Phillies responds to revelation about Barr contributions

UPDATE: As the headline states, this is a release from George Phillies. I just received an email from Steve Gordon that some people thought this was from me. I am not a Presidential candidate, and I am not the chair of the LP of Massachusetts, so I’m not sure how these good folks got confused. My apologies for the confusion nevertheless; I hope this clarifies it sufficiently.

A polite difference with a fellow candidate

We’re Libertarians. There is no issue we all agree upon, except perhaps how we spell our party’s name.

It’s not surprising, then, that sometimes some members of our party will support an isolated Democrat. Or a lone Republican.

If you are an LNC member, your burden is more severe. You made a commitment to your fellow Libertarians. You ran for our office so you could leverage your time and energy to build a stronger Libertarian Party. If you instead spent your time building an opposing party, you are not doing what you implicitly promised.

I’m state chair of LPMass, the Libertarian Party of Massachusetts. I’ve worked vigorously to revive my state’s Libertarian Party. Our State Committee is now meeting monthly. Our State newsletter is now appearing monthly. We’ve revived fundraising. I’ve committed thousands of dollars of my own money for our Presidential ballot access campaign.

You may rest assured, I haven’t given a Democrat or a Republican a dime or a minute.

And I’m a Presidential candidate. When I identify my political beliefs, I say I’m a Libertarian.

Here we come to one of my differences with LNC member Bob Barr, who I view as a friend.

While on the LNC, Bob Barr has also been the champion of the Bob Barr Leadership PAC. Since the start of 2007, his PAC has raised more than a million dollars. That’s very impressive. Now, raising that money was expensive. Much of it went to general expenses.

But when Bob Barr PAC money went since the start of 2007 to individual political candidates, it largely went to Republicans. And that means?

If I’m your nominee this Summer, that means I hope to be in Georgia to campaign with Libertarian Senate Candidate Allen Buckley. His opponent Saxby Chambliss received $3,500 from Bob Barr’s PAC.

I hope to be in New Hampshire to campaign with Libertarian Senate Candidate Ken Blevens. His opponent John Sununu received $3,000 from Bob Barr’s PAC.

I hope to be in Virginia to campaign with Libertarian Senate Candidate Bill Redpath. The Gilmore for Senate campaign received $1,000 from Bob Barr’s PAC.

I hope to be in North Carolina to campaign with Libertarian Congressional Candidate Thomas Hill. His opponent Robin Hayes received $1,000 from Bob Barr’s PAC.

I hope to be in Texas to campaign with Libertarian Congressional Candidate Ken Ashby. His opponent Jeb Hensarling received $3,500 from Bob Barr’s PAC.

I hope to be in Idaho to campaign with Libertarian Senate Candidate Kent Marmon. His erstwhile opponent, Larry Craig, dropped out, but not before he received $1,000 from Bob Barr’s PAC.

That’s Republicans who have a Libertarian opponent. Bob Barr supported a longer list of Republicans who don’t yet face Libertarian opposition.

The longer list matters, too.

When you donate to a candidate, your money counts twice. It counts once for that candidate. It counts again for the candidate’s party. When I invest money in my campaign, I am building our Libertarian Party. And when Bob Barr through his PAC invested in Republican candidates, he was building up the Republican Party.

And that leads to the question. What do we want and expect from a Presidential candidate?

I urge you to consider: We only get one Presidential campaign every four years. It’s your decision.

103 Responses to “Phillies responds to revelation about Barr contributions”

  1. Trent Hill Says:

    Frankly—I find Bob Barr’s support for the Republican establishment players—pretty pathetic.

    Supporting Paul sure. Or maybe Walter Jones,yea.

    But he supported 6 different candidates, all neo-cons or big-government republicans, who were facing candidates from his own party…

  2. SovereignMN Says:

    One of Phillies best statements, IMHO.

  3. NewFederalist Says:

    I wonder if Root is laying odds that Barr does NOT get the nomination? I would like a piece of that action! He is toast (to quote David F. Nolan) in view of his weak performance at his coronation ceremony.

  4. George Phillies Says:

    Trent,

    Not meant at all as a correction, but to emphasize something that you I infer noticed and others may not have considered.

    That’s the list of Republican candidates with Libertarian opponents. There’s also a longer list of Republican candidates (and, it appears, a Democrat) who do not have Libertarian opponents.

    George

  5. Westmiller Says:

    The only problem with this critique is the assumption that Bob Barr controls the ‘Bob Barr Leadership PAC’, which may not be the case.
    PACs have a Board of Directors that decide on the allocation of funds and they may all be Barr friends, or loyal Republicans, acting quite independent of Barr’s wishes. I’ve written the PAC for clarification, but have received no response yet.
    I was surprised to discover, late in the campaign, that Ron Paul did not control the ‘Ron Paul for President Committee’, its assets, nor its policies.
    Until I hear from the Barr PAC Treasurer, I won’t assume that these were in any way under Barr’s directive.

  6. Paulie Says:

    If you hear from the PAC Treasurer, please let us know.

  7. Fred C. Says:

    “I am not a Presidential candidate, and I am not the chair of the LP of Massachusetts, so I’m not sure how these good folks got confused.”

    Those of us with endless free time to watch this site would know that, but someone just passing through on a referral from say, Google News, might not be so up to date on who’s who.

  8. Paulie Says:

    Fair enough. I guess “Phillies responds” and “Paulie responds” look about the same when you are speed reading.

  9. Ross Says:

    Westmiller - why set up the PAC then? Why have it set up as a PAC? Why not just donate to certain candidates, or some other arrangement that wouldn’t be counterproductive to what you stand for and the party you are part of?

  10. George Phillies Says:

    The PAC did a mailing this year with a Barr signature. Ms. Hogarth posted the scan. There is an assertion that the mailing used older envelopes, but there was no assertion that Barr’s name was being used improperly.

    Also, this is a Leadership PAC. The FEC regulation governing Leadership PACs says specifically:

    “Leadership PAC

    Leadership PACs, sometimes called personal PACs, are non-connected political action committees that serve the political interests of a member of Congress . The FEC has allowed federal officeholders to sponsor leadership PACs in addition to their official campaign committees. Leadership PACs may accept hard money contributions of up to $5,000 per year. ”

    No matter the board, the legal status is rather clear.

    The notion that Ron Paul did not control in fact control his own campaign committee, whatever the legalisms of the corporation, seems to show a great deal of faith. Or was that an unauthorized committee? That’s no significant. He we have a Leadership PAC, whose impressive donation limit corresponds to the fact that it exists to “serve the political interests of a member of Congress” and is not an independent PAC (or, as the FEC defines it:

    Non-connected PAC

    Non-connected PACs, also known as independent PACs, are political action committees not officially affiliated with another entity. Unlike connected PACs, they must pay their set-up, administration, and solicitation expenses out of the contributions they receive.)

