George Dance: Boston Tea Party candidate smears Barr

On Nolan Chart, frequent contributor George Dance writes:

Charles Jay, presidential candidate of the Boston Tea Party (BTP), posted an interesting essay, “Declaring Your ‘Independence,’” on his candidate’s page on July 5. In it, Jay gave a first glimpse of what looks to be the fringe party’s election strategy this year: Smear Libertarian Party (LP) candidate Bob Barr.

26 Responses to “George Dance: Boston Tea Party candidate smears Barr”

  1. Roscoe Says:

    It is “shockingly predictable” (to use Time magazine’s phrase) that a presidential candidate, once nominated, begins to move toward the “center.” That’s politics. Anyone in the LP who professes to be shocked does not understand the nature of politics and doesn’t belong in a political party that wants to be successful.

  2. Thomas M. Sipos Says:

    If “success” was our criteria, we would have joined the Demopublicans.

    There are already two successful political parties, both of which advocate freedom, both of which fail to deliver on freedom in order to “get votes.”

  3. George Dance Says:

    Well, Mr. Sipos, is “success” is not one of your criteria, you should certainly check out the BTP. They certainly “advocate freedom” more consistently than either of those two, and (because they are not out for votes) they are even more certain to “fail to deliver freedom” to anyone.

  4. George Dance Says:

    Well, Mr. Sipos, if “success” is not one of your criteria, you should certainly check out the BTP. They certainly “advocate freedom” more consistently than either of those two, and (because they are not out for votes) they are even more certain to “fail to deliver freedom” to anyone.

  5. Pat Wright Says:

    Bob Barr may not be the perfect Libertarian candidate, but he has my vote and support. I left the LP after the Art Oliver campaign that tried to get votes on an anti-illegal immigrant platform.

    I’ve been happy so far to see what Mr. Barr is doing - making libertarian position more palatable to the public. I think he is doing a great job trying to communicate - something Libertarians are really bad at.

    As for the Boston Tea Party - there aer lots of more deserving targets. Reminds me of one of the Libertarian books we discussed, “Resentment Against Achievement.”

    And what kind of name is Boston Tea Party? I couldn’t find them using Google. A little marketing savvy should have been used in their naming conventions.

    Pat Wright

  6. David Tomlin Says:

    Dance’s claim of ‘smearing’ depends on such silly distortions as claiming that ‘ever’ actually means ‘in the last three years’.

    For me the most striking thing about Charles Jay’s post is that Jay seems to think the 1964 Civil Rights Act was somehow pro-liberty. The law included restrictions on discrimination by private persons on their own property.

  7. Jimm Johnson Says:

    The Boston Tea Party is nothing but a few loud-mouthed anarchists who are neither constitutionalists nor libertarians. I knew one of their party “officers” back in the mid-nineties. If anyone on the internet said anything he found offensive, he would challenge them to come and duel him with pistols. What a joke!

  8. George Dance Says:

    No, David: part of it rests on the “silly distortion” of claiming that phrases like “LP … party leader (and let’s operate on the principle that a presidential candidate is a party leader),” “Libertarian candidate for national office,” “Leading figure in the libertarian party,” and “national leader in the libertarian movement” mean “LP presidential candidate” (or, in the case of the last two, possibly “National Committeeman”.)

    But there’s more to Jay’s dishonesty than that: his claim that Barr “embraced” the Council of Concerned Citizens is completely false, for example.

  9. Stefan Says:

    @ David: yes, very astute/smart remark re. the 1964 Act. Goldwater, Reagan and Paul were against this for the private property reasons, and not for any “racist reasons” some in the news projected. There were earlier drafts in the Act in the late 1950’s and early 1960’s about universal voting rights for all, which Goldwater
    accepted. The 1964 Act was much more comprehensive, with very “unlibertarian” issues as well,a s you pointed out. Jay is obviously no deep thinker.

  10. Stefan Says:

    Jay really presented a libelous hatchet/conjob. One expect this from a second-tier
    journalist, but definitely not from a presidential candidate. Barr was invited by the CCC to speak on the Clinton impeachment issue and had no idea what they were about. The word “conservative” probably had a good perception. When he found out what theyw ere about, he hastily left direct after his speech. I think he has written about this in his book: Meaning of Is..

