This is good to know. I have always thought that McCain (Manchurian Candidate) would pick Jeb Bush as a VP, then if he just happened to buy it, the Bush kingship would still be in charge.

I don't think it will much matter who the Republicans nominate either for #1 or #2. If the Democrats don't nominate a complete stinker, they have an excellent chance to win the Presidency. With the collapse of the Republican Party in Ohio, the Republicans are simply going to be very hard put to try to cobble together an electoral college majority. In any event, 2008 promises to be another strong Democratic cycle.

Romney is vulnerable on the horrible human rights record of drug rehan centers his top money man, Mel Sembler, was involved in running. It was (and continues to be, under new names) child abuse on a massive scale.

Rodney Balko at the agitator covers the Sembler story:

http://www.theagitator.com/straightfox.php

On another page he writes,

"Mitt Romney has tapped Mel Sembler to be his campaign's top money man.

Somebody might ask Romney where he stands on child abuse."

Bob Riley is a crook. I was working the polls in 2002 for Jimmy Blake. The poll worker came out for a cigarette break and told me she grew up in the same county as Riley and wouldn't trust him or anyone in his family to sell her a used car.

Ah, but the Dems are poised to nominate Hillary, a candidate so vile that 47% of likely voters have already said they wouldn't even consider voting for her in the general election.

If anybody would ignore that kind of disincentive and destroy their electoral chances, it would be Dems who actually vote in the primaries.

I have a fear that somehow King George will find a way to implement marshall law and eliminate the 2008 election. It sounds far fetched TODAY. . .

If the Republicans nominate McCain and the Democrats nominate Clinton, that'll be opening the door for a Libertarian takeover if the funding is there. Let's spend the next 2 years securing funding and take advantage of our perfect opportunity when McCain and Clinton get nominated.

Brad - that would be awesome, but we have a lot of chips stacked against us to do it in one cycle. Besides, if we started becoming that much of a threat to them, they would pull some serious dirty tricks to keep us from coming up. These are not nice people we are dealing with.

Coach Jim - it's not that hard to imagine. Bush has already signed legislation which makes martial law legal, stolen two elections, and said it would be a good idea if he was dictator.

Speaking of dictatorship, I've heard contradictory things about whether Section 220 is part of the version of SB 1 that passed or not. What's the scoop?

Here are the list of G.O.P. Presidential candidates from the party's various factions:

(a) The liberal faction: Rudy Giuliani
(b) The moderate faction: John McCain
(c) The neocon faction: Newt Gingrich
(d) The Religious Right faction: Sam Brownback
(e) The social conservative faction: Mitt Romney
(f) The paleo-conservative faction (plus support from many fiscal conservatives and states rights conservatives): Tom Tancredo
and
(g) The libertarian faction (plus support also from the fiscal conservatives and states rights conservatives): Ron Paul

Here are the list of Democratic Party Presidential candidates from their various factions:

(a) The liberal faction: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Kerry, Al Gore?
(b) The progressive faction: Dennis Kucinich
(c) The union faction: John Edwards
(d) The moderate faction: Mark Warner
(e) The conservative faction: None. And no, Joe Lieberman doesn't count as one.
(f) The libertarian faction: none

Oh. I almost forgot. The log cabin faction of the G.O.P. has no candidate.

I'm surprised that the social conservatives, religious right, and neocons of the G.O.P. will be divided during the primaries.
I'm surprised that the paleo-conservative and libertarian factions of the G.O.P. will be divided during the primaries.
I'm surprised that the liberal, progressive, and union factions of the Democratic Party will be divided during the primaries.

The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002: A Threat to Freedom:
http://wwwnew.towson.edu/clt/editorials/peak6.html

The "factions" aren't that clearly divided. I'm sure many self-described libertarians will be voting for Giuliani and McCain, for example (please spare the outraged explanations of why a true libertarian would never do such a thing and about just how un-libertarian these guys are). Obama and Clinton may very well cut spending (any next president will be forced to, if s/he doesn't want to be the president who signed a monumental historical tax increase) and will definately support trade agreements, perhaps making them "members of the moderate faction."

McCain is far too authoritarian for my tastes.

Giuliani is no liberal.

He's more of a fascist - take it from a former New Yorker.

"McCain is far too authoritarian for my tastes."

I agree.

"f) The libertarian faction: none"

Bill Richardson is the closest thing to a liberatian Democrat running for president right now, sad to say. He represents the growing faction of interior West Democrats, who are taking over several traditionally Republican states. They hold some libertarian values, but just like most of the so-called libertarian Republicans, are not true ideological libertarians.

Gary Hart on a quasi-libertarian Democrat strategy:

http://www.westerndemocrat.com/files/GaryHart-DemocratsandtheWest.pdf

Libertarians have always done best in the west, and can benefit from taking the radical edge of the New West - if the party does not further fall into the hands of Republitarians and Constitution Party fusionists, but instead learns to market libertarianism to the left/libertarian border, like the more radical New West Democrats.

