First, the U.S. should not have gone to war in Iraq since it had nothing to do with defense and retaliation.

Second, it is not the job of the U.S. to "liberate" other people from their governments. If other people want to get rid of their governments, than they should do it themselves. It is not our duty to "free" people.

Third, our security interests would be well-preserved if all of our troops were brought back to the united states for the sole purpose of defending our states from attacks and invasions.

I’d rather have a white house resident like Ford or Carter than one like Bush Jr. or even Clinton. I don’t really mind having a white house resident who stumbles and makes dee dee dee comments, or one who has a goofy grin.

Way better than having one who bombs aspirin and baby formula factories in third world countries to deflect attention away from where he put his cigar, and way way way better than having one who steals two elections, bombs the twin towers, enagages in torture, declares himself above the law….anyway, there’s so much more to say on that one and it’s off topic….

Getting back to our fond memories of a less toxic time in American politics, Gerald Ford once said “I’m a Ford, not a Lincoln”.

So long as we have a Cesar on the Potomac – especially one with his or her finger on the button – we can only hope to have more Fords, and fewer Lincolns (or Clintons or especially Bushes).

On the other hand, he did pardon Nixon (boo!), and
then there's this:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/floyd/floyd50.html

It's sad that folks in the leftwing media, and now LP News, is focusing on this tiny aspect of President Ford's life. Gotta bring politics into the man's death.

Sad indeed.

Eric, CEO, www.mainstreamlibertarian.com

Let's be honest:

Nearly every President in the 20th century was lousy.

The best President we had in the 20th century was Calvin Coolidge.

The worst ones in the 20th century were Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Hoover, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, JFK, LBJ, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, George Bush 41, and Bill Clinton. Almost all of the other Presidents were mediocre at best.

Stan, I'm assuming your didn't mention Shrub only because he is in the 21st century, right?

Eric, while it's true that Ford moved Cheney and Rumsfeld up into positions of prominence, pardoned Nixon, etc., etc., we're just trying to give him some credit where credit is due.

He did speak out against the Iraq war, and so that is one good thing we can say about him as a way of saying, in some ways he was actually decent human being, unlike, for example, shrub.

paulie cannoli
grand poo-bah,
http://pauliecannoli.wordpress.com/

Second banana,
http://lastfreevoice.wordpress.com/

Paulie Cannoli -

Correct. I did not mention the current President as among the worst Presidents of the 20th century simply because his reign began in the 21st century.

The scary part is that with 94 years to go in the 21st century there is potential for Shrub not to be the worst. Hard to imagine, but well, not that hard.

As far as President Ford goes. I would say average as President. I think the pardon was justified, given the total world situation of the time. As for elevating Rumsfeld and Cheney, well, neither Ford nor any other man has foresight of the future. As President, Ford did little damage, which in some ways marks a Presidency a success these days.

I would strongly agree that Calvin Coolidge was the best President of the 20th Century, I would assert that FDR was the worst, worse even than the current President. Abraham Lincoln of course is the worst President of all time. Grover Cleveland was probably the best of the 19th century, with the Jacksonian Presidents behind him.

Mark B. -

You took the words from my mouth.

Mark B and Stan --

Can't agree with you there.

The pardon was unpardonable. So was the Warren Commission.

Nixon and his gang deserved to be tried in a civilian court, just like Dubai-ya and his "family" will if the Democrats ever have the guts to impeach them (I'm sure I'm just dreaming).

Ford was an internationalist/interventionist most of his adult life, except for briefly before WWII.

Much of his work in Congress, Council on Foreign Relations, etc., was along those lines.

Rumsfeld and Cheney were no accident. Neither was East Timor.

But you are right - doing less damage as president made it, from our standpoint, a success.

So was taking courageous stances in his later years, like opposing the insane war in Iraq.

Paulie -

When I said "you took the words from my mouth", I forgot to say that I agreed with him in regard to:
(a) Calvin Coolidge being the greatest President of the 20th century.
(b) FDR being the worst President of the 20th century.
(c) Abraham Lincoln being the worst President in this country's history.
(d) Grover Cleveland being the greatest President of the 19th century, with the Jacksonian Presidents tied for second place.
and
(e) Gerald Ford causing minimal damage as President.

I apologize for not being clear earlier.

Stan --

With you on all that.

I think Shrub will probably be the worst, but he's not finished yet.

Indeed, we are about to reach 3000 deaths in Iraq, all in a search for mythical Iraqi nuclear weapons, and there is no sign that the American people will heed the wise advice of Gerald Ford on this question.

The death of Saddam Hussein also marks the death of the last serious Arab nationalist opposition to Islamic fundamentalism (especially al-Qaeda, and Iran) in the Middle East.

George -

Sadly, the overwhelming majority of those in the House and Senate will not take Ford's advice. In fact, they even show contempt for the warnings made by George Washington and Thomas Jefferson about establishing peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations - and entangling alliances with none.

Paulie -

The current President Boy Wonder is already the front-runner for America's worst President for the 21st-century. Don't worry though, there will be a number of worthy contenders for that prestigious title.

Yep.

Hillary, McCain and Giuliani are all already in the running.

I don't know much about Obama yet, except that he is opposed to setting a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.

There may be a revolving Clinton-Bush co-monarchy.

1988-1992 Bush Sr., who was also in many ways effectively in charge during much of the Reagan administration.

1992-2000 Bill Clinton

2000-2008 W

2008-20?? Hillary

20??-20?? Jeb

By then Chelsea is old enough, and there is sure to be a new crop of Bushes ready after that.

Since 1980, A Clinton and/or Bush has always had at least one of the major parties' nomination for President or VP, and Hillary is the Democrat frontrunner this time again.

Whichever Bush or Clinton takes the reins for the rest of the 21st century, they can be the new worst president of all time.

Or, the other shoe could drop (like 9/11, but bigger) and at that point, they may feel up to doing away with the pretense of having elections in the name of a national emergency.

Giuliani floated this concept as Mayor of New York after 9/11/01.

Since then, legislation and/or executive orders have been passed making such a scenario legal at the national level.

I'm not looking forward to any future Clintons and Bushes taking the White House.

At least the NY Italian Mafia has five families.

That's more choice than two.