    While we are at it, Mr. Jay’s background should also be researched then. As well as the VP, Knapp. If you want to talk about flip-flopping, talk about someone who was with the Reform Party “to the right of Pat Buchanan” in his own words, then with the LP, then with the Democratic Party, establishing his own party, back to the LP and now with the BTP as VP candidate, while LP candidate in a district in his state. Can it be any more bizarre???
    And oh, I forgot to mention he is bald (shaven all his hair off. I have personally nothing against it, but a Barr-critic like disinter may call him “neonazi” or “skinhead”..).

  11. Stefan Says:

    If success is not part of a party’s criteria, it does not suggest that the members of the party think much about the spreading of its ideas or convincing other people.
    Barr saves the LP a lot of money in that he has some name recognition, so he himself does not need to be promoted. He also knows quite well how politics work, has campaign experience and is articulate. He is not diluting the basic message of maximizing individual liberty and reducing govt. power in any way. It is all an incremental process.

  12. Gene Trosper Says:

    Thomas Sipos is a “leader” in the California LP and he basically says that success isn’t our criteria. Nice to hear a member of our leadership believes success isn’t important for the LP. Makes ya wonder why people not driven to success would willingly join a political party and willingly seeks a leadership position within said organization.

    Success doesn’t mean dropping your principles either, so none of that weak argument. It doesn’t fly anymore.

  13. Citizens For A Better Veterans Home[s] Says:

    Don ‘Not a LP member’ Lake: Is it possible that the core, unstated, unofficial philosophy of the official LP is that of a snarky, bitchy debating society? News phlash, LP USA new icon, a half finished bottle of Merlot and they have recently moved it’s HQ to Napa, California, ‘Whine Country’!

  14. Stefan Says:

    Success means your principals triumphs and can be implemented step by step.

  15. Vote BTP! Says:

    “Success means your principals triumphs and can be implemented step by step.”

    In the case of Bob Barr, the “principals”—- Verney, Viguerie and the ghost of Jesse Helms—- have already been successful, much to the detriment of the Libertarian Party and what it once stood for. On the other hand, their “principles,” if they had any, will never succeed.

  16. Jonathan Says:

    THE BARR STORE IS OPEN.

    Please buy your Barr merchandise at www.bobbarr2008.com a portion of the money will go to fund the campaign. We need to make Barr’s name visible, place your bumper stickers.

  17. Thomas M. Sipos Says:

    As I’ve often said, the LP should follow the socialist parties’ model of success. It’s not about “getting votes,” but about changing hearts and minds.

    The various socialist parties never won the presidency or Congress, but they popularized ideas so that both major parties stole the socialists’ ideas and made them into law.

    That’s the “success” the LP should pursue. Converting the public so they clamor for liberty, so that both major parties become libertarian parties (just as they are now both socialist parties).

    There are structural reasons why a third party will never overtake the major parties in the US, namely: the majors will steal popular ideas from third parties if any third party starts to grow.

    This is why the primary task of any third party is education. I explained it here: http://libertarianpeacenik.blogspot.com/2007/10/its-not-just-about-getting-votes.html

  18. Cork Says:

    I’m curious, does anyone have an actual quote of Barr saying he supports medical marijuana? We know he’s willing to let the states experiment (how generous of him!), but I’m not sure that I’ve ever heard him directly say that he supports it. I may be wrong on this, but the man is a master trickster at evading and weaseling.

    Dance writes: Not to be nasty, but what is Jay’s record on the drug war? What, if anything, has he ever done for “medical marijuana patients?”

    He hasn’t attempted to murder them like Barr has. Does that count as something?

  19. Cork Says:

    BTW, Barr’s latest performance on CNN was truly awful. When asked what the difference is between a libertarian and a conservative, he brought up his fucking DOMA bullshit. That’s right folks, he gave DOMA as an example of libertarianism when asked to differentiate between libertarianism and conservatism (click my name if that annoys you). The man is either seriously confused or lying through his teeth. I suspect the latter.