A recent Cato study found that younger Quintile libertarians (or libertarian-lites) are most likely to vote Democrat by a large margin, just as older Quintile libertarians tend to vote Republican by a large margin.

Overall, the percentage of small-l libertarians who are voting for the Democrats over the Republicans - because the Democrats are perceived to be marginally better on peace and civil liberties issues - is increasing rapidly with every election and was crucial to the Democrats taking Congress.

Since, as we all know, the Democrats will not be pushing this agenda, but instead will be pushing
the typical Demopublican DLC crap, and signing off on invading Iran and more appropriations for the surge and occupation (among other things), the LP could certainly peel off some votes there - if marketed correctly, which it has never been before.

Paulie -
Giuliani has very liberal positions such as support for gun control, support for regulation of the economy, and substantial taxation.
Granted, he is a fascist in terms of law and order issues. By the way, I'm a New Yorker myself. I lived in New York during Giuliani's tenure as Mayor, and still live here.

Also, the Libertarian and Constitution Party share the same positions on all foreign policy/defense issues, all economic issues (except for foreign trade), property rights, gun rights, and states rights/local control.
And, a dozen state chapters of the Constitution Party have changed their position on abortion from full prohibition to allowing it in cases of rape, incest, and saving the mother's life. Granted, it's not that pro-choice, but it's fairly reasonable.
--------------------------------------------------
Mat -
Any true libertarian would not vote for McCain or Giuliani. These two clowns support much more government regulation (especially, at the federal level) than any true libertarian or true conservative.
And knowing Hillary Clinton, she will push for a massive tax hike and try to install British-style or Canadian-style healthcare (or as I like to call it: the national triage health system).

"Giuliani has very liberal positions such as support for gun control, support for regulation of the economy, and substantial taxation."

Mussolini and Hitler had those positions to. I would not call them liberals.

Giuliani's "liberal" credentials:

1) Rose to prominence as a vicious prohibitionist drug warrior DA.

2) As mayor, cracked down on drugs, porn, and everything else that made New York City livable.

3) Appointed Police Department leadership widely known for their numerous civil rights and civil liberties violations, such as the toilet plunger incident and shooting an unarmed man 41 times, but lots more that did not make the news.

4) Wikipedia: In a case less nationally-publicized than those of Louima and Diallo, unarmed bar patron Patrick Dorismond was killed shortly after declining the overtures of what turned out to be an undercover officer soliciting illegal drugs. Even while hundreds of outraged New Yorkers protested, Giuliani staunchly supported the New York City Police Department, going so far as to take the unprecedented step of releasing Dorismond’s “extensive criminal record” to the public.

5) Well known for abusing eminent domain on behalf of corporate interests to destroy the lives of small business owners and poor folks.

6) Somehow was “lucky” (?) enough not to have been in WTC seven when it collapsed.

7) Exploited the hell out of the attacks for publicity and fame, and threatened to call off the election that year and rule NYC as absolute dictator.

8) Then exploued it some more to make a ton of money for himself and his friends in the uber-lucrative field of Heimland Security contracting.

9) Caused a lot of people to get sick and die by downplaying the toxicity in the environment around Ground Zero.

10) Has continued to shill for his corrupt cronies such as Kerik.

11) Has continued top explot 9/11 and support every warmongering and domestic fascist measure taken in its name, as well as a tool to promote himself personally.

with liberals like that, who needs fascists?

Stan, re: CP

Their seven principles, as quoted from their website

1. Life: For all human beings, from conception to natural death;

p) This is opposite to the LP platform and the majority libertarian position, although there are some pro-life libertarians.

2. Liberty: Freedom of conscience and actions for the self-governed individual;

p) This would be good if they meant it, but given some of their other positions (see below) it's quite clear that they do not.

3. Family: One husband and one wife with their children as divinely instituted;

p) Why is this in a political party platform? Clearly they want statist regime theocracy, a remarkably anti-liberty position.

4. Property: Each individual's right to own and steward personal property without government burden;

p) We agree on the face of it, but their position on issues such as immigration, trade, drugs (below the federal level), censorship of sexually explicit materials, and (arguably) abortion, among other issues, makes clear they do not mean this at all.

Furthermore, removing regulations and taxes from corporations without at the same time removing corporate personhood and limited liability amounts to amssive corporate welfare; we have to do both.

5. Constitution: and Bill of Rights interpreted according to the actual intent of the Founding Fathers;

p) Presumably, as amended, otherwise we are creating the distinct impression that we favor legalizing chattel slavery, disenfranchising women and 18-20 year olds, etc.

But this speaks to a larger problem a lot of libertarian rhetoric has as well, by creating the false impression we believe everything was great in the good old days, we ignore the fact that American imperialism and mercantilism did not start in this century or the last one.

