Where's Hammer of Truth and Liberty Mix, you know the blog with an LP member on staff that received donations of over $10,000 to support it (after prompting by a mass e-mail from Badnarik); then a week after stating Liberty Mix was ready to go (5 months late as it was), it disappears for 10 days and counting?

Don't worry too much, Rangel's bill isn't going to pass. He got only 2 "yes" votes last time he
introduced it. Anyway, the presence of a draft didn't keep us out of WWII, Korea or Vietnam. One might say a draft makes it easier to build up an army for a foolish foreign adventure.

How about a call to action on this one? Let's help to make sure Congressman Rangel's bill is DOA. I just e-mailed my Congressman to express opposition to a draft. I encourage everyone else to do the same.

Sometimes, I wish that the two parties would just ruin everything so everyone could wake up. It seems like no one even takes note when something could potentially go bad. They only notice after it goes to hell, and even then it takes years and years. Look at Gitmo.

I'm not worried too much about the draft passing, though. With all the anti-war sentiment going around, I doubt that it has much of a shot at all.

It truly is amazing how this man gets elected by in a very liberal district. The LP must organize a major draft protest on the day it is set to be debated in Congress. It is the perfect way to start off the 2007-2008 election cycle.

Libertarian Scott Kohlhass has an excellent draft resistance site:

http://www.draftresistance.org/

Exploit the issues while we can, it won't last long.

I propably disagree with most of you about the War in Iraq (I am for it).
However, on principle the draft is unconscionable no matter what war it is for. In a free and democratic society the government must convince enough people of the justness of the war to enlist. If the government cannot convince enough people to voluntarily join then the government deserves to lose.
It is interesting to see many of the former '60's radicals abandon the number one thing they were right about. They were correct that the draft is wrong. Now that they think the presence of a draft will scare mothers from voting republican they all of a sudden are for it.
This is the kind of abandonment of principles for a temporary gain that is prevalent amongst both major parties. The truly disgusting thing is that they will abandon principles without even receiving an advantage.

I am of the opinion that 9/11 was an inside job meant to justify the Iraq invasion, and if I am right, a similar attack could be engineered again and blamed on Iran, and then you bet your butt that a draft will promptly pass with Hillary Clinton saluting and leading the charge. The worst is yet to come; get ready to burn your draft cards.

p.s. the draft is sexist

p.p.s. Rangel's constituents are foolish because he keeps bringing this up and they keep re-electing him when they disagree with him

This whole draft thing is nothing but a smoke screen.

We do have a lot to fear from Rangel, but a draft is not among the probabilities.

Charlie Rangel will soon be taking up the Chairmanship of the House Committee on Ways and Means. Which basically means he will be writing tax policy for the whole country. He is already drafting legislation to massively increase marginal tax rates.

Don't be misled by this draft nonsense. It is just a ruse to distract attention from his truly monstrous intentions regarding taxes.

Being 18 years old in two weeks, this is stuff that would come directly on top of me. Given that I don't believe in the socialism of the state that created by these actions I don't think that I could in good concious boycott it or encourage others to do so. But, I do say that we get onto writing letters to congress and letting our voices and opposition to this tyranical system be heard, legally.

It is true Bush wanted his Iraq war long before 9/11 ("Saddam tried to kill my Daddy!") but it wasn't an inside job. That doesn't mean it couldn't have been prevented. Letting the terrorists do it doesn't make it an inside job, but it is also treason if anyone that had prior knowledge let it happen to help push for the war cause rather than preventing it.

Don't worry about the draft. It won't happen. Politically, either side would be blown away in a subsequent election, and they know that. Rangel is just a lone nut job who doesn't realize that instituting the draft wouldn't prevent anyone from going to war. Congress doesn't care about the young men and women who serve. If they did, they would have just inspected Saddam forever and keep him from proliferating rather than authorizing Bush to attack.

And Iraq never had anything to do with 9/11 or being a threat to world security. Iran and North Korea are and always have been much greater threats. Bush just wanted revenge. Iraq was never a serious threat and everyone knew that. Democrats knew it and voted with Republicans because all Democrats do is flow with public opinion (or what they percieve it to be) and never have any solutions. Plus they get the same lobbyist support and Haliburton kick backs that Republicans get, because house and senate votes are house and senate votes anyway you can get them, party be damned.