  20. Cork Says:

    For those of you who are excited about Barr’s “media coverage”:

    Every American watching that horrid CNN interview, perhaps having some interest in our political philosophy (and how it differs from conservatism), understands that libertarians stand for DOMA and localized tyranny. After all, that’s what our “standard bearer” is saying.

    Is that good media coverage for libertarianism? Yes or no?

  21. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Stefan,

    I have no opinion as to whether or not I should be “researched.” However, if you’re going to “research” me, you should actually “research” me instead of just making stuff up about me.

    Best regards,
    Tom Knapp

  22. Clark Says:

    STEPHONY SHILLS: “He is not diluting the basic message of maximizing individual liberty and reducing govt…

    ...good god, you’re a dense fuck!..

    (apparently to barf and his goddamned fool republicrat supporters, ‘maximized individual liberty’ does not include the ‘individual liberty’/freedom from ‘taxation’ to $upport US world policemanship, murder and mayhem in the middle east, etc. ad goddamned nauseam..the unalienable ‘individual liberty’ to self-medicate/ingest…etc. ad goddamned nauseam..)

    ..it appears every time the apparent mule loper, monetary ignoramus, etc., stephony, opens his hole.. excrement oozes forth.. ;o)

  23. Clark Says:

    ..good job gutting these republicreeps, cork..but methinks they’re too numb to feel the gutting..

  24. Doremus Jessup Says:

    I thought the Libertarian Party was all about freedom and personal liberty. If any Libertarians, especially Mr. Barr, would have taken the time to read the CofCC’s statement of principles, http://cofcc.org/?page_id=60 , they’d see that that’s what they are all about.

    Mr. Barr is yellow for being so afraid to stand his ground against the SPLC and ADL “the CCC, a group identified by both the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai Brith (ADL) as a white-supremacist, “neoconfederate” organization. ” - this statement is pure horsesh*t. Just read their statement of principles:
    Statement of Principles
    written by Sam Francis, Ph.D.

    The American men and women who make up the Council of Conservative Citizens (CofCC) believe in, commit themselves to, and pledge to work for and support these fundamental principles of American civilization, liberty, justice, and national

    (1) We believe the United States is a Christian country. We believe that the United States of America is a Christian country, that its people are a Christian people, and that its government and public leaders at all levels must reflect Christian beliefs and values. We therefore oppose all efforts to deny or weaken the Christian heritage of the United States, including the unconstitutional prohibitions of prayers and other religious expression in schools and other public institutions.

    (2) We believe the United States is a European country and that Americans are part of the European people. We believe that the United States derives from and is an integral part of European civilization and the European people and that the American people and government should remain European in their composition and character. We therefore oppose the massive immigration of non-European and non-Western peoples into the United States that threatens to transform our nation into a non-European majority in our lifetime. We believe that illegal immigration must be stopped, if necessary by military force and placing troops on our national borders; that illegal aliens must be returned to their own countries; and that legal immigration must be severely restricted or halted through appropriate changes in our laws and policies. We also oppose all efforts to mix the races of mankind, to promote non-white races over the European-American people through so-called “affirmative action” and similar measures, to destroy or denigrate the European-American heritage, including the heritage of the Southern people, and to force the integration of the races.

    (3) The United States is a sovereign and independent nation. We believe the United States is a sovereign and independent nation, that our independence as a nation is the most precious legacy of our Founding Fathers, and that all treaties, agreements, conventions, international organizations, and institutions must recognize and respect our national sovereignty and independence. We therefore oppose the so-called “New World Order” and its attempts to abolish national sovereignty and independence and to construct a one-world state in which America would vanish and Americans would be enslaved. We call for the U.S. government to withdraw from membership in the United Nations, the World Court, the International Monetary Fund, NAFTA, and the World Trade Organization. We oppose any attempt to place American military personnel under foreign command. We oppose any effort to place Americans, military or civilian, on trial before, or subject them to legal punishments by, international courts or organizations. We oppose, and we support official U.S. renunciation of, any treaty, agreement, or convention that seeks to dictate law to the United States or any state, that violates national sovereignty, or denies or violates the constitutional rights of Americans.