Also, massive injustices such as slavery, Jim Crow, legal discrimination against women and gays, official promotion of a state-sponsored religion,
genocide against the Native population, environmental destruction, and massive discrimination against immigrants and minorities.

The LP, and the CP especially, need to make it crystal clear we are against these things every time we speak out about the founders and the Constitution, especially since the founders themselves were guilty of violating their own Constitution (itself imposed illegally under the Articles of Confederation), or we have no one but ourselves to blame for the lack of demographic diversity in our membership and the understandable misunderstanding by many people that we are bigots.

And this does not help either:

6. States' Rights: Everything not specifically delegated by the Constitution to the federal government is reserved for the state and local jurisdictions;

p) While libertarianism holds decentralism as a principle, the term States Rights conflates this laudable concept with State Authority against the rights of the individual. Ultimately, it is individuals and not States who should have all the rights. CP conservatives want States to have all kinds of rights to crack down on abortion, "sodomy," immigrants, drugs, prostitutes, pornography, businesses engaging in foreign trade,
state and local government promotion of their idea of Christianity, etc.

Historically, "States Rights" has often meant things like Jim Crow. So we should not be surprised that it still means that to a lot of people.

7. American Sovereignty: American government committed to the protection of the borders, trade, and common defense of Americans, and not entangled in foreign alliances.

p) The CP stands for trade protectionism, which destroys the economy and leads to wars. The also stand for a crackdown on immigrants, which also destroys the economy and is a violation of free association rights.

It implies that the government is at minimum part-owner of all property in the country - a profoundly anti-libertarian concept.

Another thing featured very prominently on the CP website is their National Veterans Coalition.

Their platform is even more anti-liberty than the CP.

1. Secure Borders

2. Strong National Defense

3. Punish Employers of Illegal Aliens to the full extent of the law

4. Limit Taxes to those for Constitutionally authorized expenditures(to include abolishing the IRS and replacing the current tax system)

5. Eliminate Taxpayer Subsidies and Social Programs for Illegal Aliens

6. Attain Energy Independence within five years

paul) I disagree on points 1-3.

A standing army is a clear and present danger to liberty - we should support the maximum amount of demilitarization possiible;

The only legitimate borders are private property lines, and we should take whatever incremental steps we can towards opening the borders to more free immigrant and true free trade (not globally managed trade).

Free association is a key libertarian principle. The regime should butt out of mutually voluntary association between employers and employees.

On points #4 and 5, while I certainly favor elimination of taxes to the maximum extent possible, "replacing" the tax system with anything other than nothing whatsoever is a formula for disaster, since it is a lot easier to institute a new tax than get rid of an existing one, and the CP's proposed replacement is a large increase in tariffs, which would destroy the economy and threaten long term peace and (as a result) civil liberties.

Instead, we should talk about eliminating taxes such as the FICA tax, exempting more people from income taxes starting with the first $100,000 in income, etc - real, massice tax cuts leading to the eventual abolition of coercive taxation, rather than a new tax which in reality would most likely supplement rather than replace the existing ones.

And while I strongly support replacing the welfare state with private charity, this should be done in a non-discriminatory manner. Since the regime's classification of millions of immigrants as "illegal" is illegitimate to start with, it is no more a legitimate basis for state discrimination than, say, ethnicity, race, hair color, or eye color.

Finally, while I strongly support energy independence, cahnces are that what most CP - and all too many LP - members mean by it is removal of taxes and regulations which prevent oil and mineral drilling in the public commons, as well as on private and leased property, development of nuclear power, etc, without at the same time doing away with corporate personhood and limited liability.

This is a massive form of corporate welfare, because it allows corporations to reap all of the profits without really bearing all the costs and risks of these policies.

If they were fully liable for environmental damage and the risk of major disasters such as Three Mile Island and Exxon Valdez, it would be a whole different calculation as to what forms of energy would be developed - just as it would be if the US military was not used to protect US petroleum corporations' interests abroad.

Paulie, a standing army is not a threat to liberty. Only the abuse of the army's power by the politicians who control the army are a threat to liberty. A volunteer standing army in theory can be operated to defend the nation without making a draft necessary. Even if a draft were not instituted because there were enough volunteers for whatever the leaders wanted to do, the effectiveness of an army that was constantly disbanding and reforming would be so limited because of inexperience, lack of consistency, and lack of organization. Our military must be strong because we have enemies. We can agree or disagree on why we have these enemies and the liklihood of them attacking us if we changed our policies but the threat is still always present, only the level changes. A standing volunteer army as we have it is being used for unjust purposes, no doubt, but they are not the reason for the treason, so to speak. We need to oust the government and change the thinking of our nation's people to understand the difference between defense and world police.

