After being arrested on September 9, and accused of hitting his son, a judge found Kevin Barrett innocent. Barrett is running for Congress in Wisconsin’s 3rd district. The judge told Barrett to continue staying away from his wife, although the restraining orders for his 11- and 13-year-old sons were dropped. Another hearing will be held on October 16th for disorderly conduct charges.
While this was going on, Barrett did have some good news for his campaign. A poll conducted by his campaign found that 22% of the residents in the 3rd district believe that 9/11 might be an inside job, which is the centerpiece of Barrett’s run.
29 responses so far ↓
1 Mike Theodore // Sep 23, 2008 at 10:26 pm
As much as many Libertarians don’t like Barrett, I think his might be one of the most successful LP congressional campaigns.
2 radiodujour // Sep 23, 2008 at 10:34 pm
What better way to stick an eye in the establishment than sending Kevin Barrett to Washington. Conspiracy realist goes to Washington!
Listen to Kevin on Wisconsin Public Radio (Joy Cardin) . . . and listen to Jesse Ventura endorse him.
http://www.radiodujour.com/people/barrett_kevin
3 G.E. // Sep 24, 2008 at 12:15 am
What a joke.
4 Mike Theodore // Sep 24, 2008 at 12:24 am
G.E.,
Is all your hatred towards Barrett for any other reason besides he has unlibertarian positions?
5 Catholic Trotskyist // Sep 24, 2008 at 1:22 am
Good news. Despite its usual coalition with the Democratic Party, the Catholic Trotskyist Party of America has recently decided to endorse Kevin Barrett for this congressional seat.
6 HumbleTravis // Sep 24, 2008 at 1:54 am
Is this the closest thing to good publicity that the LP has gotten lately?
7 G.E. // Sep 24, 2008 at 2:21 am
Mike – I don’t hate him. But yes, my dislike of him is entirely based on his embarrassingly unlibertarian positions on virtually every issue. I’d go door-to-door for Bob Barr before I’d cast a vote for Barrett running unopposed.
8 Galileo Galilei // Sep 24, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Wow! Barrett didn’t hit his kid, but got arrested for hitting his kid. Nice police state we live in.
9 G.E. // Sep 24, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Barrett was dumb enough to marry a stupid woman who would call this in as a prank or whatever. That has NOTHING to do with a “police state” — which is exactly what Barrett wants. Who but the police would enforce mandatory compliance with his massive government Islamo schemes?
10 Galileo Galilei // Sep 24, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Barrett beats opponents in primaries!
Barrett beats the system!
Barrett beats to 9/11 Truth drum!
Barrett doesn’t beat his kids!
You can’t beat Dr. Kevin Barrett when it comes to finding a good LP candidate.
11 darolew // Sep 24, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Barrett doesn’t beat his kid, but he does want government thugs to beat or kill anyone who doesn’t fork over money for the various socialist schemes he supports. That’s not much better.
12 Ross Levin // Sep 24, 2008 at 4:26 pm
Hmm, that’s kind of offensive, darolew.
13 G.E. // Sep 24, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Offensive? Why, Ross. It’s the truth.
14 Galileo Galilei // Sep 24, 2008 at 4:33 pm
Barrett scores 85% on the Nolan Chart:
100% for civil liberties and 70% for economics.
15 Ross Levin // Sep 24, 2008 at 4:36 pm
It’s a matter of opinion. It can’t be true or false. But it can be offensive because there are people who were actually beaten and abused by their parents.
Plus, Barrett has said that he doesn’t wholeheartedly support universal healthcare. Also, he doesn’t necessarily want to “beat and kill” people that don’t want to participate in social programs. That’s just a complete smear, it’s stupid, and it’s offensive to Kevin Barrett and anyone with any semblance of intelligence.
16 G.E. // Sep 24, 2008 at 4:59 pm
What? It’s not a matter of opinion, Ross. It is objective fact.
Try not paying your taxes and see if you are beaten and/or killed.
If taxes are voluntary, then we have anarcho-capitalism. They aren’t and we don’t.
Barrett is a real Islamo-fascist, unlike those that Bush and Cheney talk about.
17 Ross Levin // Sep 24, 2008 at 5:06 pm
“That’s not much better” is an opinion.