Lewis Black said it best. "Democrats are the party of no ideas and Republicans are the party of bad ideas."

John, why are you for the war in Iraq?

I don't think that 9/11 was an inside job, for the simple fact that I don't think the government could pull off such a ruse, but as to whether the government had foreknowledge, I would be willing to believe that part of it. That same thing happened before, at Pearl Harbor, so it is in the realm of possibility.

There is probably enough evidence, apart from anything that happened in relation to 9/11, to hang Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld with anyway, particularly violations of international laws of war.

Mark B - "violations of international laws of war"? I thought Libertarians were against "world government" and concession to world laws "threatened our sovereignty"!

p.s. the draft is sexist

The fact that "laws of war" exist is ridiculous in itself. Having said that, for the purposes of protecting captured troops, I am not opposed to them. There is enough bloodshed in war, so if any lives, even if the soldier is a volunteer, can be spared I see no harm.

As a libertarian, I would rather see reduced governments worldwide so freedom can prevail. Only with freedom, economic and personal, will wars be ended. The only way to start that ball rolling is to become free in America, but with secure borders as opposed to opening up the instant we have any political control. We need to set an example, not set ourselves up to be overrun by refugees. Following our example, other peoples around the world will push their governments to follow suit but refugees will not be willing to take on our military on the border which, to finish my point, is where our Defense should be. We can be free and safe and humane all at the same time. We simply have to have the will to do it right.

Actually, I oppose International Government and have long advocated that the U.S. should leave the U.N. and that the U.N. should leave the U.S. Regardless, Geneva Conventions and other agreements have been negotiated and duly ratified by the U.S. and should be considered binding. I was solely mentioning them as a possible basis for prosecuting this administration after it leaves office in 2009.

Mark B - so what do you think about the German court that is claiming "universal jurisdiction" (over the universe) and trying to prosecute Rumsfeld for the Abu Ghraib fiasco on behalf of foreign non-Germans? Sure, I want the guy to go down, but I want a U.S. court to preside over and punish him, not a German one (even an Iraqi court would be a step up from that).

I am rather dubious about Germany's claim of universal jurisdiction. However, the Text of the Geneva Conventions, and other conventions, gives the signing powers the jurisdiction to prosecute war crimes, even if they are not a party to the conflict. So, really any signatory of the Geneva Conventions could prosecute war crime charges.

That being said, I too, would prefer a U.S. Court to have jurisdiction. In fact, if I was an incoming Libertarian President, I would cause the preceding administration to be taken into custody and charged with both domestic and international crimes.

I just thought of a way to scare Canadians and Mexicans away from mergeing with us to form the North American Union - tell them that the Union will eventually have a mutual continental defense pact that will fuse our militaries and subject Canadian and Mexican citizens to a collective Selective Service, so that they can be drafted to fight in our imperial wars. This wouldn't happen for another 100 years of course, but it sure could scare impressionable young Canadian and Mexican voters into stalling the Union integration.

Well Nick,
I didn't want to bring it up because I thought it was a side issue to the issue of the draft.
However, this is one issue which I disagree with most of the party on. In fact it is why I didn't vote for our candidate in '04. As bad as I think the Democrats (socialists) and Republicans (diet socialists) are, I don't think either of them would be complicit in something like 9/11. I think if we claim that, we put ourselves on the "lunatic" fringe (instead of the rational fringe like now).
It is well established that Iraq and Saddam Hussein (because in an authoritarian dictatorship like that they are one and the same) violated the 1991 cease-fire all throughout the 1990's. The only time they followed the cease-fire was after 9/11. (They were laying low hoping we wouldn't notice them)
Because through the '90s our commander-in-chief was weak and only demanded compliance when he was caught with his pants down (both figuratively and literally) Saddam became emboldened.
While whether or not Saddam had any DIRECT involvement in 9/11 is debatable the fact that he has always provided funding and training for terrorists is not. His involvement in these activities went up after the 1991 Gulf War. This is the period where international terrorism grew greatly.
Whether or not Iraq should have been the second on our post-9/11 list is debatable (I would have placed Iran and N. Korea above Iraq).
I do believe it should be on that list, though.
In fairness I must admit that I am a hawk when it comes to the War on Terrorism. Perhaps even more so than the current President.
I hope this explains my position on Iraq.