Also, we should keep trying to be a threat to the Reps and Dems. Backing off for fear they would makes laws to make it harder for us produces nothing. They might as well declare victory now if we don't try hard every day to get rid of them. Any time they make it harder for us our party leadership (Hello, anyone there?) should be blasting it all over the news. Aren't most news organizations excited when they hear about someone being oppressed? They should love us then.

Campaign finance reform very obviously does not protect incumbents. In fact, it does the exact opposite (as has been proven in Maine, with clean elections legislation).

It's something Libertarians should consider, at the very least.

Nick:

I would disagree on the need for a standing army. First of all, the U.S. is not going to be invaded anytime soon, well, other than by Mexicans. Air Force and Naval assets are sufficient for defense and our nuclear arsenal will dissuade all but the worst of madmen from attacking. There is no need to maintain a standing army at all. If necessary, state national guard units could rotate "on call" for possible active duty in the event troops were needed.
Having a superfluous army standing idly around just invites adventurous Presidents to use them, just as it invited Kings to engage in warfare centuries ago. Eliminating the standing army would make it impossible for Presidents to wage aggressive wars.
Also, having a standing army erodes liberty, just because Presidents are waging constant war, which always results in loss of liberty. Take away the instrument to engage in war and you stop the loss of liberty.

In my view of a standing army it is designed to be posted at our borders for the purpose of defense and immigration enforcement. I know a lot of libertarians think free borders are part of true liberty. I do as well, but in the present time until we prove for 50 years or so that our nation can be peaceful, talk of open borders is ridiculous.

So, the purpose of the standing army is for defense of our borders, navy for defense of our coasts (coast guard is redundant), marines for defense of our embassies, and air force for general air support to army and navy as well as missle defense. I agree that it is unlikely we are to be attacked but without protections at our borders, sea ports, and air ports we are open to it as we have seen not too long ago. The standing defense is a deterrent but I maintain that it must be in the right hands. When the dictator, sorry I mean President, has free reign what you fear is exactly what we have, but in the hands of a responsible libertarian Congress the defense (not as large as we have now across the world) is valuable.

We have immense borders and numerous points of entry in addition to open land where anyone can cross into the US and our defense SHOULD be monitoring incoming traffic, not just people but weapons, etc. Not having a standing army with a cohesive operational structure limits not only our ability to defend our borders but also to move about the earth after our attackers should they be so bold as to draw us out. If that happens, that we are drawn out, the national guard units should fill the holes in our borders created by the deployment of our forces. Once the world is at peace, and it can be someday, then and only then can we reduce our defense to rotating national guard units with no standing military.

Let's be realistic and move cautiously over time because our enemies would not allow us to simply lay down our arms and get away with our past transgressions. We must prove to the world that we can be peaceful before they will accept rhetoric from our politicians, even if we are so fortunate as to have libertarian politicians.

There is no need for a wartime military in peacetime. It only creates problems: a military industrial complex which has to be fed, even at the expense of provoking, inventing or creating enemies abroad.

America's unnecessary involvement in WW I led directly to circumstances which allowed Nazis, Fascists and Communists to come to power and thus created all the horrors of their rule, WW II and the cold war.

Notice how the end of the cold war "peace dividend" never materialized? The US never fully demobilized from WW II and went right into the cold war, and as soon as that was over the American Regime was busy trying to turn the drug war into a real war with the invasion of Panama, a possible precussor to a future invasion of Colombia.

And within a very short timeframe the American regime was telling Saddam, an ally up to that point, to go ahead and invade Kuwait - and then turning on him and killing two million Iraqis in two wars and an embargo ever since then.

This coupled with the remaining American troops in the Muslim holy land of Arabia ever since then, and military aid to Israel in the face of the Palestinian Intifada, was the provocation for 9/11, which in turn was the provocation for the wars and domestic suppression of civil liberties which have followed.

Now we stand on the brink of another world war, with American invasions of Iran, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Venezuela, Colombia and perhaps Cuba and other countries in the works.

Every time one of these wars takes place the government is expanded vastly, draining the economy, creating permanent military bases around the world which serve as a provocation to future wars, and wartime taxes and suspensions of civil liberties often become permanent.

The permanent military-industrial complex is a ravenous beast that must be fed, and its food is human lives, the economy, and our civil liberties.

Throughout history, the long term result of standing peacetime militaries in what start out as relatively free countries is always a military dictatorship. The military simply eventually tires of being subject to civilian rule and takes power directly.

We can already see the beginning of this in America with the current white house resident's insistence that he is not bound by acts of Congress or the courts, actual election results, the Constitution or Bill of Rights, and that he can legislate, appropriate spending, and exercise
emergency powers by decree.

We must realize that the American government itself is a greater threat to our freedom than whatever foreign enemies it creates, invents of provokes.

During WWII the Japanese studied the feasibility of invading and occupying the US west coast and decided against it, citing the vast terrain and high rate of private gun ownership among Americans.