    (4) The United States is a constitutional republic. We believe the United States is a constitutional republic, governed by law and by the original intent of the United States Constitution and of the men who framed it. We believe the Constitution can be changed only by the proper procedure of amendment or constitutional convention and not by court decision, popular majority, political whim, or legislative fiat. We therefore oppose the “imperial judiciary” in the U.S. Supreme Court and the federal courts that has usurped more and more power to itself in the last century and has imposed on our country the most odious and harmful rulings. We reject the legitimacy and constitutionality of the rulings handed down by the imperial judiciary; we support the appointment of judges and justices who are qualified to interpret the Constitution and the laws and are committed to their proper interpretation; and we support the impeachment of judges and justices who usurp or claim powers not granted them by the Constitution. We also oppose the “imperial bureaucracy” that imposes unconstitutional administrative decrees in such fields as business, agriculture, labor, and education that tyrannically interfere with personal liberty and dignity, private property, the sanctity of the family, and ethical conduct. We support the abolition of those government agencies at the federal, state, and local levels that have no constitutional foundation, including the U.S. Departments of Education, Housing and Urban Development, Energy, Health and Human Services, and similar agencies. We support the separation of powers that is a fundamental principle of the U.S. Constitution and of basic human liberty. We support the restoration of the constitutionally proper balance among the three branches of the federal government and the reduction of their powers, size, personnel, and costs to the limits intended by the Constitution.

    (5) We believe in States’ Rights, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and the Bill of Rights. We believe in states’ rights, as guaranteed by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution; in the individual right to keep and bear arms, as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the Constitution; and in all the rights and liberties guaranteed by the body of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. We therefore oppose all efforts by the federal government to dictate to the states and local governments and communities, and we oppose federal efforts to engineer or impose behavior and beliefs on citizens and communities. We oppose “gun control” in all forms and demand that all such legislation and policies be repealed. We also oppose all such legislation as so-called “hate crime” or “bias crime” laws. Such laws merely penalize thought and expression rather than genuinely criminal action and are a dangerous and frightening step toward government Thought Control. Similarly, we oppose all so-called “politically correct” speech codes and “sensitivity training” in schools, colleges, universities, and businesses that punish free expression, restrict thought and study, intimidate dissent, and generally demean and diminish human communications and community. We also oppose, as stated, all efforts to deny Americans their rights of religious expression and worship as guaranteed in the First Amendment, as well as efforts to deny rights of assembly and association.

    (6) The traditional family is the basic unit of human society. We believe in the traditional family as the basic unit of human society and morality, and we oppose all efforts by the state and other powers to weaken the structure of the American family through toleration of sexual licentiousness, homosexuality and other perversions, mixture of the races, pornography in all forms, and subversion of the authority of parents.

    (7) Private property and free enterprise are the foundations of our economy. We believe in private property and free enterprise as the foundations of our economic life and the basis of American wealth. We oppose efforts by the state to regulate, plan, manage, control, or nationalize private property in any form. We oppose the ruinous taxation that government has imposed on working Americans and we call for real tax reform that will allow working men and women to retain what they have earned. We support the repeal of the estate tax. We affirm that the best economic decision-maker is the individual acting in what he believes is his own best interest. We believe that tax policies and other economic legislation and policies should reflect the importance of small businessmen, the family farm, and other independent, locally and privately owned and operated enterprises. While we accept the need for some public welfare, health care, unemployment, and old age assistance, we believe in such programs only as a last resort for those who truly need them. We believe tax laws should encourage private charity rather than public support for the poor, the disabled, and the sick and elderly who are unable to care for themselves. We support welfare programs that seek to return recipients of welfare to productive work as soon as possible. We oppose all welfare for immigrants, whether legal or illegal.

    (8) Cultural, national, and racial integrity. We support the cultural and national heritage of the United States and the race and civilization of which it is a part, as well as the expression and celebration of the legitimate subcultures and ethnic and regional identities of our people. We oppose all efforts to discredit, “debunk,” denigrate, ridicule, subvert, or express disrespect for that heritage. We believe public monuments and symbols should reflect the real heritage of our people, and not a politically convenient, inaccurate, insulting, or fictitious heritage.