John B - How can you be a hawk and oppose the draft? Conducting these wars you favor requires far more troops (see: draft; see: allies) and since we don't have said troops, we are forced to breach contract with tens of thousands of volunteer troops and Nat'l Guard, cancelling rest leave and sending them back again and again, all of which is illegal. Gulf War I required 500,000 troops just to liberate Kuwait, forgetting entirely running to Baghdad. I say 700,000 minimum to conduct the current operation. Even with allies onboard, this would require a draft to avoid repeat-tour breach of contract. I think this is the point Rangel is making - hawks, put your money and blood where your mouth is.

(Stephen Gordon said:)
Throughout our history, the Libertarian Party
has opposed both the draft and interventionist
military adventures overseas.

(Kevin replies:) The above statement implies,
all military actions abroad are "adventures"
the LP has always opposed. Perhaps you should
ask our first presidential candidate,
John Hospers, before you speak for all
libertarians.

The LP and libertarian principles have
been commandeered by Rothbardian
double-talkers, who equate non-intiation-
of-force with non-intervention-abroad.
They are disciples of Murray Rothbard,
and do not represent mainstream and
hawk libertarians.

Please, join our discussions at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fightforliberty/

Toad,
You bring up some excellent points.
The armed services are only allowed to sign up a certain number of recruits (determined by congress) no matter how many are willing to join. Also, military history points out from the Romans on that a smaller, better-trained, better-equipped force can be much more valuable than numbers. As a person who recently was discharged from the Army I can tell you with confidence that the last people who want a draft are those in the military (from highest to lowest).
In Vietnam we had much higher numbers of troops stationed there than in Iraq currently for almost the entire conflict. The troops that were there didn't want to be in the Army in the first place. This situation lead to problems with drug abuse (I'm for it in peace time but you don't want to dull your senses in a war), discipline and morale.
After Vietnam during the '80's the military went through a shift in its thinking. Higher levels of training, discipline and standards were enforced. This is only possible with a volunteer force. A person who is forced into the Army is going to be more likely to raise a fuss or cause a stink about something than someone who considers serving a privilege.
The move to a force that relies on more National Guard and Reserve units in deployed areas started after Gulf War I. This was in the aftermath of the Cold War when the force Reagan built was being stood down. The Defense Department did a study that showed it was cheaper to deploy NG and Reserve units than active duty units. This favoring of deployment of NG and Reserve units happened all throughout the 1990's in Clinton's Balkan interventions but was missed by most.
I was opposed then and do oppose now that policy. A person who volunteers for the NG or Reserves is volunteering to serve our country in a crisis. They are to be used last not first. The person who signs up for active duty is already volunteering to live away from home (even on a U.S. base). They also propably think that they will be deployed first (I did).
In the current global and military situation I think that congress should authorize the VOLUNTARY recruitment of more soldiers.
I must also remind people of one of W's biggest blunders. Right after 9/11 the Europeans (even the French) offered to take over more of our military obligations there (the balkans, bases we don't need any more). Bush declined the offer. This would have freed up some more manpower.
I agree that we need a larger force. I think that it should continue to be a volunteer force.

Putting the country farther and farther into the pit of debt with endless aggressive wars is not exactly what I could consider libertarian principle by any stretch of the imagination. This war is piling up enormous debt and leading the Federal Reserve into another endless expansion of the money supply to pay for all this debt. I seem to remember George Washington saying something about "no foreign entanglements". I wish succeeding presidents had remembered it.

Military force should be limited to absolute self defense only. A complete border fence could be built for a fraction of the price of one year of war. Human intelligence could be greatly enhanced for a fraction of the price of one year of war. Port security could be greatly enhanced for a fraction of the price of one year of war. Further savings could be had by greatly reducing the size of the military to a defensive only posture. Even further savings could be obtained by refraining from the construction of any more aircraft carriers, which have been rendered obsolete by the presence of large submarine forces which would rapidly take out carriers in a large scale war. War inevitably leads to infringements of civil liberty, yet another reason to steadfastly oppose it.