That, the real militia, keeps America secure, as does relatively free commerce, of which immigration is an integral part. Contrary to the claims of some there is no Mexican invasion nor a need to keep millions of Mexicans from coming to America; the more come in, the merrier.

The trillions of dollars stolen and extorted from Americans for "defense" do not make Americans more secure. Quite the contrary. They only enrich crony corporations, expand government at the expense of freedom, and create enemies for America.

In fact the American regime has admitted that the Department of Defense is not defending America or making Americans secure by creating the Department of Homeland Security under our new King George. If it was defending us the "homeland" would be secure and no new department for that purpose would have been needed or wanted by anyone.

Personally, if the Republicans were smart, I think Ron Paul or Chuck Hagel would be the top choices. The Democrats are so sure of victorty, there is no way they'll nominate someone who will change our policy in Iraq. But the Repubicans could completely steal their thunder if they nominated someone who is against Iraq.

Paulie -

First. Anyone who believes that support for states rights equals support for racist or segregationist policies is an idiot. If you don't believe me, then look at what the infamous racist and tyrant, Adolf Hitler, did when he became the first German ruler to crack down on states rights. Besides, states rights means that the individual states (its governments, and the civilians) should be able to determine their own policies and laws without federal interference. By the way, did you know that the New England states were the first states to institute racial segregation laws decades before the Jim Crow laws came into existence in the South?

Second. Before the income tax was passed in 1913, the primary source of revenue for the federal governmnet came from import tariffs. The rest of their revenue came from excise taxes. Frankly, I would prefer this over the current level of taxation that we must endure now. Although, I would prefer the tariffs and excise taxes to be low (and equal to each other).

Third. Immigrants should do only a few things if they want to re-locate to the United States:
(a) Present the right documents;
(b) Don't have a criminal record;
and (c) Don't be a threat to our security or public health.
Is that too much to ask? I don't think so.

Fourth. I don't agree with the Constitution Party on religion and family values. However, they are with us interms of foreign affairs and defense policies, economic policies (except for tariffs), property rights, gun rights, and states rights.

Paulie -

In addition, many people in the Constitution Party have stated that is they had to vote for a President, their first choice would be the same as ours: Ronald Paul.

Scotty -

I know this is a pipe-dream, but imagine if the Presidential election came down to Hillary Clinton (or anybody else) vs. Ronald Paul.

"First. Anyone who believes that support for states rights equals support for racist or segregationist policies is an idiot."

Not really, since that is precisely the context in which "states rights" has been used most heavily by both its supporters and opponents in recent decades.

And, you really don't have to convince me - I know both sides of the argument on states rights quite well, and am completely in favor of decentralism, most importantly individual rights.

But you do have to realize how it sounds to other people. If you mean decentralism, say decentralism - not states rights, because that has an (often intentional, not that it is so in your case) double meaning.

"Second. Before the income tax was passed in 1913, the primary source of revenue for the federal governmnet came from import tariffs."

I know this, thanks.

But you see, I'm not a nostalgist, and I am not looking to return to the "good ole days" of 1912 or 1859.

Tariffs are not a good thing; they destroy the economy and lead to wars, and wars lead to greater domestic tyranny and permanent taxes.

My position on how we should go about reducing and eliminating taxes is the same as that of Steve Kubby:

http://www.kubby2008.com/node/20

"Is that too much to ask? I don't think so."

I do.

"Fourth. I don't agree with the Constitution Party on religion and family values. However, they are with us interms of foreign affairs and defense policies, economic policies (except for tariffs), property rights, gun rights, and states rights."

They prefer closed borders and protectionism - the opposite of us.

Some of their supporters describe their preferred economic system as "national capitalism";

wikipedia terms:

Corporate nationalism

Corporatism

Collectivism

Economic fascism

National syndicalism

Producerism

Mercantilism

"Third. Immigrants should do only a few things if they want to re-locate to the United States:
(a) Present the right documents;
(b) Don't have a criminal record;
and (c) Don't be a threat to our security or public health. "

Should you have to under go such a check to go from state to state? city to city? neighborhood to neighborhood?

"economic policies (except for tariffs),"

Not if they are "national capitalists". And not if they crack down on businesses who employ "illegal" immigrants. Not if they use state's rights to shut down adult businesses, some drugs, certain forms of entertainment, etc. All of these are economic activities. Nor have I heard them say anything about ending corporate personhood and limited liability.

A one sided policy of freeing corporations of atxes and regulations, while at the same time not imposing true market discipline of full liability for costs and risks they externalize, and absolving their owners and managers of full responsibility is tantamount to massive corporate welfare - national capitalism.

