the NYSE, I want the bastard nabbed and jailed.

    I don’t deny that La Raza exists or that they are racist collectivists. But they are a flea on our giant nutsac, not something to be feared.

    I brought up black women being sterilized to go with your racist assertion that immigration can be barred in the name of defending the welfare state.

  92. Andy Says:

    “globalist_elitist Says:

    June 15th, 2007 at 8:36 pm
    Not a hypocrite. I want a sensible policy that reflects market realities. Yes, if someone wants to immigrate to the U.S. to blow up the NYSE, I want the bastard nabbed and jailed.”

    This is along the same lines as what Ron Paul proposes. Ron Paul is not trying to cut off all immigration. Ron does not even want to cut off all immigration from Mexico. For you to imply that he does is dishonest. It is also quite hypocritical of you to get on this “open immigration” high horse and then advocate having immigration check points.

    “I don’t deny that La Raza exists or that they are racist collectivists. But they are a flea on our giant nutsac, not something to be feared.”

    The threat is a lot bigger than you make it out to be. You are minimizing this threat because if you properly acknowledge it, it pokes a hole in your fantasy bubble.

    “I brought up black women being sterilized to go with your racist assertion that immigration can be barred in the name of defending the welfare state.”

    But why did you specifically bring up black women? Maybe you should change your screen name to undercover_racist.

  93. Chris Moore Says:

    Enters the country and committs crimes

    Only about 0.7% of all immigrants are incarcerated for committing a crime, which is significantly lower than the rate for natives (1.7%).
    Source: http://www.ailf.org/ipc/special_report/sr_feb07.shtml

    Collects various welfare benifits. Some come here intentionally to do this while others may not have intended to do it but end up doing it anyway.

    Working-age immigrants participate in welfare programs at rates similar to working-age natives. More telling: immigrants with incomes below the poverty line are less likely to participate in welfare programs than natives with incomes below the poverty line. And even more telling: there is no reputable evidence that prospective immigrants are drawn to the U.S. because of its public assistance programs.
    Source: http://www.immigration-usa.com/immigrants_and_welfare.html

    Enters the country and then supports or even lobbies in favor of policies that go against the Declaration of Independence and Constitution.

    Considering illegal immigrants cannot vote, who cares. Also, considering a large majority of natives support the very things you list, what exactly is your point?

    Your position is based on false premises that are not supported by evidence. I’ve presented some of this evidence before, yet you keep spouting off the same provable lies without referencing your sources.

  94. globalist_elitist Says:

    Check points for security; but NO LIMITS. No quotas. And no forced conformity.

    Are you so daft as to not understand the anti-capitalist aspects of Paul’s plan vs. mine? He wants quotas and limits so that the government sets how many gardeners and engineers we need, instead of markets. That’s Soviet Russia style! He wants to force conformity through a national language and forced assimilation.

    I specifically brought up black women to dovetail nicely with your racism. Duh. You make no sense.

  95. globalist_elitist Says:

    Oh, and also because it is part of the agenda of your fellow Ron Paul supporter, David Duke.

  96. Gene Trosper Says:

    I suppose this could be an example of the “Balkanization” some people here have been discussing: http://www.city-journal.org/html/eon2007-06-13jl.html

  97. Trent Hill Says:

    =Chris Moore, your stats were for immigration, not illegal immigration.
    Look at the stats on Illegals in California prisons.

    “However, there is no dancing around the fact that during the debate he specifically said that Don’t-Ask-Don’t-Tell is good policy. Of course, his explanation as paraphrased by Trent completely contradicts his position, unless straight men are discharged from the service when it becomes known that they are heterosexual.”

    =Here is EXACTLY what Ron Paul said.
    “I think the current policy is a decent one. The real problem is that we see people as groups instead of individuals. We don’t have rights as gays or women or minorities; we receive our rights from our Creator as individuals. If homosexual behaviour in the military is disruptive it should be dealt with; but if heterosexual behaviour in the military is disruptive it should be dealt with too. Apply the same standards to everybody.”

    You see what he said there? Apply the SAME standards to everybody. He supports the “Dont Ask—Dont Tell” policy because no one SHOULD ask, and no one should tell. It isnt the governments business wether Jimmy Sniperface is gay or straight, as long as he can frag the enemy and doesnt have a mental or physical defect.

  98. globalist_elitist Says:

    Trent - More bigotry on your part. It’s not just about literally “asking” or “telling.” Married couples can live on bases together. Gay couples—including those legally married in Mass., etc.—CANNOT. A hetero soldier can kiss his wife or another chick when he’s out at a bar with his army buddies. A gay dude doing the same (kissing another dude, of course) would be kicked out.