  11. Donny Ferguson Says:

    The contributions to Saxby Chambliss were all made in and prior to September of 2007. Buckley didn’t announce until October. No contributions to Chambliss since.

    Sununu’s was made in June of 2007. The earliest mentions of Blevens’ 2008 campaign I can find started in July. No money since then.

    And for Gilmore, in May and December of 2007, before Bill announced he was running.

    Jeb Hensarling? Also over a year ago.

    Larry’s Craig’s donation was also a May 2007 transaction, LONG before Marmon announced for the GOP primary, dropped out, and then joined the LP.

    Shame on George Phillies for misrepresenting this by making it look like the contributions came AFTER the Libertarian announced. I notice Phillies also made sure he didn’t mention the $3,000 to Bob Smither and the $9,500.00 donated to the LNC.

  12. Paulie Says:

    The contributions to Saxby Chambliss were all made in and prior to September of 2007. Buckley didn’t announce until October. No contributions to Chambliss since.

    http://lastfreevoice.wordpress.com/2008/05/09/bob-barr-an-enemy-of-libertarians/

    Article by ElfNinosMom

    Bob Barr supported
    05/08/07 Saxby Chambliss for Senate $ 500
    06/22/07 Saxby Chambliss for Senate $1000
    09/28/07 Saxby Chambliss for Senate $1000
    01/07/08 Saxby Chambliss for Senate $1000

    George and others can argue about the rest if they wish.

    We report, you decide.

  13. Michael Seebeck Says:

    Excellent release, makes the point clearly and concisely and consistently.

    I especially like the idea of George indicating that he will work with these local (relatively speaking) candidate on co-campainging. George, can we also presume that means helping in some local party-buildign efforts when you do? (Big hint to those areas: DAMN STRAIGHT! When the Presidential candidate comes to town, an Outreach Booth and Rally are a minimal necessity!)

    Well done.

  14. Fred C. Says:

    So, how does Barr no longer being a member of congress fit into that? I would think that if the definition used by the FEC was binding in that all its contributions were to “serve the political interests of a member of Congress”, it would be binding in all parts of that sentence, and these things would be dissolved whenever someone loses incumbency. Is there another rule that qualifies this one?

    That definition also doesn’t answer who makes the calls or under what circumstances, and if Westmiller’s right then it seems pretty reasonable that members of the board might still be in the business of funding Republicans over Libertarians regardless of it’s main attraction’s new leanings. I’ve got to move this from the “baggage” category to “questionable” until more details are presented.

  15. George Phillies Says:

    Many Libertarian Parties routinely run candidates for United States Senate. The Libertarian Party of New Hampshire has routinely run a U.S. Senate candidate, for example in 2002, 1998, 1996, 1992, and 1990 (they missed 2004). Any reasonable man would have expected them to have a U.S. Senate candidate in 2008. “They don’t have a candidate yet’ is not a legitimate defense.

    The fact that the LPNH Senate candidate did not announce two years in advance is not even marginally surprising. My own State’s U.S. Senate candidate, Robert J. Underwood, did not declare until quite recently.You may rest assured that if I, wearing my state chair hat, found that Bob’s Republican opponent was being funded by the Bob Barr Leadership PAC that my response would be considerably less restrained than what I have said here.

    So let’s look at the complete list of Senate incumbents that that Leadership PAC supported in 2007 and 2008, and what they stood for at the time. Remember, these are Senate incumbents being supported by the Leadership PAC of a sitting member of the Libertarian National Committee so you might expect the candidates to take libertarian positions. Here are six fairly significant votes and how Barr Leadership PAC supportees voted.

    The votes:

    a S 1927: allows for the warrantless monitoring of virtually any form of communication originating in the United States. YES OPPOSES LIBERTY

    b Vote 181: On the Motion: Fund the war YES OPPOSES PEACE

    c Vote 126: H R 1591: calls for combat troops to begin withdrawing from Iraq this summer. NO OPPOSES PEACE

    d Vote 189: S J RES 12: proposed constitutional amendment to ban ‘desecration of the American flag.’ YES OPPOSES LIBERTY

    e Vote 163: On the Cloture Motion: A Senate cloture vote on the gay marriage amendment YES OPPOSES LIBERTY

    f Vote 29: H R 3199: Reauthorized a slightly modified version of the 2001 USA Patriot Act. YES OPPOSES LIBERTY

    (data courtesy the Washington post. I list the antilibertarian votes and point out the 6 of 54 libertarian-oriented voted we obtained.)

    Saxby Chambliss Georgia a, b, c, d, e, f
    Norm Coleman Minnesota a, c, d, e, f . He VOTED WITH US ON b
    Larry Craig Idaho a, b, c, d, e, f
    Lindsey Graham South Carolina a, b, c, d, e, f
    Hagel for Senate a, b, d, f. HE VOTED WITH US ON c AND e
    Jeff Sessions Alabama a, b, c, d, e, f
    Gordon Smith for US Senate Committee a, b, d, e, f. HE VOTED WITH US ON c
    Arlen Specter a, b, c, d, f. HE VOTED WITH US ON e
    Team Sununu New Hampshire a, b, c, d, f. HE VOTED WITH US ON e

    My own senior U.S. Senator, Teddy Kennedy, who many readers would not think of as being a libertarian, was closer to the libertarian position than any of these men. Indeed, he was right half the time.

  16. George Phillies Says:

    Michael, you ask
    George, can we also presume that means helping in some local party-building efforts when you do?

    My campaign is already circulating (several hundred copies out there already) our reprint of the libertarian Candidate Campaign Disk, given for free to Real Libertarian candidates and their staffs, filled with all sorts of useful material. Contact me for your free copy. I am already sending Press releases on a regular basis to 17,000 media contacts across America, including contacts in lots of home towns. My Adwords and Facebook ad campaigns have put out 27,000,000+ impressions, with point ads like “Vote Libertarian! Keep Uncle Sam out of your pocketbook and your bedroom”. That’s all party building. If nominated, I hope to do far more. For example, if the money appears, it would be good to sponsor launches of libertarian meetup groups in places currently lacking them.

    Fred, I do not see a rule that leads to the rational consequences you sensibly expected.

    It would appear that you cannot use someone’s signature, representing an appeal for FEC-compliant funds, as coming from them personally, without their permission. For an FEC-filing committee, there would be real legal issues related to coordinated and uncoordinated committees. For that reason, a George Phillies unconnected committee could use my name, representing ‘we are here to help George Phillies’, but those had to be uncoordinated expenditures, meaning that they could not circulate a letter signed by me ‘please send money to the zeppelin committee to fly the George Phillies zeppelin”.