Also, they don't steal as much money or kill as many people.

The good thing about the NY Mafia Families is that they have been known to whack each other. I don't think we're so fortunate with this Presidential merry-go-round. They just send other people to be killed.

Who here believes that there should be less power for the executive branch, and more for the legislative branch? Explain why or why not.

All 3 branches have equal power and that's how it SHOULD be. The Legislature and Judiciary used their own powers to grant more to the Executive, but they do still retain the rights and power to take back what they have given up, so they still hold the same power, in theory.

It's a sad commentary on how bad things are when the likes of Gerald Ford and Nixon look good in retrospect.

Stan:

My personal believe is that there should be no independent executive branch at all. In my Confederacy proposal, there is no central executive. As far as the current government goes, the President should be stripped of as much power as possible. A strong President is an abusive President, as we can all plainly see by experience.

paulie:

I still agree with the pardon. Nixon's crime was essentially covering up a petty burglary. Did we really need to send this country through more convulsions by having what would have been a long drawn out trial? We were facing many severe economic and foreign situations during that time period and a Nixon trial would have totally paralyzed the nation. Ford knew when he issued that pardon that he was going to sacrifice any chance of winning the Presidency in 1976, but he did it anyway. The pardon was proper, given the relative insignificancy of Nixon's original crimes.

Now would I support a pardon for President Bush. Absolutely not. His crimes are major and unforgiveable and have cost many lives.

"My personal believe is that there should be no independent executive branch at all. In my Confederacy proposal, there is no central executive. As far as the current government goes, the President should be stripped of as much power as possible. A strong President is an abusive President, as we can all plainly see by experience."

I agree.

"I still agree with the pardon. Nixon's crime was essentially covering up a petty burglary. Did we really need to send this country through more convulsions by having what would have been a long drawn out trial? We were facing many severe economic and foreign situations during that time period and a Nixon trial would have totally paralyzed the nation. Ford knew when he issued that pardon that he was going to sacrifice any chance of winning the Presidency in 1976, but he did it anyway. The pardon was proper, given the relative insignificancy of Nixon's original crimes."

Nixon's original crimes were much more extensive than that. The burglary was part of an attempt to sabotage the election and subvert the political process. They were bugging the headquarters of the largest opposition party.

The coverup involved many illegal activities. So did many of Nixon's other actions. The watergate affair was the tip of the iceberg.

"Now would I support a pardon for President Bush. Absolutely not. His crimes are major and unforgiveable and have cost many lives."

I agree.

Susan -
I'm with you. It's baffling that Ford seem benign compared to the many Presidents that we've had throughout this country's history. However, Nixon established price/wage controls, the E.P.A., affirmative action, foodstamps, etc.
--------------------------------------------------
Mark B. -
Another great point. Besides, the Founding Fathers were extremely hesitant to grant so much power to the executive branch.
--------------------------------------------------
Paulie -
I agree with you on Nixon's cover-up being a crime. However, there was no way that Gerald Ford was going to puh for a trial against Nixon since Nixon appointed him as his Vice President.

I meant to say "push for a trial"

Quid pro quo?

Anyway, they guy just died, so let's concentrate on the good stuff.

Like him being against the Insane War in Iraq.

----------------------------------

Been to Last Free Voice yet?

http://lastfreevoice.wordpress.com/

happy new year!

Someone wrote:

"Anyway, they guy just died, so let's concentrate on the good stuff."

Does the same apply to Saddam Hussein? Should we talk about how he stabilized the country of Iraq? How he made sure everyone had a job or at least an income?

This business about refusing to speak ill of the dead is silly. Sometimes it's neccessary to speak ill of the dead, so that their crimes are not glossed over. Ford brought us Rumsfeld and Cheney.

I find it interesting that having my homepage URL

colliething(dot)com

or my primary email address

hogarth(at)gmail.com

in my comments (unless it is posted as you see above)means that the comment is identified as 'spam' by this site and not allowed. It seems that LP members are being filtered (clumsily). I hope that this post, with the URL only in the body of the post, will be posted and not removed.

I actually think a user-commented blog is a bad idea for a national political website. There has to be post control (to keep non Party members from posting junk), and then what happens is just what seems to be happening here - members of the Party who disagree with those who control the website are not allowed to post, or have their posts removed, as happened to me when I posted a link to my blog posting detailing the secretive and rushed nature of the Barr appointment to the LNC.

I hope the Party leadership will consider removing this blog and instead develop the commentary skills of our members in the form of more homegrown essay and news-type writings to the website. Then they will be perhaps less tempted to post commentaries by Republicans on our front page, as is the case now.

See what happens if I try to post using my regular email address?

Well, the joke appears to be on me :) I am not sure what parameters make my messages get identified as 'spam', but I am having trouble posting now again. Here is a screenshot of something ID'd 'spam' just previous to this posting:

http://snapshot.jkn.com/764030.647479487573

The filtering came after I commented about Barr's appointment to the LNC (my post was removed, and subsequent posts were disallowed unless I go through this silly filter-fooling routine).

If we are going to a have a blog on the front page of the LP website (not a great idea, I think), then Party members should not have their posts filtered (or removed!) simply because their views are not the same as those who control the website.

- Susan Hogarth of colliething(dot)come

Susan:

I have found myself that it is most likely an excessive combination of numbers or of characters such as . or , that trigger filtering. I don't think there is that much deliberate censorship going on. Rather, the filter is arbitrarily making spam determinations.

I am of a split mind as to this blog. I know that Libertarians are supposed to be fully open about these sort of things, but then again, airing our dirty laundry on the main page of the website is not necessarily a good thing. If they close the blog to comments, it should be closed to all and not to a select few.

I should note that we are the only political party to maintain an open forum. The Democrat and Republican forums are tightly managed so that only priviledged followers of the party lines are allowed to post. The Greens have no official forum as far as I know.

I would remind everybody that we have a good, but underutilized forum at www.lpstuff.com where we can battle it out and yet be out of the likely eyesite of non-libertarians.

As for Gerald Ford, after the state funeral has been completed and the body has been laid to rest, then we should feel free to make historical critiques of his life. Until then, we should be respectful and hold our tongues. Anyway, you are laying way to much blame on Ford for Rumsfeld and Cheney.