"property rights,"

They don't believe in property rights for those who wish to rent to or do business with immigrants, or to freely trade with those outside the regime's borders. They don't care for the property rights of those who want to put certain non-state approved drugs in their own person (if you don't own yourself, who does?), or to make, distribute or buy porn; or to rent their body (property) in certain state unapproved ways; and so on. In these areas property rights are trumped by

"states rights".

In the negative sense - not states rights against the feds, but states rights against the individual, which they also fully support, as well.

"In addition, many people in the Constitution Party have stated that is they had to vote for a President, their first choice would be the same as ours: Ron Paul"

He's not my choice. I'm for Kubby.

Also, many in the CP are for xenophobic, statist, nativist goons like Tancredo and Gilchrist as their first choice, or the theocratic Alan Keyes.

Paulie is correct about "states rights" being used against "individucal rights." I lived in Florida in the 90's and tried to drive across country but could not get a hotel room in Texas (unless I went to the less desireable areas where ID wasn't checked so rigorously) because I was not yet 21. I asked why. The answer directly from the desk clerk's mouth. "States rights." Isn't that the dumbest thing you've ever heard? I could die for my country but I couldn't stay at a Days Inn near the Astrodome? If the clerk said to me "that's the policy of Days Inn" I would have respected that as their choice, but even though they had rooms available, they were not legally available to me solely because of my age.

But, Paulie, as for completely open borders, I would love that, but it is completely unrealistic until we prove that were are non-aggressors for a significant number of years, so that our enemies no longer wish harm to us. Our current and past leaders have created these enemies to a great extent, of that I won't disagree. But, to think that if we don't have a military to protect us at our massive land borders, massive ocean borders, and hundreds of international airports that we'll be free from attack is not justified. The armed citizenry you suggest may have some hand guns and rifles but in the 21st century, the enemy may bring much more than the good folks of El Paso can handle. More to the point is that our defense must be governed by better leaders. We can pare down the military to levels necessary to defend ourselves. You argue that the MIC needs to be fed, well you're right. They're never going to agree to disband the military completely, but they can be made to go on a diet and exercize where we tell them to.

As for immigration, I believe anyone that comes here peacefully to live should be allowed to do so, but asking for some proof of peace before they step through the door is not too much to ask. Going from state to state or city to city is not an issue once you are in the country peacefully. There is a difference and its not just semantics. If you are a tourist or permanent resident, once you make it through the security check you are free to roam. You don't let someone into your house without knowing they are peaceful, do you?

"But, Paulie, as for completely open borders, I would love that, but it is completely unrealistic until we prove that were are non-aggressors for a significant number of years, so that our enemies no longer wish harm to us."

The problem in this is that so long as we continue
harassing people at the border, and maintaining a wartime military in peacetime (which will always look for something to justify it), we will never show that we are non-agressors. Again, while there is some threat from these external enemies, the threat from our own regime to us as individuals is far greater, and it is and always will be an utter failure at protecting us from external enemies. In fact, so long as we keep empowering it, all it will do is continue to ensure we create new external enemies.

"Our current and past leaders have created these enemies to a great extent, of that I won't disagree. But, to think that if we don't have a military to protect us at our massive land borders, massive ocean borders, and hundreds of international airports that we'll be free from attack is not justified."

To think that if we do keep a standing wartime military in peacetime we will be protected is not justified, either. Many trillions of dollars of extorted tax money over the years, now over a trillion a year, did not prevent a terrorist attack on America. The regime can't stop drugs, it can't stop "illegal" immigration, and it can't prevent terrorism. It can only make the problems worse.

Nor will a further border crackdown solve any problems; plenty of contraband gets into maximum security prisons, and there's not enough resources in the whole economy to make all the regime's borders more secure than a maximum security prison.

"The armed citizenry you suggest may have some hand guns and rifles but in the 21st century, the enemy may bring much more than the good folks of El Paso can handle."

Somehow, the armed citizenry of Iraq and Afganistan is keeping Americans at bay. The Afghanis also sent the Soviets home with their tail between their legs not too long ago, as did the Vietnamese peasants to the US military, and there are many more examples of armed citizenry being able to handle modernn militaries all over the world to this day.

" More to the point is that our defense must be governed by better leaders. We can pare down the military to levels necessary to defend ourselves. You argue that the MIC needs to be fed, well you're right. They're never going to agree to disband the military completely, but they can be made to go on a diet and exercize where we tell them to."

I would not say never - many people said the Soviet empire would never fall, or at least not anywhere near so soon and so relatively bloodlessly.

But, certainly, I'll take any reduction as a plus - I'm just skeptical that it would work. It's similar to a hardcore addiction; sometimes smoking less crack doesn't work and you just have to stop completely or die.

"As for immigration, I believe anyone that comes here peacefully to live should be allowed to do so, but asking for some proof of peace before they step through the door is not too much to ask. Going from state to state or city to city is not an issue once you are in the country peacefully."