    The actual signature block on the envelope reads “My friend, conservative Republicans like you and me must join together to combat Hillary Clinton and her left-wing cronies. Please let me hear from you in the next 14 days.—Bob Barr.” (a signature follows.) There’s also the letter inside.

  17. Michael Seebeck Says:

    George, that’s the kind of stuff that needs to be done. I like it.

  18. Kenny Says:

    This is VERY serious. Barr has just lost my support. I gave him the benefit of the doubt on several issues. However, it is simply impossible to run a PAC that donates to GOP candidates’ campaigns and then seek the LP nomination. It’s Ruwart for me!!

  19. Raoul Duke Says:

    BobbarrisdoingFOXandCNNwhilephilliesarguesonTPW.

    thisisfuckingchoice.

  20. Steve LaBianca Says:

    Donny Ferguson Says:
    May 13th, 2008 at 5:28 pm

    The contributions to Saxby Chambliss were all made in and prior to September of 2007. Buckley didn’t announce until October. No contributions to Chambliss since.

    Sununu’s was made in June of 2007. The earliest mentions of Blevens’ 2008 campaign I can find started in July. No money since then.

    And for Gilmore, in May and December of 2007, before Bill announced he was running.

    Jeb Hensarling? Also over a year ago.

    The problem with Donny’s analysis is that as an LNC rep, IF ANYTHING Barr should have been RECRUITING candidates for these offices, or at least INQUIRING as to whether there were any Libertarian candidates interested in running. THEN, he could have supported these Libertarians financially.

    Let’s face it . . . Barr has many ties to the Republican Party, and has had trouble cutting them. I’m not saying he should burn his bridges, but he should have put some distance between himself and Republicans, when joining the LP.

    This is just one more bit of evidence that he, like W.A.R. have never really made that transition over to libertarianism, nor the Libertarian Party.

    P.S. It is obvious that W.A.R. and his supporters have been very quiet since Barr’s announcement . . . they are secure in the idea that Barr will ruin his chances of getting the LP nomination, all by himself!

    Contrast the “Barr” approach that W.A.R. is using (silence), with the attacks on Mary Ruwart . . . W.A.R. knows that Mary’s support is very wide AND very solid, so he felt the necessity to attack. It will be interesting to see his ultimate response in Denver. My guess is that these two will be badly bruised by the time the delegate voting takes place.

    With Russo and Nolan bruising each other, culminating in the bad blood being shown at the Atlanta convention, Badnarik won the nomination. I am seeing the same scenario potentially playing out here, with Mary winning the nomination this year.

  21. Paulie Says:

    P.S. It is obvious that W.A.R. and his supporters have been very quiet since Barr’s announcement [...] Contrast the “Barr” approach that W.A.R. is using (silence), with the attacks on Mary Ruwart

    I could be wrong here, but I don’t think they happened the day after she announced.

  22. Steve LaBianca Says:

    No Paulie, they didn’t. But Barr has been “semi announced” for 5 weeks. This isn’t quite the same. Plus we are getting much closer to the convention, the time is getting short, and information is getting out about Barr now.

    As I said, it will be interesting how the two “Republicans”, Barr and W.A.R. will approach each other from this point through to the delegate voting. My crystal ball says, W.A.R. and Barr will be damaged goods”. We shall see if my crystal ball is tuned up!

  23. C. Al Currier Says:

    Bob barr is doing FOX and CNN while phillies argues on TPW.
    ...Raoul Duke Says

    The LP delegates going to Denver will likely be more persuaded by this dumb TPW site than the dumb MSM sites (like FOX & CNN).

  24. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Aside from the obvious—Libertarian Party “leaders” shouldn’t be supporting Republican candidates—any support, ever, for evil loathsome chickenhawk slimeball asshat Saxby Chambliss is (or at least should be) just downright personally offensive to any American who has ever served in uniform. So far as I am concerned, a campaign contribution to Chambliss is the functional equivalent to a donation to al Qaeda.

  25. jonathan Says:

    If you find Jesus Christ let me know other than him you won’t find a perfect candidate, but Barr is more conservative than McCain, believes in protecting civil liberties, protect our freedoms, believes in less government not a nanny state and is willing to drill for oil. That’s good enough for me. The Republicans are scared of Bob which tells me a lot and I love it
    If you don’t find Jesus please donate to www.bobbarr2008.com

  26. Paulie Says:

    Barr is more conservative than McCain,

    I was looking to nominate a libertarian.

    BTW - what happened to your support for Nader?

  27. Kenny Says:

    Jonathan wrote “Barr is more conservative than McCain”. But the LP is selecting a libertarian, not conservative, candidate. If Bob wants to be a conservative President, he should seek the GOP nomination in 2012.

  28. Steve LaBianca Says:

    Aw hell Martha, if that guy Gus runnin’ for sheriff stops those hoodlums from hangin’ out at the grocery store, I’m votin’ for ‘im! Gawd dang if I care that he’s pickin’ up teenage hitch hikers an’ beatin’ the livin’ crap out of em!

    Support something like that Jonathan?

  29. jonathan Says:

    I support all Third Party candidates that can hurt the establishment and open up the corrupt political system. In this case I believe that Barr can do the most damage. Nader made an error in judgement not running for the Green Party nomination and he is too anti-Israel for my taste. Nader is going after the moslem and arab vote and I don’t blame him being a Lebanese American. There are 9 million in America and he is going after it. Although I voted for Nader twice already I will cast my vote for Barr.

  30. jonathan Says:

    The word conservative in this connotation means less government spending, and more personal freedoms. Both are Libertarian principles.

  31. Ross Says:

    Anti-Israel? Nader isn’t anti-Israel. He’s pro-human rights, in any situation…

  32. Paulie Says:

    The word conservative in this connotation means less government spending, and more personal freedoms. Both are Libertarian principles.

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conservative

    I see nothing supporting your definition of conservative.

    I see things like:

    disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.

    traditional in style or manner; avoiding novelty

    Mathematics. (of a vector or vector function) having curl equal to zero; irrotational; lamellar.

    Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.

    Moderate; cautious

    One favoring traditional views and values.

    as a modern political tradition, conservatism traces to Edmund Burke’s opposition to the Fr. Revolution (1790), but the word conservative is not found in his writing.

    resistant to change

    unimaginatively conventional

    a person who is reluctant to accept changes and new ideas

    a bourgeois mentality

    ETC

  33. jonathan Says:

    Listen I love Nader, I voted for him twice and gave thousands to his campaign over the years, but ofcourse he is anti -Israel and in this campaign he has made it very clear. He is the only fool to congratulate commend and endorse Jimmy Carter for going to talk to Hamas. I won’t go on and try to convinve you. That’s like trying to convinve someone the Sun is yellow. If you don’t see it , there is nothing I can do to make you see it.