Susan -

The reason why the website's blog requires us to put in specific information is because in December 2005, a bunch of neocon hemorrhoids came in here and hijacked the names of several posters (including me). It reached the point where I had to stop coming to the blog for a long while, and couldn't get on because I wasn't sure how to get on. Now, I'm on here under a different name.

Mark:
I think the filtering is deliberate, because none of my posts - rejected or otherwise - contain more than a single URL inline, and my home URL is very simple and should not trigger any filtering based on excessive dots or commas.

Stan:
I don't mind giving out my information. It is my name and website that *are* being filtered - and I have had a post removed after I posted it as well.

I'll post more on my website - whose URL I will not give here, as it seems to offend the 'spam' filter. I think you know where to find me.

"Does the same apply to Saddam Hussein? Should we talk about how he stabilized the country of Iraq? How he made sure everyone had a job or at least an income?"

Good point.

But I don't think comparing the more relatively benign American presidents to Saddam Hussein is going to win us many friends, either.

Perhaps if this were the LP of Iraq blog we might take a moment to talk about both the good and bad things Hussein did as president.

Saddam's trial process was messed up.

However, it is also certainly true that Saddam was a brutal dictator, responsible for the torture, misery and death of many people.

That things have gotten even worse without him in office does not take away his personal responsibility for the crimes he committed, the executions he ordered, etc.

Since this is an American party's blog, I think it's OK to talk bad about Saddam; we're not likely to be trying to recruit too many of his supporters, despite what the neocons say about us antiwar folks all being Saddam supporters.

If we are to ever allow the death penalty under any circumstances, Saddam and people like him (who might include Shrub and his henchmen, if they were to ever stand trial for their war crimes) would be the first to deserve it. After all, they make the Ted Bundys and Charles Mansons of the world look like very small fish.

I can’t cheer the sham of a trial; I certainly would never want to be before that court.

And the result will undoubtably be more war and killing as the different sides there take their respective revenge.

There are many more worthy people who died in Iraq today, but we’ll never know their names.

I think it's OK to say what I said here about Shrub and Crew because

1) I don't WANT anyone who likes him on our side

2) I'm stating a hypothetical, in case Bush is convicted of his crimes

3) Since he's still the (illegitimate) white house resident, it's fairly customary in American politics to speak out strongly against the white house resident currently residing there.

But speaking out in such a strong way against a past one from 30 years ago, who just died, I think makes us look bad.

I think the best thing to do in this case is exactly what Steve did, in pointing out the good things Ford said and did.

It's OK to point out in a polite fashion that his legacy is mixed.

But I'm not personally going to be all nasty and negative about it, especially at the moment.

Paul,

I applaud your reserve and civility. Let's set aside the Hussein example; if GWB died, would you think it best that Libertarians pointed out the *good* things he had done, rather than focused on the massive amounts of damage he has inflicted?

I feel sorry for Ford's family; I am sure they miss him very much. I also suspect he really thought he was doing best for the US and all humanity. I don't think it's bad to point out the few good things he may have said or done. But he was BAD PERSON, nonetheless, and we shouldn't just pretend it wasn't so because he just died.

I would have to strongly object to your characterization of President Ford as a bad person. He did things that as Libertarians we don't agree with. He did not slaughter 3000 people in a futile war. I am more familiar with the whole of his life.

He was a good man and a caring man. He made mistakes. But he also accomplished much of good during his life, particularly outside of his very brief tenure in the White House. Judging 93 years of life by a study of 2 years of that same life is just plain silly anyway. Characterizing him as a bad man is nothing short of an ad hominem.

We should not make such general characterizations in any event. Let's make specific critiques, not generalized ad hominems. Let's attack the idea and not the man.

Paul wrote earlier:

"[Ford] did speak out against the Iraq war, and so that is one good thing we can say about him as a way of saying, in some ways he was actually decent human being, unlike, for example, shrub."

You know, this will sound strange coming from me, but I am sure there is one or two good things we can say about Bush as well - especially as the positive thing you attribute to Ford was just words. After all, Bush 'spoke out' against foreign interventionism and nation-building - are we praising him for that? No - we compare it against his record and say that he failed to live up to his own standards of behavior. It's easy for Ford to criticize Bush; calling it 'courageous' (as someone here did) is ludicrous. It's *fashionable* to criticize Bush these days. Big Deal. Yawn.

In fact, the first part that Gordon quoted above doesn't even criticize the war - just Bush's strategy for starting it!! Later in the interview, he suggests he would not have done what Bush did (duh - who would have something so silly in 04? when the disaster was obvious) - but that he would have *stepped up the embargo*! So he would have preferred starving in the Iraqis to bombing them - big deal. I can't believe so much is being made - everywhere - of Ford being 'against the Iraq war'. The good aspect of this is it is another display of how much so many people hate the war against Iraq now.

The LP should be leading this antiwar sentiment, and instead of just going along with the recent fashion of Bush-bashing, should be making a STRONG argument for getting the heck out of Afghanistan. We need to be leaders - not followers!

SJH:

If G-dubai-ya-B dies 30 years from now, and all the presidents who come after him are much worse than him, and if he in his waning years criticizes some of their most evil policies, I'll try to think of something nice to say about him then.

It won't be as easy to do since I think he has a lot more blood on his hands. But I'll try to think of something then, like pointing out that he was a better president than all the Clintons and Bushes who came after him, and that at the age of 80 he opposed nuking Beijing, for example.

But then again, if things get that bad in 30 years from now to make GWB look good by comparison, it will probably be mandatory to say nice things about him then, like in Stalinist Russia.

"The LP should be leading this antiwar sentiment, and instead of just going along with the recent fashion of Bush-bashing, should be making a STRONG argument for getting the heck out of Afghanistan. We need to be leaders - not followers!"

I agree 100%

The LP should indeed be leading the antiwar movement. The Green Party has been very vocal in the antiwar movement. The Libertarian Party needs to be equally as vocal.

Mark,

Your criticism of me is warranted, and I thank you for it. I should have been more specific. Off the top of my head, I now know that Ford would have favored continued and escalated sanctions against the Iraqi people. That is bad. VERY bad.