    Oh, and by the way: Knappster has blown the fucking lid off the Ron Paul the Racist story. I can’t believe you guys had me entertaining the notion of tacidly supporting him.

    http://knappster.blogspot.com/2007/06/wow-just-wow.html

  99. globalist_elitist Says:

    So much for Ron Paul “The INdividualist”—Give me a fucking break. He talks about “professional blacks,” “elites,” “the gras roots” (i.e. the prolliteriat), and on and on and on before making a race-based generalization on individuals’ criminality.

    I cannot wait for the racist-tolerant CPers and right-wing Libertarians to defend this shit. I gave Ron Paul an honest chance, but there is no way he or anyone else can explain this one away.

  100. George Phillies Says:

    Apparently some of you don’t understand the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy very clearly.

    If any of the armed forces learns that one of their people is gay or lesbian, that person is immediately subject to discharge from the service. The DADT policy means that there are not supposed to be inquiries made to determine if someone is GLB (overlooking T is a bit hard to interpret as a rules application). However, once the armed forces find out. the involved person is out. This issue recently cost us a significant number of our English-Arabic translators.

    The current policy is homophobic and bigoted, and inappropriate for an American Army in the 21st century.

  101. Trent Hill Says:

    Old news.

    “Taken from the Ron Paul Political Report, 1120 NASA Blvd., Suite 104,
    Houston, TX 77058 for $50 per year. Call 1-800-766-7285.”

    The Ron Paul Political Report which was not actually WRITTEN by Ron Paul. The Staffer who DID write it was fired.
    http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=41721

    These are Ron Paul’s own words on Racism.
    “The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity. In a free market, businesses that discriminate lose customers, goodwill, and valuable employees - while rational businesses flourish by choosing the most qualified employees and selling to all willing buyers. More importantly, in a free society every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Rather than looking to government to correct what is essentially a sin of the heart, we should understand that reducing racism requires a shift from group thinking to an emphasis on individualism.”
    Furthermore, if you are a student of Ron Paul (as many of us RP supporters are) you can read through Ron Paul’s writings and then read through this writing and CLEARLY see the difference in writing styles.
    Knapp should have done some REAL journalism before spouting this stupid shit.

  102. Andy Says:

    “You see what he said there? Apply the SAME standards to everybody. He supports the ‘Dont Ask—Dont Tell’ policy because no one SHOULD ask, and no one should tell. It isnt the governments business wether Jimmy Sniperface is gay or straight, as long as he can frag the enemy and doesnt have a mental or physical defect.”

    Well said Trent.

  103. globalist_elitist Says:

    Okay. I will admit that I jumped to conclusions. When I saw this posted at Knappster, I assumed (my fault) it was a more recent statement. I did not know it had been disavowed. BUT STILL, this is bad. Still this is just another bit of evidence—the most damning, still—in the Ron Paul is a racist trial. And it still bugs me that you guys defend and tolerate it.

    Andy - You are a bigot if you think DADT is legitimate. A hetero can ask, tell, kiss a girl, etc. A gay guy can do none of the above. People are discharged not for giving rimjobs in the barracks, but for BEING who they are. If Ron Paul were not an anti-gay bigot/ count on the votes of those who were, he would say DADT is bad policy, and then go on to make the exact statement he made. Then again, that probably would have pissed off David Duke.

  104. Andy Says:

    “globalist_elitist Says:

    June 16th, 2007 at 10:17 pm
    Okay. I will admit that I jumped to conclusions.”

    GE jumps to a conclusion without looking at the facts. Gee, this is suprising…NOT!

    “When I saw this posted at Knappster, I assumed (my fault) it was a more recent statement. I did not know it had been disavowed. BUT STILL, this is bad. Still this is just another bit of evidence—the most damning, still—in the Ron Paul is a racist trial.”

    This “evidence” was DISCREDITED years ago. This is nothing more than some people grasping at straws in a lame attempt to hurt the best Congressman that this country has had in many decades - maybe ever - and the man who is doing more to spread the message of liberty and constitutionally restrained government than ANYBODY else right now.

    “And it still bugs me that you guys defend and tolerate it.”

    It bugs me that you engage in these “sky is falling” “witch hunt” like smear tactics.

  105. Andy Says:

    Funny that there is this talk about Ron Paul supposedly being this horrible “racist” but yet Ron Paul has been endorsed by economist Walter Williams. NOTE THAT WALTER WILLIAMS IS BLACK!

    http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/

    http://digg.com/political_opinion/Walter_Williams_endorses_Ron_Paul_for_President

    Ron Paul has stated in the past that he’d like to have Walter Williams as a Vice Presidential running mate.

    Walter Williams possible Vice Presidential running mate for Ron Paul
    http://thepeople4ronpaul.blogspot.com/2007/06/walter-e-williams.html

  106. Andy Says:

    ̶