  34. jonathan Says:

    wow you can copy and paste all you want , but I used it to express Barr’s position on government spending and his fight for personal freedoms.
    Much the same way it used by all the media when talking politics.

  35. Ross Says:

    There’s a difference between anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian. I see Nader as both pro-Palestinian and pro-Israel.

    Just because he doesn’t agree with the top US officials or the top Israeli officials about how to handle the situation in Israel, doesn’t mean that he’s anti-Israel.

    I’m Jewish, just in case you were wondering…

  36. jonathan Says:

    so you are a self hating Jew my friend

  37. Paulie Says:

    his fight for personal freedoms.

    Oh?

    > *...Mr. Barr said he still opposes abortion and the legalization or
    > decriminalization of drugs, just as he did as a federal prosecutor
    during
    > the Reagan administration and as a Republican in the U.S. House.*
    >

    > Some Libertarians hold the opposite view…
    >

    > *********
    >

    >
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080513/NATION/778957
    938/1002&template=printart
    >

    > Article published May 13, 2008
    > Barr to woo Libertarian base for funds

    Granted, abortion is a contentious issue in the LP.

    But “still opposes abortion and the legalization or decriminalization of drugs, just as he did as a federal prosecutor during the Reagan administration and as a Republican in the U.S. House.”?

    Much the same way it used by all the media when talking politics.

    LOL. Please back that one up. This, I’d love to hear.

  38. Paulie Says:

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080513/NATION/778957938/1002&template=printart

  39. disinter Says:

    Good stuff Phillies, you should be congratulated.

    Now, if only you didn’t support government mandated equality (socialism) you would be a more appealing candidate.

  40. Jim Lesczynski Says:

    If you find Jesus Christ let me know other than him you won’t find a perfect candidate

    America isn’t ready for a Jewish president.

  41. jonathan Says:

    Paulie what are you going to do when Bob Barr wins the Libertarian nomination?
    Oh that’s right you can’t vote yet you are not 18 years old yet.
    But seriously do you honsetly believe you are going to get a candidate with no skeletons, who has never put his foot in his mouth or agree with every single issue?
    Do you understand that a Party is a big tent no matter what Party it may be and it holds diverse points of views, that’s what makes a Party great, that’s what makes America great. Do you think all Republicans hold the same points of view on all issues? or the Democrats or the Greens?

  42. Ross Says:

    “so you are a self hating Jew my friend”

    Oh, come on. This is ridiculous.

  43. Paulie Says:

    Paulie what are you going to do when Bob Barr wins the Libertarian nomination?

    Great way to dodge, Jonathan.

    Much the same way it used by all the media when talking politics.

    LOL. Please back that one up. This, I’d love to hear.

    What will I do if Barr wins?

    I don’t know yet. We’ll see. Probably help him get on the ballot, along with Baldwin and McKinney.

    Likely focus more of my energy on a non-partisan libertarian project or two.

    Maybe (very outside chance) try to influence his campaign from within.

    Maybe start Libertarians for McKinney (even more outside chance).

    Maybe try to make the Boston Tea Party a real party (ditto).

    What will you do if Ruwart or Kubby win?

    Oh that’s right you can’t vote yet you are not 18 years old yet.

    I’ll be eighteen twice over a week from today.

    I don’t see how the rest of your comment applies to me, so I’ll skip it.

  44. Jake Featherston Says:

    I think its very legitimate for Bob Barr to support those Republicans who are considered allies by the Republican Liberty Caucus (I’m pretty sure Sununu is one of those, and Larry Craig used to be, although I’m not sure about some of those others, especially Jim Gilmore). Some of these people may have won his support for personal reasons, rather than strictly ideological ones. Still, I’d like to see a list of the Libertarians to whom Bob Barr gave money. That clearly matters too.

    I’ll readily admit Bob Barr isn’t perfect, but then only getting 400,000 votes ain’t exacly perfect either. Is a slight compromise that enables the LP to get maybe a couple million votes, and hopefully win the credit for spoiling this election for neo-”conservative” stooge John McInsane, really worth it? Of course it is!

  45. jonathan Says:

    You’ve earned my respect Paulie with your last response.
    Have a good night my friend .

  46. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Paulie,

    You write:

    “Maybe try to make the Boston Tea Party a real party (ditto).”

    Apparently the guys to whom I handed the keys are trying to do that right now. They’ve reconstituted its national committee, now have four chartered state affiliates (NY, PA, NJ and TN), have a public meeting planned in conjunction with the LP’s national convention, and are considering running a presidential candidate.

    It’s not outside the realm of possibility that there will be a Boston Tea Party ballot line in one or more states this fall.

  47. Paulie Says:

    I may join them. We’ll see.

  48. mdh Says:

    Ross,
    Welcome to TPW. If you think that’s ridiculous, wait till you meet Dondero.

  49. Fred Church Ortiz Says:

    I never thought I’d see someone using “Jake Featherston” as their handle linking to blogs pushing Obama…

  50. Former LP Life Member Says:

    After a torrent of insults about Ruth Bennett, disinter said:

    Email me if you want juicy details.

    I have asked disinter to send me the details, but he apparently has none.

    I assume he will now make additional posts quoting himself and continue to provide no backup for his claims.

    I used to respect disinter’s comments, but he appears to be just another Joe McCarthy.

  51. Andy Says:

    jonathan,

    Honest criticism does not make you anti-something. I guess anyone who doesn’t give Israel a blank check like our government must be anti-Israel.

    Why wouldn’t you commend Carter for talking to Hamas? How do you find peace if you don’t talk to your enemies? The sad part is he had to perform the job our government should be doing.

    Other than that, this further proves Barr is a joke

  52. Ross Says:

    mdh - The person I like more than Dondero is the woman who calls him “dumbdildo”...

  53. disinter Says:

    I have asked disinter to send me the details, but he apparently has none.

    I have responded to everyone that has actually emailed me.

    And I really don’t give a rat’s ass if you respect me, or my comments, or not.

  54. Red Phillips Says:

    I’m not even a Libertarian, and I agree with Trent. This is lame. I bet Chuck Baldwin didn’t give to any pro-War Republicans.

  55. disinter Says:

    I’m not even a Libertarian, and I agree with Trent.

    Neither is Trent.

  56. darolew Says:

    Y’know, I’ve become less and less enthusiastic about Barr all the time. At first I thought it it would be neat to have an LP candidate with a fair amount of name recognition, but now I see that Barr keeps supporting anti-liberty positions. Ron Paul was far more principled, and he’s a sitting Republican.