John B - Great points. Thanks for the info; I did not know Bush turned down French relief in the Balkans. Idiotic.

The abuse of the National Guard is a travesty, and should another calamity happen here at home, we will be left with our pants down because the NG is way on the other side of the planet. We are sitting ducks.

John, I never said for sure that Bush was responsible for "allowing" 9/11 to happen, but I am saying I wouldn't be surprised if he thought something was going to happen and the attack exceeded his knowledge or expectation. He has proven time and time again to be less interested in American lives and liberty than he is in getting his way. He's a spoiled, vengeful brat.

I would disagree that Iraq was even a tenth of the threat of Iran or North Korea. We could have forced inspections for the next 100 years and it would have cost zero lives and obviously far less money. That is always a better option than war. Saddam is a bad guy, no doubt, but I'd rather annoy him with inspections for the rest of his life than lose any American soldier or innocent Iraqi civilian when he was not responsible for 9/11.

We still haven't found bin Laden and Afghanistan is falling back into trouble. We need to take care of defending our country which fighting al Qaeda is part of. Al Qaeda was not in Iraq until we got there. The problem has gotten worse, not better. Every single reason Bush gave for going to Iraq was a lie - no WMDs, no nuclear fissive material, etc. So why are we there? "He tried to kill my Daddy!"

I am not worried about the drafy actually passing. I did suggest that we organize a major anti-draft protest because it would only help promote the party.
John, you are not alone. I also support the War. But I cannot support the current handling of the war. In fact, this is no longer a war, it is an occupation. And an endless one for that matter. If Mr. Bush cannot offer America a plan then we should just leave. Maybe not timetables, but there needs to be a change in the way this war/occupation is handled otherwise we might as well leave.

Mark B.- The cost of war is still less than our government wastes on domestic income transfer programs (Social Security, Welfare corporate and personal, etc.)
When I was introduced to the LP at an early age I was led to believe that one of the few jobs the LP believed the government was good for was the military.
I would be all for no "interventionist wars" if the Islamic world was even capable of "living and let live." The islamic nationalists' terror campaign against the U.S. started well before 9/11.
Waiting for the enemy to come to you is not the way to win a war. Because all the fighting is on your soil only your civilians will be killed and only your property destroyed.
As for civil liberties during war. Yes, wars usually lead to infringing upon those. Every war the U.S. has fought has led to that (at least temporarily). A defensive sit back and try to stop terrorists from coming in would lead to even worse infringements because the enemy wouldn't be concentrated in one country (Iraq) like now. They would be trying to come here (and propably succeeding). So the government would be able to introduce even more draconian measures.
Nick- I didn't mean to say that you were one of the "Bush planned 9/11" people. I had seen someone somewhere on this blog posit that idea. Even if Bush sat on the info a la FDR and Pearl Harbor (I don't believe that) it doesn't do us any good to say those things. Even though FDR's inaction on Pearl is almost an established fact, try telling any of the "greatest generation" that.
As to the Bush lied about WMD's line-it's not true. There were no ready-to-use WMD's found in Iraq but the UN's weapons inspectors found lots of preparatory materials after the invasion. This was hushed up by the anti-war media.
Also, right before and during the invasion our planes saw a lot of movement between the Iraqi-Syrian border.
Since Syria has tried to gain WMD's in the past
and has been friendly to Iraq I personally believe that many of these weapons were moved there.
I agree that Iran and Korea were propably bigger threats. I also agree that the handling of the war has been flawed. This has been true of every war ever fought (with the possible exception of Gulf War I, though they left Saddam Hussein in power).
The number of U.S. casualties suffered is still pretty low. While each one represents a tragedy for the families we must keep some perspective. People will die in wars, thats what wars do. When the casualty numbers in Vietnam were at the same number as the total between Afghanistan and Iraq people weren't even paying attention. More people died in 20 minutes of the Civil War than those wars put together.
Sorry I keep hounding this issue. I know my efforts to convert you all to hawks are fruitless.
At least we are talking the same language in our disagreements. When talking to Libs or Cons I wonder if one of us is speaking a different language.

Going to war in Iraq was not in this country's interests. Staying there is an even bigger mistake.

Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were bitter enemies and tried to have each other killed. First, bin Laden - an Islamic fundamentalist - tried to have Hussein killed because he was an Arab nationalist. Then, Hussein tried to return the favor.

In addition, Hussein did not have WMDs. He did not ship them to Syria since Iraq and Syria had a major falling out decades ago. He surely did not send them to Iran since Iran was his enemy.

Hussein was not involved with 9/11. And, he was not a threat to the U.S.

The C.I.A. stated that at its current pace, Iran will not have a nuclear weapon for the next ten years.

Any individual liberty that is lost has never been temporary. It has always been permanent.

The "greatest generation" was anything but the greatest.

FDR provoked Pearl Harbor by:
1) ordering the Japanese government to remove their troops from Manchuria;
2) imposing a trade embargo on Japan;
3) freezing Japan's economic assets in the U.S.; and 4) moving the entire Pacific Fleet from
California to Hawaii.

Did I miss something? Did congress declare war while I was asleep. If not, we are not at war. You can call it another name but you can't call it war.

RustyZ:

That is kind of silly nitpicking. If you want to use that definition, then Vietnam and Korea were not wars either.

From my view, lots of shooting, missiles, dead bodies, mutilitated soldiers. Looks like a f***ing war to me. The fact that Congress did not declare a state of war only further magnifies the illegality of what is going on in Iraq. But it is a war, declared or not.

Mark:

You are calling "war" as defined by the U.S. Constitution "silly nitpicking?'

p.s. Off topic here but why has the "Daily Poll" question been the same for weeks?

Why would anyone want to "convert" people to be hawks? By it's loose definition, a hawk is one that pushes for war. I would agree that some war is inevitable and in self-defense, certainly necessary, but the Iraq War is the opposite of what we needed.

We are fighting an idealogy, not a country. So what did Bush do? He invaded a country. We were attacked by al Qaeda so Bush attacked Hussein taking resources away from fighting the real enemy. Terrorists are trying to bring weapons to the United States so Bush takes our defenders out of the country. Why is the Department of Defense replaced by the Department of Homeland Security? I thought we had the best military in the world? Can't they defend us where we need it? The terrorists want us to be afraid so Bush emboldens them by always reminding us how evil and relentless they are? Why couldn't he be more like Reagan and call them weak, stupid, and inept?

RustyZ:

From the U.S. Constitution:

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

The Constitution never defines war. It merely declares that Congress has the power to declare war. But, as with most of the rest of the Constitution, this clause has been ignored by the Imperial Presidency and the Congress has been too timid to clamp down on the Presidency.

Whether or not a war has been properly "declared" or not, does not make it any more, or any less a war. It is just as much aggresive, when not declared, then if it had been declared.

Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden were enemies until Gulf War I. Before then SH was just a nationalist with little interest in Islam. After the Gulf War he started to fund and aid terrorists around the world.
Why? Because the enemy of my enemy is my friend. (The same reason we helped the Taliban in Afghanistan-they were fighting a greater evil at the time.) SH and UBL were propably never directly linked, admittedly. The war is not just against those who were involved in one terrorist incident. There were many attacks before then. Remember the U.S.S. Cole? Our embassies in Africa? The attacks on our marines in Beirut?
It is not just Al Quaeda that wants to hurt us. It is Islamic Fundamentalists.
The UN's own inspectors said that SH had the preparatory materials for WMD's. Is it so hard to believe that a madman who has used poison gas and chemical weapons on his own people was getting ready to make them again?
I use quotation marks when saying the greatest generation as a way of being sarcastic. I mean to say the greediest generation since they are the ones that cripple any chance of serious Social Security reform and clamored for me to pay for their drugs (when I am not legally allowed to buy certain ones with my OWN MONEY!).
I agree that most liberties lost during war time are not restored. Never say never, though. Lincoln got rid of the Habeas Corpus during the Civil War and it was restored.
Nick- I want to convert people to being hawks because the pacifist way will lead us to a disaster. If we withdraw from the world that will embolden the terrorists. They will conclude (rightly) that they have won this battle and push on to the next one. Our enemies will not rest until their is a worldwide Islamic caliphate.
It will only be a matter of time before they carry the war to U.S. soil consistently. Think about how many civil liberties the masses will be clamoring to give up when a nuke explodes in one of our major cities. Or suicide bombers start blowing up schools, malls, etc.
If you ever want to hear someone who wants to give up liberty for security talk to a scared mother. They would give up every liberty if they thought it would protect their children. It is bad enough with mothers of soldiers like Cindy Sheehan (at least Casey volunteered).
The Islamic Jihad is going to be fought whether we like it or not. How many terrorist attacks outside of Iraq do you hear about? Not many because every Jihadist is going to Iraq. That is the place to be for a Jihadist.
If we retreat to our borders, where does the Jihadist go? To where his enemy is. WE ARE HIS ENEMY NO MATTER WHAT WE DO!
The military is good at killing people and breaking stuff. When we must set up checkpoints and other internal security operations the way the military acts is heavy-handed. It's the way we have to be.
Soldiers do not have the training for inspection of cargo, airport screening, and the other tasks Homeland Security is doing.
Trust me, as a libertarian the last thing you want is the military dealing with internal matters.