From Wikipedia:

After hammering LBJ on the Great Society, "Ford still signed the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, which established special education throughout the United States."

and

"In his meeting with Indonesian dictator Suharto, Ford gave the green light [44] through arms and aid to invade the former Portuguese colony East Timor. Though causing little response from the media, the invasion resulted in the massacre of between 100,000-200,000 people: around a third of the population of the country."

[I guess this is the 'internationalist' aspect of Ford]

But perusing Ford's Wikipedia article did give me this nice nugget for those speak-no-ill-of-the-dead among you all :)

"In 2001, Ford broke with conservative members of the Republican party by stating that gay couples "ought to be treated equally. Period." He became the highest ranking Republican to embrace full equality for gay couples."

Susan,

"The good aspect of this is it is another display of how much so many people hate the war against Iraq now."

I think that cuts to the heart of the matter.

At the end of his piece Steve says

"It would be nice if more people, including prominent Republicans, would be willing to speak out against the war in Iraq sometime before we double the amount of deaths suffered on 9/11."

So he's trying to move them incrementally in our direction and using their good will toward Ford to nudge them a little.

Then he provides a link to a more hard-hitting LP release which nudges those who are ready for it a
little further, and tries to get them to consider joining or supporting the LP in some fashion because we were right about this war.

I see what you are doing as part of the same continuum, but at the other end: trying to get the LP to be even stronger and more principled in our antiwar stance than we already are.

I don't think what Steve is intent on doing above and what you are intent on doing in the comment section are necessarily at cross-purposes.

You're both trying to move folks to come out against the war more strongly. It's just that he's working on those who come from the general public, and frequently from a previous pro-war perspective, and you're trying to make already hardcore commited libertarians to be even more hardcore and even more commited.

You're both pushing folks in the same general direction, just from different starting points.

At least, that's what I *hope* is happening.

Mark

"The LP should indeed be leading the antiwar movement. The Green Party has been very vocal in the antiwar movement. The Libertarian Party needs to be equally as vocal."

I've been saying the same thing for a long time, and it's good to finally hear more and more Libertarians say it.

I disagree with anyone that says this blog should be removed from the LP site. Whenever we can get people to come here and learn about the party, it is good for them to see that we are working through real problems here, collectively, even if we disagree on some of the finer points. The Reps and Dems fail the folks we're targeting because they have no ideas or bad ideas. Creating good ideas, discussing how to solve problems, and voicing our libertarian opinions can help us. If we can get newcomers into the discussion it will add to our depth. We need depth and we need to be different than our political adversaries.

Nick says: "Whenever we can get people to come here and learn about the party, it is good for them to see that we are working through real problems here, collectively, even if we disagree on some of the finer points."

Yes, I would agree if that were the case. However, it is not. "Working through problems" does not include the filtering out of (nonvulgar, politely expressed) statements the Party management disagrees with.

When I - a strong Party activist - can post using my full name and homepage URL without being filtered as 'spam' on this site (or having my posts removed), and when others of the 'loyal opposition' are not likewise filtered, *then* it will be the case that people can see that we are 'working through problems' here. Until then we will look like a Party that gives lipservice to open communications but where in fact the leaders excercise (or attempts to excercise) arbitrary control over any debate.

SJH, I understand your frustration. Even when not saying anything hostile or even impolite, I have been censored but it turned out that it wasn't what I was saying, it was how I was typing it. If you put three periods in a row, as you would pausing before making a point, the sytem filters your whole comment out. It took me a while to figure that out, but it've very likely that you are typing something in a way that the spam filter is picking up, not that you are saying anything the party disagrees with. There have been posters on here that have basically hijacked the blog with their issues unrelated to the discussion and even they were not removed, they were asked by party leadership (on the blog itself) to stop. If they were being excluded based on their screen name, I assume their posts would have been removed rather than being asked to stop. But, that didn't happen. This issue of how we type things (especially URLs) has been an issue all along and probably won't change because it probably eliminates real spam by the truckload.

A libertarian response to unruly citizens? Check out this Spanish town's justice system.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070102/od_nm/spain_revenge_dc

I have seen several postings that state Lincoln was the worst president.
I don't understand where they are getting that from.
Lincoln was against prohibition, against slavery, and for keeping our country together.
If it weren't for Lincoln there would be two separate countries stuck between Canada and Mexico instead of one.

Are those who don't like Lincoln in favor of prohibition and slavery? or are there reasons other than being from the south that you don't like Lincoln?

I always had respect for Lincoln because of his climb from poverty and self-taught education to the presidency.

Lincoln seemed like a relatively libertarian president. I've often thought we could use someone like him in office today, but then I don't know much about his presidency other than what I stated already.

Please inform me as to just why you think Lincoln was our worst president; unless it is simply because of your prejudice or "southern-rebel" mentality.

Nick: A posting of mine *was removed* *after* it was on this site. I have also been unable to post content under my name and email address identical to what I can post using an alternate email address and my initials. Therefore I can only assume that *I* was what was supposed to be filtered.

I understand your desire to be fair to the people running the site, and I share it. But they *do* filter arbitrarily - for instance the post that was removed was about Bob Barr's appointment in the 'bill of rights' thread (because for some reason no one thought Barr was an issue worth blogging about) *after* another comment about Barr in the same thread. The other comment (there were two, actually, I think) was left, and mine was removed. It was after that that I was unable to post using my primary email address.

I applaud your desire to think the best of people and to give the benefit of the doubt. I have experimented quite a bit with this blog and can assure you that it is not funky URLs or length or excess punctuation that is the problem. It is that I have been deemed 'undesirable'. None of my postings have been vulgar or even rude.

Dave J.,

Let me see if I can help you. It took a while before I understood the libertarian issues with Lincoln, but understanding them will help you understand a major negative turning point in American history, comparable to FDR's New Deal.

Many Libertarians despise Lincoln primarily for one of the reasons he is often praised: he 'kept the nation together'. What he *did*, in fact, was to repudiate our country's founding document - the Declaration of Independence:

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

The right to secede was brutally violated by Lincoln. He also (1) instituated a draft, (2) repressed the press, judges, and others who questioned his actions, (3) supported transporting slaves to Africa, (4) supported punishing tarrifs, and (5) provoked a war within his own country. That's just off the top of my head :-/

Was he entirely evil? Surely not - and fortunately for slaves, his war was the mechanism of their liberation (the ones not killed in the 'liberation', that is). But he presided over an era where the power of the Federal government increased HUGELY, to the detriment of both individual liberties and local (state) rule. This is why many libertarians compare his rule to that of FDR's.