    While I doubt any other candidate would have a chance of getting more than half a million votes, I’m not sure it’s worth it. No matter what, the LP isn’t going to get much press attention. Might as well be, well you know, the party of principle.

  57. disinter Says:

    No matter what, the LP isn’t going to get much press attention. Might as well be, well you know, the party of principle.

    I agree.

  58. Former LP Life Member Says:

    To disinter:

    I asked for your email address. It is pretty silly to offer to send something to people who email you, but you won’t publish your email address here or on your blog. I asked you on your blog comments and also five times here.

    Are you saying you will only send it to people you know who know your email address?

    But now you say you don’t give a shit, so you don’t have to back up your claims.

  59. Trent Hill Says:

    disinter,

    Paleoconservative with heavily libertarian leanings.
    As for being a Libertarian—-no.
    Some have called me “libertarian” though.

    Still—Bob Barr indescretions here are rediculous.

  60. Stefan Says:

    Record of Bob Barr’s personal contributions to politicians and political institutions:

    www.newsmeat.com/washington_political_donations/Bob_Barr.php

    He has not contributed a dime to any Republican since being a member of the LP and I think he has contributed to an LP candidate in 2006 even before joining the LP (I am not sure at which date in 2006 he joined, I think it was more late 2006).

    Dr. Phillies has also contributed to a Republican, as one can see on newsmeat, perhaps before he joined the LP?

  61. disinter Says:

    Are you saying you will only send it to people you know who know your email address?

    Duh!

  62. Stefan Says:

    Dr. Phillies:
    You have contributed to a Republican Ilana Freedman in 2002 while you have already been a member of the Libertarian Party since 1992 at least, or a decade before this. Makes one think, doesn’t it…..

  63. Jose C. Says:

    “Good stuff Phillies, you should be congratulated.

    Now, if only you didn’t support government mandated equality (socialism) you would be a more appealing candidate.”

    I guess if this is so than it also applies to Ed Clark who in 1980 in his position paper on education called for tuition tax credits.

  64. Red Phillips Says:

    “Neither is Trent.”

    disinter, I know that.

  65. Stefan Says:

    dister:
    “Good stuff Phillies, you should be congratulated.
    Now, if only you didn’t support government mandated equality (socialism) you would be a more appealing candidate”

    Yes, he often says one should not go for Republican-lite (with which he probably refers to Root and Barr). Well, one can also say then one should not go for Democratic-lite (Phillies and Gravel?).

    Personally I find this past history issues nonsensical. Anybody should be allowed a “deviation” and should also be accepted that one can change on a few issues based on better insight. This is not flip-flopping, but more real progress. Of course one can have regress as well (like Bush in 2000 debate preaching against “nation-building”, only to start imposing it 2,3 years later…that is REAL
    regress!).

  66. Michael Seebeck Says:

    Jose, please tell us how giving us more of our money back is considered socialism???

  67. disinter Says:

    Bob Barr lies about libertarians while funding Republicans

    freestudents.blogspot.com/2008/05/bob-barr-lies-about-libertarians-while.html

    (another censored link)

  68. Stefan Says:

    disinter: that site is spewing hate all over, also against Ron Paul, whom you also supported/supports.

  69. mdh Says:

    If George Phillies thinks that we agree on how to spell our party’s name, he’s obviously never seen voter rolls from West Virginia.

  70. Stefan Says:

    Dr. Phillies:
    Dr. Mary Ruwart also supported a Republican with financial contributions (Ron Paul), just like you in 2001/2001 while I cannot see any evidence of Bob Barr giving PERSONALLY any money to a Republican since he is LP member. So I think this relativizes your “criticism” of Barr via his PAC considerably.

  71. Jake Featherston Says:

    “so you are a self hating Jew my friend”

    I can’t believe people are still dragging out that tired, old “self hating” cannard! I’m not even sure what “anti-Israel” means in relation to Nader, anyway. Are you saying he craves the destruction of the Israeli state, and presumably the blood of at least some substantial segment of its population? Because if you’re saying that about Ralpn Nader, that seems more than a little absurd. And if that’s not what he’s after, then I don’t see how the label “anti-Israel” fits him. It comes across more as slanderous hyperbole intended to discredit anyone who’s not a Likudnik.

  72. Jake Featherston Says:

    I never thought I’d see someone using “Jake Featherston” as their handle linking to blogs pushing Obama…

    It does seem unlikely, doesn’t it?

    In fairness, I’m pushing the argument that Obama is merely the lesser of two evils. And that one of the reasons is because the backlash against his liberalism will be a very good thing for real (read not “neo-”) conservatives & libertarians alike, come 2012. I’m not actually urging anyone to vote for him (although I do suggest that if one lives in a swing state, its not an unreasonable option).

    My next blog entry is gong to be a formal endorsement of Bob Barr.

  73. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Jake,

    If you don’t mind asking, why that particular moniker. I mean … well, using a Hitler analog as a pseudonym doesn’t seem like a good start at winning friends and influencing people.

    Then again, I guess that maybe 1% of people even get the reference. I’ve read the series it comes from, and it still took me awhile to notice.

  74. Live Free or Choke Says:

    C I A Barr donates $1,000 to C F R Jim Gilmore. What more do the awaken need? Zilch !

    Jim LIBERTARIAN Burns/Steve Kubby

    Save the Libertarian Principles and Party.

    Gordon goes from Russo to Barr, he needs to drop the cigars, they’re cutting the circulation off to the brain.

    www.infowar.com

  75. Susan Hogarth Says:

    Dr. Mary Ruwart also supported a Republican with financial contributions (Ron Paul), just like you in 2001/2001 while I cannot see any evidence of Bob Barr giving PERSONALLY any money to a Republican since he is LP member.

    First, let’s stipulate that Ron Paul is an exceptional case (although that’s arguable, and I have indeed argued it in the past).

    Second, let’s stipulate that if rank and file Libertarians choose to donate to Republicans or Democrats is their own business - although when they become candidates it is important information for voters, because it gives information about their sympathies in the past.

    Third, either Bob Barr is in charge of the “Bob Barr Leadership Fund” or he is not. If he’s not, he ought to sue them for fundraising under his name without his consent. But in fact he travels around the country fundraising for the PAC (read the FEC reports) and so he is intimately involved in it. Any pretense that he is just lending his name to an organization that doles out money to Republicans is ludicrous. And bear in mind that this PAC was also quite likely the main source of his Liberty Decides contributions.