Somebody above asked a different John (not me) why they were for the War in Iraq. I'm sure that other John would have to give very detailed explicit answers for all the pro and con aspects of the war. But certainly *I* can offer reasons.

The best is: let the dumb Christian American soldiers who vote only for Dems & Pubs -- EVEN WHEN SO MANY OTHER SUPERIOR CHOICES APPEAR ON THE BALLOT -- kill and be killed by fanatical Muslims. I enjoy seeing them kill and maim each other.

I'm a proud atheist. The only soldiers whom I support are those who will fight for MY freedom if/when I fight for the freedom of animals, freedom to choose what drugs we can put into our bodies, the freedom to choose consensual sexual stimulation, and the freedom to choose which wars we want to fight.

Radicals in the 1960s should have used force to end the military draft. To this day, I hate and detest the subhumans and their brainless and EXTREMIST rhetoric "We don't condone violence of any sort" -- no matter what the justified cause.

Those radicals who DID use force to fight for our freedoms of choice today should be honored and memorialized. Those who sent them to prison should be punished.

The more I learn about people and find out how stupid they are, the more I laugh at their insignificant petty little "problems": e.g. death of a child, losing a limb, etc. I have far more respect and sympathy for people in American and Chinese and Peruvian and Saudi Arabian prisons than I do for anyone on the outside.

I would like to make a distinction. The choice is NOT between Neo-conservatism/Zionism hawkishness and pacifism. The choice is between hawkishness and disengagement. I propose to choose disengagement.

I don't think even the Green Party would support true pacifism. It is not at all proposed by ANYBODY in the Libertarian Party. If action is taken against the United States, we would and should respond inkind.

It is much easier to face an enemy on one's home turf, rather than in the middle of a hostile country, with enemies on all side. Of course, if we are not interfering all over the world, we will not be stirring up a hornet's nest of trouble in the first place. It is our Neo-conservative/Zionist interference over the years that has stirred up this rage against us. We participated with the British and Zionists in the Ethnic cleansing of Palestine in the period before 1948 that allowed the Zionists to establish a majority Jewish population in Israel. Furthermore, the U.S. via the C.I.A. kept a tyrannical and unpopular Shah in power in Iran, creating anger that ultimately led to the Islamic takeover of what had previously been a secular state. Our arrogance and stupidity created the middle east situation. The only thing that can help is our getting the hell out of the middle east and letting things take the course that they will. Anything we do will ultimately fail and likely backfire. You can't impose democracy at the point of a gun.

http://www.palestineremembered.com The truth about Palestine/Israel

John Brandimore -

First. The "American Civil War" was not a civil war. A true civil war involves two or more factions fighting for control of the same government. This does not qualify. The southern states seceded from the union, thereby becoming a foreign political entity (in this case, a confederation of sovereign states) and a foreign people that were outside of Lincoln's legal jurisdiction.

Second. Nobody in their right mind would ever knowingly align themselves with the very people who have tried to kill them on previous occasions. Therefore, I don't believe that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were ever allies.