Hope that helps! Have fun re-learning everything they taught you in school :-/

Dave J.:

Lincoln was NOT opposed to slavery - until it became politically expedient to be so (lesson for us Libertarians there: People LEAD, politicians FOLLOW - not the other way around!!!).

Also, you say: "If it weren't for Lincoln there would be two separate countries stuck between Canada and Mexico instead of one."

And I reply with a resounding: So?

To elaborate: do you have any particular reason for believing that the world is a better place because there is one country between Canada and Mexico, rathere than two (or three, or four)?

Lastly, please lay off "prejudice or "southern-rebel" mentality" comments. This is a subject you expressly admit to a great deal of ignorance in. And that's fine! But it is a bit rude of you to approach people who DO have a LOT of knowledge and understanding of Lincoln's presidency and its disastrous effect on our land and basically ask if we're all a bunch of idiots because we have strong opinions about a subject you just admited you know next-to-nothing about.

I didn't mean that to sound harsh, although it probably does. I am typing in a hurry and just wanted you to understand how offensive your remarks might be.

Lastly, Lincoln is a great example of the phenonomen of 'court historians' and the idea that the victor writes the history. I do not lionize the politiicans of the rebel south (they were politicians, after all!) but at least one of the their causes - the right to secede - I do support, and so did Thomans Jefferson and every other signer of the DoI.

Incidentally, following is the text of the post which was removed from the blog earlier. I repeat it not to continue banging on the Barrs-appointment-was-a-dirty-move drum, but just to show what sort of thing is considered so inappropriate it must be removed here. After I posted this I could no longer post here with the same name and email address. Judge for yourself:

[the link to my website triggers the spam filter, apparently - here's my second try. The bit below is a portion of a post on my website]

What this is about: The process by which Bob Barr was placed on the Libertarian National Committee (LNC) as representative of the Southeast (SE) region.

What this is NOT about: Bob Barr's suitability for the position he was appointed to.

Essence of the matter: The chairs of the SE region did not act against rules in the appointment of Bob Barr to the LNC, but they did act inappropriately.

Dave J.

I would refer you to "The Real Lincoln" and "Lincoln Unmasked" both by Thomas J. DiLorenzo. These both can be obtained at the store at http://www.mises.org and can probably be obtained used at Amazon.

These books put to rest forever the garbage you were fed in government school about Lincoln. Lincoln's main purpose in life was establishing the "American System" advocated by Henry Clay. This was an entirely mercantilist position, including among other things very high tariffs, fiat money and internal improvement subsidies. The war was NEVER about slavery. In fact, right as the first states were beginning to secede, Congress passed and Lincoln endorsed and signed, a proposed constitutional amendment that would have forever barred the Federal Government from interfering with slavery. Lincoln grossly ignored civil rights and expanded the powers of the Federal Government. His actions made possible the creation of the welfare state by FDR.

Also, I would state that Lincoln was the pure anthesis of a Libertarian President.

Probably the closest we have had to a Libertarian President was Grover Cleveland.

Dave J. -

When Lincoln was a member of the Illinois State legislature, he proposed an amendment to the Illinois State Constitution that called for all blacks living in Illinois to be deported to another state. This amendment even called for the prevention of all blacks living in other states from entering the state of Illinois.
In addition, he was part of the Illinois Colonization Society. This group's goal was to grant all blacks their freedom on the condition that they "re-locate" to Central/South America, the Caribbean, and Africa. Basically, blacks could be free anywhere except in the United States. By the way, if Lincoln really wanted to abolish slavery, then why didn't he sick the Union army (like a Rottweiler) on Missouri, Kentucky, West Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware?

Lincoln also supported the aforementioned punishing tariffs, corporate subsidies, and more centralization of power within Washington. In fact, he stated in his Inaugural Address that any southern states that refused to enforce the 50% tariff would be attacked by the Union army. He jailed all opponents of the war, forcibly shut down all newspapers that were sympathetic to southern secession and states rights (even those in the North), and even deported a U.S. Congressman from Ohio (Clement L. Vallandigham) to Canada for expressing his opposition to the war and criticizing Lincoln in a session of Congress.
Guess what? Rush Limbaugh stated on the radio that he wished Shrub would do the same thing to opponents of the Iraq War.

Does Abraham Lincoln sound like a libertarian, now?

I have "The Real Lincoln" and it showed that Lincoln was the antithesis of a libertarian.

Mark B. -
We all know that Grover Cleveland was the greatest U.S. President of the 19th century, foolwed by the Jacksonian Presidents, and Thomas Jefferson close behind. By contrast, Lincoln was the worst President that this country ever had.

Dave J. -
A civil war is when two or more factions are fighting for control of the same government through the use of violence. This was not a civil war since the Confederate States of America was a group of sovereign, free, and independent states. Therefore, a more accurate name for this conflict would be the "unprovoked war to destroy the Confederate States of America."
By the way, the Union army occupied the southern states in much the same way that the Soviet army occupied the nations of Eastern Europe. And, he cracked down on states rights the same way that Adolf Hitler did in Germany.

Dave J. -

Another thing you need to know is that the New England states were the first ones to attempt secession with the Hartford Convention.

Dave J. -

I'm from the Northeast, and I know that Lincoln was the worst President in this country's history.

"I'm from the Northeast, and I know that Lincoln was the worst President in this country's history."

Shrub might have him beat now.

Wilson and TR were way up there, too.

"Thomas Jefferson close behind."

Thomas Jefferson was not very good as President from a libertarian perspective.

Wikipedia:

"Jefferson continued the basic Hamiltonian programs of the national bank, tariffs, and funding the national debt."

His Louisiana purchase was unconstitutional.

He commissioned Christian missionaries with government money to preach to the Indians.

You can also wiki the Embargo Act of 1807.

Throughout his two terms, Jefferson did not once use his power of veto.