    Fourth (and most important), Barr did this fundraising and made these donations to Republicans as a member of the LP’s governing board. That is a clear conflict of interest because as a leader of the LP, his first duty was clearly to recruit and help support candidates from his own party, not that of a rival party.

    There is no reason to suppose that Barr will not spend his time as a Libertarian presidential candidate fundraising for Republicans, as he has already shown his willingness to spend his time as a leader of the LP doing just that.

  76. Susan Hogarth Says:

    Emphasis added to the quote below:

    Is a slight compromise that enables the LP to get maybe a couple million votes, and hopefully win the credit for spoiling this election for neo-”conservative” stooge John McInsane, really worth it? Of course it is!

    Wow, if we make a ‘slight’ compromise for a ‘maybe’ and a ‘hopefully’, just imagine what we would do for a ‘really’ and an ‘absolutely’.

  77. Susan Hogarth Says:

    The only problem with this critique is the assumption that Bob Barr controls the ‘Bob Barr Leadership PAC’, which may not be the case.
    PACs have a Board of Directors that decide on the allocation of funds and they may all be Barr friends, or loyal Republicans, acting quite independent of Barr’s wishes….

    Umm, yeah. That would explain all the PAC’s donations to the LP, which no doubt account for the major chunk of his Liberty decides funds.

    If Barr does not control the PAC funds, why would he let his name be associated with something that is quite clearly in such conflict of interest with his position on the LNC? Why would he not even bother to declare a conflict of interest?

    But this idea that the Bob Barr Leadership Fund is somehow not under Barr’s substantive control is ludicrous. It’s how he employs his son, pays his travel (and Starbucks) costs, keeps up with his old buddies in congress, and buys himself some love in the LP. Nice work if you can get it!

  78. Susan Hogarth Says:

    I support all Third Party candidates that can hurt the establishment and open up the corrupt political system.

    I’m here to build up the LP, not tear down the GP. I haven’t busted my ass trying to help build the LP to watch it be used as a firecracker by a pack of misfit boys to blow up their ‘establishment’ fort.

    This isn’t a game for some of us, you know.

  79. Susan Hogarth Says:

    Whew, hasty rhetoric. I wrote:

    I’m here to build up the LP, not tear down the GP.

    but I meant:

    I’m here to build up the LP, not tear down the GOP.

  80. Susan Hogarth Says:

    Shame on George Phillies for misrepresenting this by making it look like the contributions came AFTER the Libertarian announced.

    Irrelevant.

    Barr,a s a member of the governing board of the LP, had a duty to that body and its members to help support LP candidates. If there were none, he should have been recruiting or at least encouraging them.

    How encouraging is it to a prospective LP candidate to know that one of your national representatives has thrown his weight behind the Republican candidate? What Libertarian would have the will to work against that sort of discouragement?

    How many of those races where Barr supported a Republican that still do not have a Libertarian candidate are uncontested because no Libertarian had the will to go up against opposition form his own team?

    I notice Phillies also made sure he didn’t mention the $3,000 to Bob Smither and the $9,500.00 donated to the LNC.

    Why should he? It’s the candidate’s job to point out his strengths, not his opponent’s. The money donated to the LNC, incidentally, is almost certainly responsible for Barr’s standing in the Liberty Decides contest, so it was a good investment for him.

  81. Susan Hogarth Says:

    If you don’t find Jesus please donate to bobbarr

    Wow. Barr’s now second best to Jesus. Pretty high ranking!!

  82. stopdrugwar Says:

    “I’m state chair of LPMass, the Libertarian Party of Massachusetts. I’ve worked vigorously to revive my state’s Libertarian Party. Our State Committee is now meeting monthly. Our State newsletter is now appearing monthly. We’ve revived fundraising.”

    I recall that the Mass Party was extremely strong at one time (just a few years ago), why did it need “revive[d]”? What happened to Carla Howell, Eli Isreal, Dennis Corriegan? Where did they go and why are so many former leaders of the Mass LP gone? Why do they not like Mr. Phillies? Could Mr. Phillies’ argumentative pettiness have anything to do with it?

  83. George Phillies Says:

    Stefan writes

    “Dr. Phillies:
    You have contributed to a Republican Ilana Freedman in 2002 while you have already been a member of the Libertarian Party since 1992 at least, or a decade before this. Makes one think, doesn’t it…..”

    Readers may confirm at

    http://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/elepdf/cand_02.pdf
    that Ilana Freedman, who was a member of the Libertarian State Committee, ran in 2002 as a Libertarian. Readers with old files of LP News can find at the centerfold her most-of-full-page ads advertising her Libertarian Congressional Campaign. Readers who attended our 2002 National Convention will remember her doing a nominating speech for me.

    In the period since 2002 she moved away from our party because she was strongly pro-war. The next election cycle she did decide to try running as a Republican, a strategy also recently tried by long-time Libertarian Don Gorman. She was knocked off in the primary by a “Republican” who did not live in the district, who did not campaign after the primary, and whose nominating papers were delivered to the Secretary of the Commonwealth’s Office by staffers of her Democratic Party opponent. This is the only time that I know about that a Libertarian tried this in MA, so I view it as ‘chalk this up to experience’.

    Makes one think, doesn’t it, as to whether you should believe what Stefan says?

  84. George Phillies Says:
    1. stopdrugwar Says:

    *I recall that the Mass Party was extremely strong at one time (just a few years ago), why did it need “revive[d]”? *

    The State Chair in 2004-2006 was against candidate recruitment, candidate support, fundraising, membership recruitment, and public outreach, to name five. Omission of other activities is not meant to imply that they were supported. He did not call a state committee meeting for much of a year. The newsletter was not published for much of a year. No work was done to call a 2006 state convention until months after it should have happened. He did, however, have the vote on the state committee, notably from Carla Howell, Michael Cloud, and their friends, to ensure that he could not be removed.

    Do you notice a certain pattern here?

    *What happened to Carla Howell, Eli Isreal, Dennis Corrigan? *

    Eli Israel indicated to friends, I am told, that he was leaving our party over the war issue. He supported the war. He then sold his successful startup firm and moved to Washington State. Mr. Israel’s state committee went through several hundred thousand dollars in a two year period, almost none to support candidates, and at the end we were no stronger off than before the spending started. Many state party members are extremely grateful that they found out what was happening to their money.

    It is my recollection that Dennis Corrigan appeared at the 2006 LP State Convention and ran for State Committee. He was not elected. Carla Howell is actively operating her campaign to end the State Income Tax. This is a full time effort. It involved, for example, collecting close to 100,000 signatures to put it on the ballot. Long-time member Walter Ziobro is Party Treasurer. Those of you who knew him from past national conventions should note that he is recently married and now has a daughter, which is a full-time occupation all by itself.