Third. We should not have launched a war against Saddam Hussein. He was actually trying to kill Islamic fundamentalists who were trying to overthrow him. In fact, he was trying to kill Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Instead, we should have sent special forces to put terrorist cells out of commission.

Fourth. The last war that this country should have fought was the War of 1812. This was a case where another country initiated aggression against us. Ever since that point, it has been the hawks who have dragged us down the bloody road to fighting unnecessary wars. Instead, we should have stayed out of the quarrels that involve other countries and followed a defense-first, non-interventionist foreign policy.

Mark is right on the money. We cause more problems than we solve when we fight overseas in wars that we created with our idiotic foreign policies. If we get out of other people's affairs and defend our own nation we will be at peace here. We will make and sell our goods and make money so that people can have jobs and take care of their children who won't have to be afraid because our Dept of Defense will be keeping the foreign murderers out of the U.S. Our police and FBI will then be able to concentrate their efforts on keeping the peace within the U.S. which is their job.

Safety is not a reason to go to war in other countries. When one is attacked then one has reason to fight. We were attacked by al Qaeda so we should be bringing them to their knees wherever they may be, but that was not in Iraq until we invaded. The terrorists were based on other countries far more supportive of their methods than Iraq, namely Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, and Syria. Now we need Iran's and Syria's help to clean up Iraq. How messed up is that?!

By the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" logic, Saddam Hussein was our friend because he was against al Qaeda and other religious fundamentalists.

I'm not a dove (pacifism is a weak person's excuse for not fighting back when decked in the mouth) but I'm not a hawk either. Fighting a war for any reason other than true self-defense is criminal, not to mention costly.

Dr. John - Isn't being certain there is no god just as unreasonable as being certain there is one? Agnosticism seems more logical.

For a really stupid law, look at the Port Security Act. Under the guise of protecting our harbors from terrorists, it banned internet poker. Of course, it may be the case that someplace, somewhere, someone actually believes that internet poker players are third-world terrorists. Unfortunately, that person was a United States Senator.

Real Americans know: Internet poker players are not terrorists. They are regular Americans, just like you and me. Poker is as American as apple pie. Poker is no more a terrorist threat than the Statue of Liberty's torch.

It's time to elect grownups to Federal office. In 2008, use your vote wisely! Vote Libertarian!

Remember, no matter your hobbies, no matter your faith, someplace there _is_ someone who does not approve of what you are doing. To paraphrase Pastor Niemoller, they've already come for the poker players. You, too, could be next.

For more of the same, vote Republican-Democratic.
For Real Change, Vote Libertarian.

I urge other libertarian candidates to join me in opposing the gambling ban, as discussed in my guest column in Rational Review.

George, have you tried contacting globalgamingexpo.com and the Poker Players Alliance? They are two groups known to be fighting for a repeal of the ban. Maybe they can be persuaded to have all their members support the LP so we can overturn this unjust ban. We should try this with all groups that are being "screwed" by the government, which would be most groups.

Anyone in support of marijuana legalization.
The NRA
Anyone that pays excessive taxes (that's just about all of us)
Environmental groups
etc.

Well the terrorism thing has become the new bogeyman for any new power the government wants.
I love the new anti-drug ads that say when you buy marijuana you are helping support terrorism.
Number one- The drugs that do in a roundabout way support terrorism are cocaine and opium. Cocaine is the reason for much of the terrorist activity in Colombia and other South American countries. Opium is grown in abundance in Afghanistan. There are a lot of people who are just growing it for the same reason our farmers grow their crops. To feed their families. However a few bands of guerrillas are using it to fund Jihad.
Number two- The only reason that any of the money spent on drugs reaches terrorists is because they are illegal. If they were legal legitimate businessman would be raking in the profits. Just like Prohibition. In a libertarian government Al Capone, Tony Montana (Scarface) and most of the organized crime networks would have nothing to make money on. If a person can buy their beer (or pot, or smack, or gamble, or prostitutes) from a legitimate business they would never go to a dangerous thug to get them.
Most organized crime rings start because their is a product that people want that is illegal. That is how they get their start. Thank-you interfering teetotalers for all of the organized crime violence we live with today!

P.S. I have retired from the Pro-Anti War debate. I have said all I have to say about the issue. Anything more would just cause me to repeat myself.