Paulie -

I stand corrected.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20070102/cm_usatoday/uglyvoicestarnishdebutofcongressfirstmuslim

ITS REALLY interesting something as important as this gets unotice. Does anyone really understand where this country is going.

lost,

what is your perspective on this?

The ironic part is, that regardless of what book is used (for the photo op part of the ceremony), they will all surely violate (or at the very least, ignore) the Constitution which is what they are really swearing an oath on.

Nick:

Too true.

BTW, two Buddhists were elected to Congress this time too. One from Hawai'i and one from Cynthia McKinney's old district in Georgia.

I'm glad we are becoming more diverse representation in that respect.

Religious bigots like Virgil Goode have always been an unfortunate part of the American political scene.

Unfortunately, we even have some know nothing nativists and immigrant bashers in our own party.

It seems the good Congressman-elect is going to use Thomas Jefferson's personal copy of the Koran for the ceremony. That should shut up Virgil Goode.

Speaking of Cynthia McKinney, good bye and good riddance.

Thanks for the information.

That is all I wanted, more specific information.
I am obviously not as historically educated as many of you.
And I didn't really intend to offend anyone, I just wanted to get real information not information based on emotional hysteria, which I almost provoked unintentionally anyway.

I think that if there were two or more countries between Canada and Mexico they would probably be at war with each other.
We would definitely not be a super-power and might be speaking German today under a more severe form of government.

What is better about state government than federal government?
From what I understand state governments are often more authoritarian than the federal government is, then the feds follow suit because they don't want to be outdone by an authoritarian state. Both are bad if they are too authoritarian.

From the sounds of it we have never had a libertarian minded president.
From the start our government has been trying to take away our rights instead of protecting them.

I am sure some of you can educate me more on these issues too.
Please do so.

We need to be more vocal about anti war stance is right on. This is where we are missing a great opportunity to draw some centrists and left leaners to the party. We need candidates capable of making it loud and clear that Libertarians are the only party dedicated to withdrawl and also free trade with other nations and is the only party that will not waggle and waver on these issues like the Ds and Rs. We need to hold big demonstrations at universities, state capitals, and even the U.S. Capitol to make the Libertarian war stance visible to everyone. We need to fund commercials on both television and radio that tell everyone they have a choice next presidential election and don't have to vote for either Hillary,Jeb, Mccain, or whoever the D and R candidates are that obviously support the war for their own political purpose. Another group of people we can appeal to is those who have lost their jobs due to minimum wage laws such as the disabled and the uneducated and untrained people who want to work and not depend on others or the government for a living. Lets work on all this. I have a feeling 2007 can be the year we really bring up our numbers and votes for librty if we target these groups along with high school juniors and seniors almost old enough to vote we can do it.

Paulie,

We certainly have some xenophobia in our party, but hopefully we can come to some sort of consensus on the immigration issue here. I am in favor of allowing freedom loving, hard working, law abiding newcomers to this country. But I am also in favor of placing our military at our borders as well as sea and air points of entry for the purpose of defense (rather than all over the world defending others).

If our large military is regularly patroling the borders we can funnel immigrants to check points and run reasonable, legitimate checks to weed out hostiles. Defense and border protection go hand in hand.

I'm spitballing here, but:
As for the 11-12 million illegal immigrants already here, perhaps a compromise. Instead of automatic citizenship (undeserved) vs making them all leave and then come back in (silly as well as pretty much impossible), they could have the option to register with the government for a green card OR they can leave. If we end the welfare system there will be little incentive to stay without a job. If they have jobs then who cares if they stay provided they do so peacefully? If they break the law (realistic libertarian laws, not big government stupid laws), they go to jail or get deported. End of story. That's incentive to act peacefully and taxpayers won't be supporting them. The 14th amendment should still apply to persons born here, but without welfare the minor children would not receive benefits to support them or their parents meaning they either get jobs or leave for greener welfare pastures.

Dave,

When the first few Presidents were sitting they were libertarian-minded, but occasionally acted based on what they thought was good either for the country or for themselves. I'm currently reading a book of compiled writings and quotes from John Adams (2nd Pres. 1796-1800). He had very liberty minded actions and writings as a freedom seeking colonial and somewhat as Washington's VP, but as President he was paranoid about people speaking against the office of the President, very ironic considering he was a framer of the Constitution. His fears tended to be more towards those within the ranks of the government and the forming of political parties which he despised rather than the general public but his presidential actions were not very libertarian. It is no secret that people change when they become powerful. In Adams' case he was very libertarian until he was in the position that other politicians were being hostile to him.

Jefferson's writings were libertarian in thought but his actions (as President and as a slaveholder, obviously) were not libertarian.

Let's also not forget, all politicians have to work with other politicians. Our libertarian values are great but if we were in power with Reps and Dems present among us, how would we act? For example, if I was a Congressman who was trying to repeal all federal drug laws I would probably compromise to allow a minor pork project to some other congressman if it was necessary to enact what I felt was of great importance. The point is, they hold each other hostage politically more often than not.

Over at antiwar.com blog Jim Bovard asks

What if Nixon had been Hanged?

http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/01/02/what-if-nixon-had-been-hanged/

"Nixon was guilty of illegally invading a foreign country (Cambodia), of perpetuating the war in Vietnam for political purposes and his 1972 reelection campaign, of violating the rights of tens of thousands of Americans with the illegal FBI COINTELPRO program, of sanctioning CIA violence and subversion around the globe, as well as Watergate and many other offenses."

Dave J:

I applaud your good nature, and your willingness to ask questions.

What makes you think that two nations between Canada and Mexico would likely be at war? We are not at war with Canada, nor Mexico, presently, so why would the CSA be likely to be at war with the Union?

As for the 'speaking German' business; it's hard to predict history-that-never-was, but unfortunately it is the favorite game of many people who then use that speculation to justify actions. I frankly think it's unlikely that we'd be 'speaking German' (and why woudl that be a Bad Thing, anyway?), and I KNOW Nazism would not have survived this long. It couldn't. Like any socialist system, it is doomed to collapse, and because it was very socialist, it would have done so sooner rather than later.

I do want to say that you hit the nail on the head with this line:

"From the start our government has been trying to take away our rights instead of protecting them."

THAT is a very libertarian statement, and is the sentiment of most of us in the LP!!