  85. Stefan Says:

    Dr. Phillies: I was referring to the info on the website newsmeat.com, where Ilana Freedman is stated as an®, not (LIB). Everyone can double-check that. Thank you for clearing up, so newsmeat.com obviously has the wrong info. You cannot blame me for that or insinuating I wanted to mislead. Once again, thank you for clearing up. Newsmeat obviously does not have their info 100%.

  86. George Phillies Says:

    Donny Ferguson writes:

    “I notice Phillies also made sure he didn’t mention the $3,000 to Bob Smither…”

    Do you think that is because…those donations were in 2006?
    SMITHER, BOB
    VIA SMITHER4CONGRESS COMMITTEE 08/16/2006 1000.00 26930445380
    SMITHER, BOB
    VIA SMITHER4CONGRESS COMMITTEE 10/19/2006 1000.00 26960687397
    SMITHER, BOB
    VIA SMITHER4CONGRESS COMMITTEE 10/30/2006 1000.00 26960687397

    If I talked about 2006 donations, I would have also talked about

    DECLARATION ALLIANCE MINUTEMAN CIVIL DEFENSE CORPS PAC INC 04/03/2006 1000.00 26930202885

    DELAY, THOMAS DALE VIA TOM DELAY CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE 03/17/2006 1000.00 26960057364

    ALLEN, GEORGE VIA FRIENDS OF GEORGE ALLEN 09/26/2006 1000.00 26930445376 (That was the Republican heir apparent until he had a YouTube interaction.)

    among others. But I stopped in 2007.

  87. Stefan Says:

    Susan: yes, I wanted to suggest Mary Ruwart was 100% princiopled, justified and correct in contributing to Dr. Paul. There should not even be an argument about it.
    Period. She has stated she has known him since 1988 and supported him ever since.

    As to Barr, one should say he himself has NOT contributed to other party or member since he joined the LP and in a radio interview in 2004 he has already spoken very positively about the LP and expressed his closeness. He had contact with Badnarik also.

    As to his personal contributions, you will see he has contributed to the local party, the GOP when he was a member and the LP since he is a member. This demonstrates solidarity with the party.

    As to Barr’s PAC, I am sure he will answer questions regarding the issue before or at the convention. It would be the besst to ask him these questions in person, rather than in the C-Span debate, just as I think Root or anybody else should not ask Mary divisive and really nonsensical issues/topics during the CSPAN debate. Only the main issues should be discussed in a nice, polite way and not anything that can lead prospective new voters and outsiders that this is a party with insider fighting and strife, trying to make gain on others on relative minor issues, e.g. innerparty issues and NOT issues that effect the basic problems and issues the country faces. I do have an idea that many of the candidates will be kind towards each other, though I am not sure about all. Among the different supporters there may be more “infighting”.

    With all criticism people may have on Barr, the following article of praise in 2005 should be considered:
    http://www.counterpunch.org/brasch05232005.html

  88. Susan Hogarth Says:

    As to Barr, one should say he himself has NOT contributed to other party or member since he joined the LP…

    Oh, please. Let’s give over with the fiction that the Bob Barr Leadership Fund is run by some shadowy board that Barr has no control over. It’s his way of paying his travel expenses, employing his son, keeping up with his old buddies, and paying his way into the good graces of easily-impressed Libertarians. At the very least he allowed his name to be used to fundraise for Republicans while serving as a board member of the Libertarian Party.

    As to his personal contributions, you will see he has contributed to the local party, the GOP when he was a member and the LP since he is a member. This demonstrates solidarity with the party.

    Grrrr. Of COURSE his personal contributions went to the party he was currently with. And that is a good thing. But he has no reason to give out of his own pocket to Republicans when he can dole out the PAC money raised by the Hillary-Clinton-must-be-stopped fundraising letters going out over his signature. He’s shady, yes, but not entirely stupid. The point is that he has been entrusted with an extremely partisan position (LNC member) and has abused it by openly lending support to candidates in other parties.

    As to Barr’s PAC, I am sure he will answer questions regarding the issue before or at the convention.

    I’m not holding my breath. Why do you think he waited so long before announcing? One reason was surely to forestall questions like this and shorten the time they will be floating around unanswered or unsatisfactorily answered.

    As you seem to not be prejudiced on the subject, perhaps you can ask him these questions yourself, and report back.

  89. Susan Hogarth Says:

    Sorry about the misquoting; the second paragraph above is obviously mine, not Stefan’s.

  90. disinter Says:

    disinter: that site is spewing hate all over

    Yes, of course. Anything that you don’t agree with is obviously “hate”.

  91. Stefan Says:

    Susan, so if I read you right you suggest Barr should not even be a board member of the LP at all, as people associated with his PAC have apparently decided to support a libertarian leaning candidate of another party, which could favor libertarian legislation in congress. Oh, that is really so terrible? Also: is he supposed to swear all his old Republican friends off after joining the LP. Is any LP leadership member not allowed to have friends in any other party, and support them, if they support your principles, even if they are not 100% Libertarian, say 80% libertarian, but also 100% libertarian on a given issue, like the repeal of the Patriot Act. With such a view, it seems to me the Lp is more like an exclusive club, than a political party that want to be successful in the short and long term based on strong principles.

  92. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    “DECLARATION ALLIANCE MINUTEMAN CIVIL DEFENSE CORPS PAC INC

    Disclosure: When I opined that a contribution to Saxby Chambliss was the functional equivalent of a contribution to al Qaeda, I had no idea that it would subsequently come to light that Barr has contributed to actual, not just rhetorical, terrorists.

  93. Susan Hogarth Says:

    Susan, so if I read you right you suggest Barr should not even be a board member of the LP at all, as people associated with his PAC have apparently decided to support a libertarian leaning candidate of another party, which could favor libertarian legislation in congress.

    You haven’t read me right. I say that Barr should not be contributing to Republican (or Democrat, or Green, or Constitution) candidates or having the leadership PAC bearing his name and fundraising over his signature contributing to Republicans while he is serving on the LNC.

    This ‘people associated with his PAC’ thing is a silly smokescreen. Letters are sent out bearing his name from a PAC bearing his name asking for money to give to Republican candidates. To suggest that Barr has no control over that is too disingenuous.

    Being on the governing board of a political party is a partisan job. Barr was flouting any sort of responsibility he had taken on to strengthen the Libertarian Party. An LNC member’s job is not to “support libertarian leaning candidate(s) of another party”, but to support Libertarian candidates.

    Also: is he supposed to swear all his old Republican friends off after joining the LP.