    (9) A Strong National Defense. We believe in the strongest possible defense for the United States. We oppose the presence of homosexuals and women in the military services and especially of women in combat roles. We believe that in the aftermath of the U.S. victory over Soviet Communism, the United States has little need to retain the political and military commitments to allies made during the Cold War. While we wish these allies well, we believe we cannot continue to support their defense budgets, guarantee their security, fight their wars, or finance their governments and economies through foreign aid. We therefore call for a comprehensive review of all U.S. diplomatic commitments and U.S. withdrawal from those alliances and commitments that no longer serve our national interests or that threaten to entangle us in unnecessary foreign wars, conflicts, and quarrels. We therefore oppose continued membership in NATO and similar outdated Cold War alliances; we oppose sending American troops on U.N. peace-keeping missions or into similar unconstitutionally undeclared wars under the names of “police actions.” We oppose sending American military personnel into wars and conflicts that do not concern our national security and interests. We oppose ever sending American military men into combat without the intention to achieve victory. We oppose using American prisoners of war as diplomatic “bargaining chips” under any circumstances, and we oppose abandoning American POWs to merciless enemies after the cessation of conflict to suit the political interests of office-holders. We oppose all foreign aid and call for its termination. We support the investigation of lobbying groups that represent the interests of foreign states or foreign powers and the enactment of legislation that will outlaw lobbying Congress or the executive branch on behalf of foreign states.

    (10) America First Foreign Policy. We believe that in the aftermath of the U.S. victory over Soviet Communism, the United States has little need to retain the political and
    military commitments to allies made during the Cold War. While we wish these allies well,
    we believe we cannot continue to support their defense budgets, guarantee their security, fight
    their wars, or finance their governments and economies through foreign aid. We therefore
    call for a comprehensive review of all U.S. diplomatic commitments and U.S. withdrawal
    from those alliances and commitments that no longer serve our national interests or that
    threaten to entangle us in unnecessary foreign wars, conflicts, and quarrels.
    We therefore oppose continued membership in NATO and similar outdated Cold War
    alliances; we oppose sending American troops on U.N. peace-keeping missions or into similar
    unconstitutionally undeclared wars under the names of “police actions.” We oppose sending
    American military personnel into wars and conflicts that do not concern our national security
    and interests. We oppose ever sending American military men into combat without the intention
    to achieve victory. We oppose using American prisoners of war as diplomatic “bargaining
    chips” under any circumstances, and we oppose abandoning American POWs to merciless
    enemies after the cessation of conflict to suit the political interests of office-holders. We oppose all foreign aid and call for its termination. We support the investigation of lobbying
    groups that represent the interests of foreign states or foreign powers and the enactment of
    legislation that will outlaw lobbying Congress or the executive branch on behalf of foreign
    states.

    (11) America First Trade Policy. We believe that just as our nation has legitimate international political and military interests, so it also has a legitimate international economic interest. We believe our trade policy should reflect our national economic interest and that the protection of our economy, including the jobs of our workers, our farms, and our manufacturing industries, is a vitally necessary duty of our national government.

    (12) Traditional Education under Local Control. We believe that education is primarily the concern of parents and families and local communities and therefore we oppose federal aid to education and federal efforts to control or direct education. We believe that education should inform and build the mind and character, not brainwash children with political propaganda or “liberate” them from the traditional values and loyalties their families have taught them. We therefore oppose all “sex education” as well as so-called “multiculturalist” and “Afrocentric” curricula, “Outcome-Based Education,” and similar radical indoctrination in the schools. We oppose all efforts to inflate grades, adulterate or “dumb down” tests and examinations, and introduce irrelevant and wasteful courses for the purpose of advancing some backward students over others more talented or more productive. We believe the schools, public, private, and parochial, should teach students to be proud of being Americans and proud of their national and local identities, and that they should instill in them the values of Western, Christian, and American civilization. We support the authority of teachers and school administrators to discipline students, including the authority to expel them from school if students will not abide by the rules and laws of the community. We support the right of parents to send their children to private schools or to educate their children at home if they so desire, without government intrusion or control. We support the right of private schools to select their own students, faculty, curricula, standards, and methods of administration.