Paulie, thanks for the link to the Bovard piece. This line, which followed the paragraph you quote, is a *hoot*:

"Nixon also created Amtrak."

Of course, Amtrak is not a hoot :-/

Here's an example of socialism at it's finest. In Alaska during the Carter administration, it was determined that native Alaskans (such as Aleuts and Eskimos) lived below the poverty level which was an arbitrary dollar amount determined by the government. It didn't matter to the government that most natives prospered by subsistence hunting and the selling of crafts and other goods to tourists and military folks in Alaska. So, the government suddenly gave large checks to the natives. Now they had more money than they had ever seen. They felt no need to live within their own means and customs. As a result, many of them spent their evenings at bars in Anchorage getting drunk with all that extra cash, not worrying about working anymore. Servicemen have told stories about how they would find the native Alaskans frozen to death in the alleys because they had been out drinking all night, and they weren't accustomed to handling the excess alcohol they now could afford. The point is, the government in its infinite wisdom (and generosity with OUR money) got involved where it didn't need to be and as usual caused more problems than they fixed.

I wish that the Libertarian Party would be able to attract any remaining libertarians from the two major parties into our camp.
I wish that the Constitution Party would be able to attract any remaining paleo-conservatives from the Republican Party, and any remaining conservatives from the Democratic Party into their camp.
I wish that both, the Libertarian and Constitution Parties, could attract any remaining fiscal conservatives and states rights supporters away from the G.O.P. and into both of their respective camps.
I wish that it could then form a massive coalition in every legislative body in every locality and state, and the federal government.

I'm not so sure if we can bring those are moderate or left-of-center into our camp. remember, libertarians were once dominant in the Democratic Party until we let the progressives into the party. The progressives showed their appreciation by showing us the exit door.
Likewise, libertarians and paleo-conservatives were the dominant factions in the G.O.P. until the neocons, social conservatives, and and the religious right were allowed to enter. Those three factions then gave thanks to the libertarians and paleo-conservatives by giving them the boot.
Therefore, it is important to give any new member a tough litmus test.

I do mean tough litmus tests for ANY new member of our party or any potential coalition that involves us.

Nick- Excellent point about how our (Libertarian) politicians would have to make compromises to get the larger parts of our agenda enacted. I even applaud the one you picked as an example - Drug Prohibition.
Me and SJH had both made objections to Barr's being given a leadership position due to his stance on this issue. I am saddened to see that they were removed.
Now I am far from a purist or for enforcing 100% purity in candidates or leaders. I myself am in disagreement with most of the party as regards to the War on Terror, U.S. - Israeli relations and other military/foreign relations matters. However at other topics on this blog I made an attempt to explain my reasons and why I thought they were consistent with Libertarian principles. And I am just a loudmouth recent convert who doesn't contribute financially.
If you are a candidate or leader of a party who disagrees with a major part of the party's platform (whatever party that may be) you owe it to the rest of the party to offer an explanation of why you disagree with that particular issue. Ending Drug Prohibition is a bigger issue than just the principal that a person should have the right to ingest whatever they want into their bodies (though that should be enough for Libertarians). Drug Prohibition has also been the reason (or excuse) behind the federal government infringing upon many individual rights and increasing the police's powers.
It has even been used to infringe upon states' rights (the Supreme Court ruling in favor of the DEA when they busted Medical Marijuana facilities in California that complied with the state's law).
Drug Warriors rightly claim that they cannot win the war without these special powers (of course they lose even with them). The Drug War has become a war on rights and the idea that the police serve us not the other way around.
Barr needs to explain how his position on Drug Prohibition is consistent with Libertarian principals. Than after reading his explanation I and others will be in a better position to decide if we can support him. Like Nick said we have to compromise to get some of what we want. If I knew how far Barr was willing to go to win the War on Drugs, I would be in a better position to know if the compromise was worth it.

John,

Since you brought up Barr, you might be interested in this link:

http://www.medicalmarijuanaprocon.org/BiosInd/Barr.htm

Susan,
Thanks for the website. I'm even more opposed to this Drug Warrior than I was before.
He talks about Medical Marijuana being "witchcraft" and how it needs to stay away from our children.
This "witchcraft" has been found to alleviate pain and to help with side affects of chemotherapy (amongst other things) by Doctors (not PhD.'s). It is more prevalent amongst children because it is illegal and therefore not regulated. A drug dealer is taking the same risks selling to me a 30-year-old as by selling to a 10-year-old. If it were regulated similar to alcohol and cigarrettes a store owner has an incentive to sell to me (without worry of prosecution) rather than to a minor (and risk losing licenses, incurring large fines, bad publicity).
Furthermore, I want to know how Drug Prohibition is compatible with Libertarian principals. Barr should explain how there is no contradiction.

Susan H.
I think they would be at war because they already had a war.
I don't believe a free country and a slave country would be able to live side by side without conflict.

I think Drug Prohibition could/should be used as a litmus test for being either authoritarian or libertarian.
Drug Prohibition does not follow the "treat others as you wish to be treated" rule so it is inherently evil.
Christ said it is not what you put into yourself that causes sin, but what comes out.
For these two reasons it is odd that Christians are so prohibition-minded.
They need to wake up to what kind of fruit they are producing.
Drug Prohibition tries to ruin your life even if the drug doesn't - kind of like a government guarantee.
Those in charge of the drug war should be tried for treason for starting an unprovoked war on American citizens.
That's all from me for a while.

Well, Dave, you have a point. Lincloln did show he was willing to attack another country and beat it into submission, so that could have happened at any time in the future.

However, your other poitn is a bit off-base. The Union had legalized slavery until the EP, just as did the CSA.

"I think they would be at war because they already had a war. I don't believe a free country and a slave country would be able to live side by side without conflict."

Had the south won, slavery would surely have ended pretty quickly. Without the fugitive slave law they would have had an awful time keeping their slaves from escaping to the north.

Industrial mechanization and changing world mores
would have made chattel slavery untenable economically and socially. Brazil was the last nation in the Western Hemisphere to do away with slavery - I believe in 1898 or thereabouts.