Why not? Certainly, the same principle can apply.
It's just that following it would be inconvenient to YOU and not just "them."

" There is a difference and its not just semantics. If you are a tourist or permanent resident, once you make it through the security check you are free to roam."

Why? Shouldn't states and cities make sure that terrorists, criminals, etc., are not coming in from outside? Your distinction seems rather arbitrary.

" You don't let someone into your house without knowing they are peaceful, do you? "

Those times when I have had my own apartments, I've usually not followed a policy of frisking everyone before they walked through the door or greeting them with a loaded shot gun pointed in their face.

But the analogy itself suggests you believe that the regime is, at the very least in part, a legitimate property owner of the whole country: an idea I reject utterly and completely.

It is not "their house," or their property in any legitimate sense. And should not be treated as such.

Interestingly, one of Riley's closest advisors -- manager of his congressional campaign, I think manager of his gubernatorial campaigns, and now head of ADECA, a patronage agency in Alabama's government -- is a guy by the name of Bill Johnson.

I'm sure Steve Gordon at LPHQ remembers Bill from their confrontations in Alabama politics. I remember him in a much different context: As the 1994 US Senate candidate for, and later executive director of, the Missouri LP.

Bill is one of two people -- the other being L. Neil Smith -- who talked me over from the Constitution Party (not the new one, the one Aaron Russo formed in the early 1990s) to the LP.

For obvious reasons, I don't agree with Bill's politics anymore (or, rather, he seems to have stopped agreeing with mine), but I'll never make the mistake of underestimating his abilities. Anyone who can get Riley elected to anything, let alone RE-elected after his "Jesus wants a tax increase" freakout, is a genius.

Tom Knapp

TLK,

Lucy Baxley was not much of a choice. Her campaign was totally pathetic. I was almost half surprised Roy Moore didn't take Riley out. Too bad nobody listened to my ideas about how we should have gone about seeking ballot access early, including detailed strategies repeatedly explained on the Alabama Libertarian Activists and Independent Alabama lists in 2004-6, or Loretta may have had a real chance, perhaps.

Riley is a pretty good used car salesman type hustler, although somewhat less ethical, and would probably make a pretty good fit on a Republican national ticket. I am somewhat impressed with the choice. To make the picture complete, they'll need Mel Sembler (see above) in a top position with the campaign and adminsitration, and I'm sure Bill Johnson can be next Karl Rove.

BTW I'm interested in finding out more about Russo's original Constitution Party. I haven't seen a lot of info on it on the net, and I've heard contradictory stories.

Another interesting person on the Riley team is his daughter, Minda Riley Campbell. I went to college with her and knew her a little back then. Check out

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Machine

and links contained therein for some info. She seems like a standard Team Riley Republican lawyer now, but she showed quite an independent streak in younger her single days. Actually got the machine shut down for a few years, too.

Paulie, I never said it was the regime's house. It is OUR house. And, like it or not, WE elected these criminals. The American people, and anyone else for that matter, have every right to defend ourselves inside our own country AS WE SEE FIT. There is a big difference between freedom and democracy. Democracy just means the people rule.

John may have been right calling folks here Pollyannas because although I agree completely with your theories on free movement of people, the reality of it is that WE were attacked because of bad foreign policy, insufficient protection at home where it matters most, and the simple fact that some inhabitiants of this world would rather fly a plane into a building than discuss their issues over coffee.

Until we change our bad policy to make it good policy and dedicate ourselves to that good policy we can expect no change from our enemies. Once we have shown the world that we are what we say we are, we can relax the border protection and allow the free movement of people as you and I both want because then and only then will they trust us. It goes both ways. It will not happen over night. I am calling for a redirection of our military to defend as the name of the department suggests. I never agree with our military being used for misadventures around the globe or for the defense of other countries. That's their problem.

And if you don't know that person at you're door, you have the right to frisk them if you A) don't trust them, B) think they are there to harm you, or C) simply because its your house, your rules. If I came to your door and wanted entry into your house you can demand I wear a tutu as the cost of admission. If I refuse, you have the right to deny me and I have the right to turn around and go home.

"Mussolini and Hitler had those positions too. I would not call them liberals."
Actually, I would.
Mussolini began life as a socialist (his father named him after Benito Juarez, a socialist revolutionary in south america). He worked for socialist newspapers and causes all of his life. He started the fascists when he realized that the basis of socialism (confiscation of private property) would have to be enforced by strong-arm tactics. He basically gave up on the more rosy vision of socialism and became pragmatic about its implementation. The fascists were an offshoot of socialism.
Hitler was a vegetarian (he thought meat was murder), a pagan, believed in the powers of crystals and many other what we call "New Age" beliefs. He worshipped Mussolini as a great leader and statesman until late in WWII when Italy's blunders hurt the war effort. The NAZI's was the shortened name of The National Socialist Worker's Party. You don't get much more socialist than that.
One of the greatest swindles perpetrated is that which has linked these men in people's minds with the far right. They are truly examples of the far left.