    Of course not. But we’re not talking lunch or donuts, here, we’re talking campaign contributions. My point was that this is clearly a conflict of interest, and if he sees no problem with fundraising for Republicans as a member of the LNC, I have zero faith that he’ll have a problem with it as a Libertarian candidate.

    Is any LP leadership member not allowed to have friends in any other party, and support them, if they support your principles, even if they are not 100% Libertarian, say 80% libertarian, but also 100% libertarian on a given issue, like the repeal of the Patriot Act.

    Barr was asked to represent and help guide the Libertarian Party. The Republican Party is in direct competition with the LP. By helping RP candidates, Barr hurts LP candidates and creates a conflict-of-interest situation. I’m not sure why anyone would think that was appropriate. I’m sure Bob’s Republican politician friends would be understanding if he just sent them a Christmas card instead pf a check while he’s serving on the LNC.

    With such a view, it seems to me the Lp is more like an exclusive club, than a political party that want to be successful in the short and long term based on strong principles.

    The LP is a political party. The RP is a political party. The LP and the RP are both competing for the same offices. If you think the LP should embrace a strategy of supporting candidates in other political parties, make that case. But at this point the LP’s bylaws explicitly reject such a strategy.

    Apparently you do not find Barr’s behavior to be an unprofessional conflict of interest, and I do. I think we’ve both made our cases here.

  94. Andy Says:

    “Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    May 14th, 2008 at 11:14 am
    “DECLARATION ALLIANCE MINUTEMAN CIVIL DEFENSE CORPS PAC INC

    Disclosure: When I opined that a contribution to Saxby Chambliss was the functional equivalent of a contribution to al Qaeda, I had no idea that it would subsequently come to light that Barr has contributed to actual, not just rhetorical, terrorists.”

    If the Minuteman are terrorists, then what are MECHA, La Raza, and MS-13, fine upstanding people?

  95. Susan Hogarth Says:

    If the Minuteman are terrorists, then what are MECHA, La Raza, and MS-13, fine upstanding people?

    Illogical much?

    What does the one have to do with the other?

  96. Old Whig Says:

    If it were disclosed that Howard Dean had a PAC using his name that contributed to Green Party candidates, how long would he keep his job?

    The answer could probably be stated in minutes.

    O.W.

  97. Andy Says:

    “Susan Hogarth Says:

    May 14th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
    If the Minuteman are terrorists, then what are MECHA, La Raza, and MS-13, fine upstanding people?

    Illogical much?

    What does the one have to do with the other?”

    The Minuteman are acting in self defense against groups like MECHA, La Raza, and MS-13.

  98. Andy Says:

    I hope that these people most next door to Susan and Tom.

    MS-13: The World’s Most Dangerous (Street) Gang
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MazeO37BUmE

    MS-13 are violent thug lowlife criminal pieces of trash.

  99. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Andy,

    How does the claim that there are Latino terror groups in any way conflict with the claim that there are anti-immigration terror groups? The fact that you approve of one terror group and don’t approve of another is irrelevant.

  100. mdh Says:

    According to the government, libertarians are certainly terrorists. Terrorism is in the eye of the beholder; most people who are called terrorists by their opponents are righteous in their own opinion.

  101. Susan Hogarth Says:

    The Minuteman are acting in self defense against groups like MECHA, La Raza, and MS-13.

    And so I repeat:

    Illogical much?

    What does the one have to do with the other?

    I hope that these people most next door to Susan and Tom.

    That’s not very nice of you.

  102. Andy Says:

    “Susan Hogarth Says:

    May 14th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
    The Minuteman are acting in self defense against groups like MECHA, La Raza, and MS-13.

    And so I repeat:

    Illogical much?

    What does the one have to do with the other?”

    The Minutemen are fighting back against the aggression that comes from groups like MECHA, La Raza, and MS-13.

    I’d like to see a comparison of the following.

    Who recieves more tax payer funding, MECHA & La Raza, or the Minutemen?

    Who lobbies for more tax payer funding and welfare state programs, MECHA & La Raza, or the Minutemen?

    Who recieves more foundation (as in Rockefeller Foundation, Ford Foundation, etc…) funding, MECHA & La Raza, or the Minutemen?

    Who recieves more corporate funding, MECHA & La Raza, or the Minutemen?

    Who has more members/supporters on welfare, MECHA & La Raza, or the Minutemen?

    Which group has committed more murders, MS-13 or the Minutemen?

    Which group has committed more rapes, MS-13 or the Minutemen?

    Which group has committed more armed robberies, MS-13 or the Minutemen?

    Which group has committed more assults, MS-13 or the Minutemen?

    Which group has more members in prison (thus using tax payer resources to keep them in prison), MS-13 or the Minutemen?

    Who would you rather live next door to, a member of the Minutemen or an MS-13 member?

    Who would you rather leave to babysit your children, an MS-13 member or a member of the Minutemen?

    Which group has more racial diversity in their membership, MECHA & La Raza & MS-13, or the Minutemen?

    “’I hope that these people most next door to Susan and Tom.’

    That’s not very nice of you.”

    Some people need a wake up call. Perhaps living in an MS-13 gang infested neighborhood would be a reality check for you.

    If you think that all people who cross borders are peaceful, then why don’t you move into an MS-13 gang infested neighborhood? I know some neighborhoods in Los Angeles that you should check out. Surely you’d be willing to move into one of these neighborhoods, wouldn’t you?

    This kind of reminds me of an expression that goes, “A conservative is a liberal that’s been mugged.” (This does not mean that I’m endorsing so called conservatives, but rather poking fun at naive chickenlivered limousine leftist types, an attitude which permeates into libertarian ranks.)

    “Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    May 14th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
    Andy,

    How does the claim that there are Latino terror groups in any way conflict with the claim that there are anti-immigration terror groups? The fact that you approve of one terror group and don’t approve of another is irrelevant.”

    The Minutemen are RESPONDING to terror that was already being caused - and is in fact still being caused - by Latino terror groups. Ever hear of self defense?

    Also, this is rather hypocritical coming from you, since you were a member of one of the biggest terrorist groups in the world in the US military, and more specifically, the US Marine Corp? Unlike the Marines, the Minutemen do not get tax payer funding and do not invade other nations. The Minutemen have more in common with the citizens Militias envisioned by the Founding Fathers than the Marines of today do.

    Who has killed more innocent people, the Marines or the Minutemen?

  103. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Andy,

    How is it “hypocritical” of me to point out that a terrorist group is a terrorist group just because I’ve also been affiliated with a terrorist group?

    And no, “patrolling” an imaginary line on the ground and calling the “official” terrorists in to abduct people who cross it isn’t “self-defense” against Mecha, La Raza or anyone else. It’s just aiding and abetting in a terrorist kidnapping scheme, no more, no less.

Leave a Reply