LP Party Leadership:

Will Bob Barr be explaining his Drug War position any time soon? I don't even care if he never agrees with the rest of us, but if he never changes his mind, we need some sort of assurances that he will not champion the Drug War from his position in this party. As John B and others have pointed out, this is not just a "we want to get high" reasoning. Between the cost, the personal freedom and responsibility, the rights violations, and the related economic problems our collective position on drug prohibition pretty much covers all facets of our libertarian ideals and the movement we support.

If Mr. Barr is an expert in some other issues this party feels strongly about I think everyone here will support him in fighting for THOSE issues, but we will not be able to defend him in speech or practice if he uses this party to fight for drug prohibition. I believe it is safe to say WE are very much united on this but we also want to be united with him and other defectors from the Republican and Democratic Parties in moving this party forward.

Some assurances are warranted at this point so we can put this discussion to rest and get back to business, that is the business of getting Libertarians elected to public office.

Thank You,

Nick Manning
LP Member

Paulie -

I believe that Brazil ended slavery earlier. If that wasn't enough, I think each individual state in Brazil managed to abolish slavery without federal intervention.

Another reason why slavery would have ended anyway was the fact taht maintaining slaves on the plantation was becoming more expensive with each passing year. It took alot of money to provide slaves with food, their own living quarters, clothing, and medical care. Therefore, why would a plantation owner want to continue dealing with this financial pain in the butt?

Susan -

The Emancipation proclamation didn't free a single slave. It said that slave in each state that was still "in rebellion" by January 1, 1863 would be set free. That's not possible since the states that were still "in rebellion" were already part of the Confederate States of America, a sovereign nation that was well outside Lincoln's legal jurisdiction. Therefore, the slaves were never truly freed until after the war.

All other nations (except Haiti) managed to abolish slavery peacefully.

Thanks for the clarification, Stan!

Anytime, Susan.

Looked it up
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery#Timeline_of_the_abolition_of_slavery

Brazil, 1888

Ten years earlier than I thought, so that makes the case even stronger that it would have ended fairly quickly had the CSA succeeded in seceding.

Slavery may well have ended due to libertarian principles of choice. European nations and the Union (had the CSA been successful) were abolishing slavery on moral grounds. They may have decided to avoid trade with the CSA in favor of other goods producers that did not use slave labor. We'll never know if that truly would have happened or how long it would have taken. All we know is that slavery has ended in America. Unfortunately there are parts of Africa that use slave labor to this day. You rarely hear about it because it is not widespread and many people care little about anything that happens in Africa when the conflicts are between blacks. National Geographic reported on it a few years ago.

While you people like the diversity, some of you are not dealing with reality. If we ended up with a muslim congress, you can be assured it wont be for libertarian ideas. They will expect us to follow the koran. There is a fine line where to draw the diversity.

"I think that if there were two or more countries between Canada and Mexico they would probably be at war with each other."

I tend to think not, but it would be impossible to know.

"We would definitely not be a super-power"

Not necessarily a bad thing, that.

" and might be speaking German today under a more severe form of government."

Highly unlikely for a number of reasons

1) Without US regime intervention in WWI, the terms of the eventual armistice would have been a lot different. It was the crushing defeat of Germany enabled by the US regime's interventin into Europe's war, and the destructime war reparations Germany was forced to pay, that made Hitler's rise possible.

The prolongation of the war that resulted from American participation may have also caused conditions in Russia to get to the point where the Communists were able to seize power.

Had Hitler or someone like him come to power anyway, it is unlikely Germany would have occupied America, since they were unable to even occupy England.

Had they somehow occupied America, the American insurgency would have brought down the Reich.

Had they somehow defeated the insurgency, as Susan points out, they would have collapsed for economic reasons anyway.

"What is better about state government than federal government?"

Generally speaking decentralization is better because it removes added layers of bureaucracy and unaccountability.

Wake up (yes you should)

There's a huge difference between one Muslim in congress and a Muslim congress, since Muslims are a relatively small minority in the US that would be highly unlikely.

Anyway, there are in fact Muslim libertarians, and there are many types of Muslims just as there are many types of Christians, Jews etc.

Most folks who follow all these religions are decent and peaceful, but there are a few warmongers, bigots, zealots and power-trippers using each religion to advance their hatred and power-lust.

Since the US is majority Christian, the religious bigots and extremists we have to be most concerned about taking away our rights are Christian.

In Israel, a small ultra-orthodox Jewish minority serves the same function, even though 90% of the Jews in Israel are secular, the tiny ultra-orthodix sects are very disciplined, vote in blocks as directed by their rebbe, tend to have large families, and use their leverage in a coalition government to wield highly disproportionate influence.

Evangelical Christians in the US who are organized in the Republican Party to advance their concept of religious morality through the power of government do the same thing here.

In both countries, some of these religious extremists use their interpretation of Messianic theology to justify an ultra-bellicose foreign policy based on confrontation with the Muslim world. They are joined by more cynical secular military-industrial interests, imperialists and warmongers who are not motivated by religion.

The Muslim world of course has its equivalents. So do Hindus and everyone else.

Atheists certainly are not immune to this either, since Communists were Atheistic.

so the bottom line is it does not matter if we have muslims in Congress, it's Congress (of whatever religion, or none) that is the bigger threat - even more so, the Imperial Presidency - not Muslims.

Wake UP, if every member of Congress were Muslim it would be a reflection of this country's population since we have a representative democracy. This would be a very different country and we probably wouldn't be having this conversation. Rep Ellison is little threat to the Christian majority, but Rep Goode's bigotry speaks volumes about some members of our government wanting America to be a theocracy of the Christian variety. We'd be fortunate if our government left religion out of governing and focused on the short and to the point Constitution of the United States of America. They'd all have plenty of time for church picnics if they weren't robbing us blind with every bill they write.

Look whats happening to our country. We have lost a lot of freedom. A muslim is being appointed to the UK. One step the the muslim will lead exactly just that, a muslim congress. If you think this can't happen, then you are those who think the holocust cannot happen again as those who believe it couldn't happen in the first place.

Every freedom that has been taken from us by our government has been without a single Muslim in Congress. So why are the Christians and Jews in Congress considered good? Who do you think is taking freedom from us? He'll probably be just like them! Now, that's equality for you.

yes, and what do you think the muslim will do when they take over, much more and worse.