John Brandimore -

To further illustrate your point: Mussolini one said that the ideologies of the right symbolize individualism, whereas the ideologies of the left symbolize collectivism. He further stated that Fascism was an ideology of the left. He continued by saying that the 19th century was the century of the Right, while the 20th century would be the century of the Left.

Thanks Stan.
I was unfamiliar with that particular quote of Mussolini's. I consider Libertarianism the extreme right (excluding Anarchy) for much of the same reasons. It is just that the Republicans (who are considered the right because they are socialist-lite) get it wrong.
Individual freedom is the foundation of our Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. The few things the "left" Democrats agree with us on is only because they feel they have to disagree with the Republicans.
You can't have individual personal freedom without economic freedom. And you can't have economic freedom without individual personal freedom. It's very simple but the majority of Americans don't get it.

You're welcome, John.

Everyone here knows that the most powerful factions of the Democratic Party are the left-liberals, the progressives (i.e. - the social democrats), and the labor unions.
Meanwhile, libertarians that remain there have little-to-no influence. Although, the Blue Dog conservatives in that party have a little more influence in the party thanks to the recent elections.

Likewise, everybody here knows that the most powerful factions of the Republican Party are the social conservatives, the Religious Right, and the neoconservatives.
Meanwhile, real traditional conservatives and fire-brand libertarians are barely acknowledged and not even welcomed.

Not surprisingly, the factions that currently control the two major parties are the factions that drove the traditional conservatives and fire-brand libertarians out of those parties.

This is why I believe it is important for the real traditional conservatives and fire-brand libertarians to form a political alliance, actively promote their ideas, and win elections in order to diminish the influence accumulated by the Democratic Party's left-liberals, progressives (i.e. - social democrats), and labor unions PLUS the Republican Party's social conservatives, Religious Right, and neoconservatives.

The best thing that could happen for the Libertarian Party is for the Democrats to choose Hillary and the Republicans to choose McCain. Th

Nick; I just read your post about "bad foreign policy". I have no idea what bad foreign policy means. I spent 20 years selling helicopters around the world. Our commerce does ten times more foreign policy than our "State Department". We deal with the people, not just with bureaucrats. Let's try to understand how the picture of the United States is really spread around the world.

Being older than dirt, I remember WWII. I never once heard anybody talk about the war in Guadacanal, or the war in Wake Island, or the war of the bulge. These were all battles in WWII. The military conflict going on in Irag is just a battle in WWIII. We have conflicts going on in Indonesia, Somalia, Afganistan, Pakistan, England, Spain, America, Iraq and throughout the world. This is not a war of political ideologies and political power, it is a war of religious power. There are a few (estmated at 2,000,000) religious extremeists of the Islamic persuasion who believe that Muhammed has told them that if you are not one of them you must be killed. These leaders will do anything to acquire the wealth of Iraq to further their cause. I like searching for my own truth, and living my truth as it is revealed to me. I will gladly die to save that freedom for my heirs. I do not know whether Iraq can become a democratic nation or not, but I do know that the extremists cannot be allowed to gain control.

"Bad foreign policy" is the government's decisions to try to prop up "friendly" dictators in other countries (as if a dictator can be so benevolent), support or oppose other nations with cash & weapons or sanctions whatever the case may be, and to generally not understand that we should defend ourselves, not other countries from their neighbors.

We know many of the countries we defend rely on us, not because they must but because its better for them if we do the hard stuff at our own expense. What do we gain from having bases in Japan, South Korea, Germany, Italy, etc? They have the money to defend themselves so let them.

I am not opposed to a transitional period, but the current situation is bad foreign policy. Would North Korea care about us if we were not stationed at its border? When one of their weapons hits Alaska, ask why. I'm not saying there are not tyrants around the world but why are they our responsibility? People respond to example, not rhetoric. If you want people to "behave" then you must "behave" yourself. Show them how it can be done. Show the prosperity that results in doing things differently and they will emulate you. That is why Europe is relatively peaceful now that they followed our lead of representative democracy as opposed to monarchies and dictators jockeying for land and resources. Since WWII our government went on the offensive and it has cost us dearly. That's bad foreign policy.

We should end trade embargoes. If Cuba saw an influx of capitalist and democratic ideas through tourism, radio and TV, etc communism in that country would crumble. In Iraq, there will be a civil war no matter what. That's what happens when you have three groups that HATE each other. Add outside influence from countries they respect way more than us and it is chaos. Keepinh us there simply delays the inevtibale. They must work it out amongst themselves or split into three countries or whatever, but we will never be able to decide anything for them. Would we want someone dediding for us? Hell no! We'd fight them in the streets which is exactly what is happening there. The arrogance of our government will be its downfall.