    (13) Strong and Just Law Enforcement. We believe in the moral and legal responsibility of the individual and therefore that good behavior should be rewarded and bad behavior should be punished. We believe the most effective and most just response to crime is swift, certain, and morally appropriate punishment. We believe in capital punishment for the crimes of murder, rape, treason, and espionage. We oppose the substitution of the pseudo-sciences of psychiatry, sociology, and “rehabilitation” for real justice. We believe law enforcement should be mainly a function of local and state government, and we therefore oppose all efforts to establish a national police force or to nationalize law enforcement; we oppose similar efforts to create a global or international police force and to “globalize” law enforcement. We oppose the extradition of law-abiding American citizens to trials before foreign courts under laws to which they have never assented. We oppose all international criminal tribunals and all efforts to diminish national sovereignty through the internationalization of criminal law. While we support and deeply respect all law enforcement officers, we also insist that law enforcement at all levels operate within the law, that law enforcement respect the rights of all citizens, and that spying on and harassment of loyal and law-abiding citizens by law enforcement agencies, by the military services, or by intelligence services at any level of government should be strictly forbidden and severely punished.

    (14) Protection of the Environment and Natural Heritage. We believe that the natural environment and resources of a nation are among its most precious, valuable, and irreplaceable treasures. We believe in the protection of the environment from reckless greed as well as from irresponsible government. We support the protection of truly endangered species of wildlife and areas of natural beauty.

    ###

  25. Alex Peak Says:

    Mr. Johnson,

    You writes, “The Boston Tea Party is nothing but a few loud-mouthed anarchists who are neither constitutionalists nor libertarians.”

    This is false. Not everyone in the Boston Tea Party is an anarchist. Not everyone in the Boston Tea Party are non-constitutionalists. And, for those anarchists that are in the Boston Tea Party to be non-libertarians, they would have to be the anti-market type of anarchists (e.g. anarcho-communist, anarcho-syndicalist, socialist anarchist). All of the anarchists in the Boston Tea Party that I know of are free-market anarchists, and all free-market anarchists are obviously within the larger libertarian camp. You can’t be a market anarchist and not be a libertarian—it’s definably impossible. Although it’s possible to be in the Boston Tea Party and not be a libertarian (because their platform is so dreadfully watered-down), I don’t know of anyone in the Boston Tea Party who is not a libertarian.

    Sincerely yours,
    Alex Peak

  26. Jim Davidson Says:

    Actually, Alex, I know quite a few members of the Boston Tea Party who are not libertarians. But, then, I know nearly all 166 of them to one extent or another, by reputation or in person. More of the 203 or so Facebook members of our network there are unknown to me, and there is only some overlap with the national party members. Some of our members in either case are constitutionalists, some identify themselves as conservative. Most do identify as libertarians.

    In addition to getting our candidates on the ballot, adding new state affiliates, and recruiting members, we are also actively seeking candidates who agree with our party’s platform of smaller government at all levels and on all issues - bigger government on no issue and at no level. So far we’ve endorsed or nominated eleven candidates. Another dozen are being evaluated by state affiliates or the national committee. One candidate even got a campaign contribution because she asked for our endorsement.

    Oh, and we have two party members in public office now.

    I really don’t mind what George Dance had to say about Charles Jay. I’m not involved in Mr. Jay’s campaign. I do think Mr. Barr has made a lot of LP members feel very uncomfortable with his eulogy of Jesse Helms. Chris Bennett is one. I think Mr. Barr’s nomination helped ensure that Chris is planning to leave the LP for good after many years working with your party.

    Most LP leaders, including essentially all the previous nominees for president, have avoided the colorful history of Bob Barr - fighting for the drug laws, telling Hannity and Colmes he wouldn’t legalise all drugs two weeks before being nominated, telling CNN he thought his defense of marriage act was a good idea the day after being nominated, pursuing a pogrom against Wiccans in the military, attacking and then later working for medical marijuana, calling for a bigger government program to intervene on behalf of financial institutions, including a bail-out for Freddie and Fannie, voting for the Iraq war and the USAPATRIOT act while other Republicans managed to find the information and reasoning to vote against these things. I don’t envy LP loyalists for having Bob Barr as their candidate. I suppose you could do worse though - John McCain is clearly worse.

Leave a Reply