“Islamo-fascist” isn’t a real term, it’s made up, it’s not a real thing. Unless you can somehow justify Barrett being one…
18 G.E. // Sep 24, 2008 at 5:07 pm
He’s Islamic and supports fatwas.
He also supports a fascist economic system.
Islamo + fascist = Islamo-fascist.
19 Ross Levin // Sep 24, 2008 at 5:18 pm
Oh, he’s a Muslim? Didn’t know that.
I just get a bit mad when someone uses Islamo-fascist, if you couldn’t tell.
20 darolew // Sep 24, 2008 at 5:30 pm
“Barrett has said that he doesn’t wholeheartedly support universal healthcare. Also, he doesn’t necessarily want to “beat and kill†people that don’t want to participate in social programs. That’s just a complete smear, it’s stupid, and it’s offensive to Kevin Barrett and anyone with any semblance of intelligence.”
All state action is ultimately backed up by guns. If it weren’t, the state would have no power. If you don’t beat/kill tax resisters, what are you going to do? Ask nicely? Such a scheme only works in the fantasy land of Dennis Kucinich.
The ideal should always be to strive toward non-coercion and voluntary action. That may never lead to no taxation, but nevertheless universal healthcare etc. is a step in the wrong direction.
“If taxes are voluntary, then we have anarcho-capitalism. They aren’t and we don’t.”
So government monopoly on the military/law is OK with you, as long as it’s funded without coercion? (It is with me, but I’m not an ancap.)
““That’s not much better†is an opinion.”
True.
21 G.E. // Sep 24, 2008 at 5:34 pm
darolew – One other criteria for anarcho-capitalism: No initiation of force. Therefore, it would not be legitimate for “the military” to initiate force against me for starting my own military.
Anarcho-capitalism does not mean lawlessness. The law predates the state. There would most certainly be law. It is the state that promotes lawlessness.
22 Ross Levin // Sep 24, 2008 at 5:42 pm
So maybe Barrett has some way to fund it without force. I don’t know. But apparently, neither do you, darolew. It seems like you’re basing your assertions on nothing but generalities, and you’re turning it into a very personal attack. That’s what I find offensive.
23 darolew // Sep 24, 2008 at 5:52 pm
“So maybe Barrett has some way to fund it without force.”
If he has, that would be a pretty major breakthrough in political science. I’d like to hear it.
“It seems like you’re basing your assertions on nothing but generalities…”
I wasn’t really asserting anything, just making a comment. Generalities are valid for the topic at hand.
“…and you’re turning it into a very personal attack.”
Not my intention. I’ve never met Barrett, he might be a fine fellow. Most of my closest friends are more statist than he is. Nothing personal about his politics, which is what I was commenting on.
“That’s what I find offensive.”
I think you’re too easily offended.
24 darolew // Sep 24, 2008 at 5:55 pm
“One other criteria for anarcho-capitalism: No initiation of force. Therefore, it would not be legitimate for “the military†to initiate force against me for starting my own military.”
That’s what I thought.
“Anarcho-capitalism does not mean lawlessness. The law predates the state. There would most certainly be law. It is the state that promotes lawlessness.”
To be clear, I never said or implied that anarcho-capitalism is lawlessness. My comment referred to law being monopolized by the state, rather than privatized as proposed by David Friedman and others.
25 Ross Levin // Sep 24, 2008 at 5:58 pm
If I’m too easily offended, you’re not careful enough with your words.
26 Galileo Galilei // Sep 24, 2008 at 5:59 pm
I’d hate to hear what GE had to say about Ron Kind, Barrett’s democratic party opponent.
27 Ross Levin // Sep 24, 2008 at 6:00 pm
I shouldn’t have opened my mouth. It wasn’t that big of a deal, and really wasn’t worth the effort of arguing.
28 darolew // Sep 24, 2008 at 6:02 pm
“If I’m too easily offended, you’re not careful enough with your words.”
If you’re actually offended by comments on an Internet blog, that’s not my problem. Lighten up.
29 darolew // Sep 24, 2008 at 6:04 pm
“I shouldn’t have opened my mouth.”
I always appreciate discussion.
“It wasn’t that big of a deal, and really wasn’t worth the effort of arguing.”
We were arguing?
Leave a Comment