In an article published today on LewRockwell.com, Austrian economist and libertarian philosophe Walter Block calls Bob Barr a “theif” who has “stolen our Libertarian Party from us.” Block says he will not support the national Libertarian Party “until all vestiges” of Barr’s “theft” have been swept away.
Furthermore, Block says he has sympathy for the Constitution Party and Boston Tea Party, but they’re on too-few ballots for him to seriously consider. Thus, Block has made the jump from marginally supporting Obama, to marginally supporting McCain-Palin.
True confession time. Before Palin (BP), I was leaning toward Obama. I thought he was marginally less likely to drop a nuclear bomb on some hapless third world country than mad bomber McCain. I regarded, and still do, foreign policy as more important than domestic, given that “war is the health of the state.” And, there was very little to choose between the Republocrats and the Demopublicans on economics. Socialism from both quarters (although I admit it, the prospect of Alan Dershowitz on the Supreme Court did give me pause for thought). But now, after Palin (AP), I am shifting my allegiance to the Republicans. Go, Sarah, go! But what about the libertarians? Don’t speak to me about the libertarians! The Barr-Root ticket is arguably less libertarian than Sarah Palin. Barr in particular has been a gigantic disappointment (see here and here). Actually, the man is a thief. He has stolen our Libertarian Party from us, and I’ll not again support it, at least not on the national level, until all vestiges of his theft have been wiped away. I have sympathy for the Constitution Party and for the Boston Tea Party, but they will be on too few ballots to even seriously consider them. So, one cheer for the Republicans; God help me. (I know Murray is up there, somewhere; Murray, please don’t read this last sentence.)
Click here to read the full article at LRC.
IPR covered Block’s initial impressions of the convention in Denver, which he characterized as a “conservative takeover” here.
86 responses so far ↓
1 G.E. // Sep 8, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Walter Block speaks the truth.
2 richardwinger // Sep 8, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Sarah Palin apparently wants to put hundreds of thousands of people in prison who are not now breaking any laws. In other words, she apparently wants to imprison any physician who gives any woman an abortion, and maybe she wants to imprison the woman who arranged the abortion.
I wonder if Sarah Palin also wants to put people in prison who have sex with a member of the same sex. She likes Justices Scalia and Thomas and they voted that Texas should be permitted to criminalize same-sex sex acts.
Sarah Palin says she does not want marijuana to legal.
Sarah Palin hired a Washington DC lobbyist to help Wasilla get federal government grants.
Sarah Palin raised taxes in Wasilla to finance a giant government-owned sports center.
Will someone please tell me why anyone thinks she is a Libertarian?
3 svf // Sep 8, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Any “libertarian” who declares that McCain-Palin is the “lesser of three evils” does not speak the truth.
The Barr-Root ticket is arguably less libertarian than Sarah Palin.
Love is blind…
4 G.E. // Sep 8, 2008 at 3:57 pm
“Not breaking any laws” under the federal dictatorship that legalized infanticide in 1973.
How “very libertarian” of you, Richard, to assert that the federal government has the authority to legalize the practice of ripping an infant’s limbs from its body inside its mother’s womb.
If that isn’t libertarian, I don’t know what is!
By the way, YOUR CANDIDATE (even though he paid to have his own infant murdered in utero), has the same view. This is one issue on which he’s right. Block, by the way, is pro-abortion, so that isn’t a factor in his view that Palin is “arguably” more libertarian than Barr-Root.
Barr wanted to nationalize Fannie/Freddie and the mortgage market under the guise of “privatization” — and he got his wish.
Barr led impeachment proceedings over a blowjob.
Let’s look at “gay rights” — YOUR CANDIDATE authored a piece of national anti-gay legislation and still defends portions of it. Sarah Palin VETOED anti-gay legislation in Alaska because it was unconstitutional.
Sarah Palin isn’t a libertarian. But the only thing Block is wrong about is in saying that the case is even “arguable” that she’s MORE libertarian than Barr-Root or the junta that controls the LPHQ. Is it even “arguable” that Palin is more libertarian than Mr. Winger’s good friend, Bill Redpath, wants to have a government database of gunowners and impose new anti-gun laws, and thinks that the Supreme Court established the “right” to keep and bear arms for the first time in the recent Heller decision?
Puh-lease.
Go Sarah!
5 Trent Hill // Sep 8, 2008 at 4:08 pm
“Sarah Palin apparently wants to put hundreds of thousands of people in prison who are not now breaking any laws. In other words, she apparently wants to imprison any physician who gives any woman an abortion, and maybe she wants to imprison the woman who arranged the abortion.”
She probably also wants to put murderers in jail!
6 G.E. // Sep 8, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Of course, if she were a libertarian, she’d want the murderers to pay restitution, Trent.
7 G.E. // Sep 8, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Oh, and one more thing: Palin “wants to put people in jail” for the “non-crime” of mutilating babies and throwing them in dumpsters; but Bob Barr, as a taxpayer-funded thug for the state, put how many people in jail for true non-crimes as a federal prosecutor?
8 richardwinger // Sep 8, 2008 at 4:25 pm
This country already has a greater share of its population in prison than any other developed country. It costs the taxpayers approximately $30,000 per year for every additional inmate. It also wreaks havoc on the life of anyone who must be imprisoned. Yet Scalia and Thomas want to put people in prison who have sex with someone of the same sex. The Republican ticket says if elected it will appoint more judges like Scalia and Thomas.
9 paulie cannoli // Sep 8, 2008 at 4:51 pm
WTF?
Dr. Block and GE are way off base here.
http://www.laprogressive.com/2008/09/05/alaskans-speak-in-a-frightened-whisper-palin-is-%E2%80%9Cracist-sexist-vindictive-and-mean%E2%80%9D/
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
No, I mean really, really afraid.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080903/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_palin_iraq_war
ANCHORAGE, Alaska – Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin told ministry students at her former church that the United States sent troops to fight in the Iraq war on a “task that is from God.â€
In an address last June, the Republican vice presidential candidate also urged ministry students to pray for a plan to build a $30 billion natural gas pipeline in the state, calling it “God’s will.â€
Palin asked the students to pray for the troops in Iraq, and noted that her eldest son, Track, was expected to be deployed there.
“Our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God,†she said. “That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that plan is God’s plan.â€
A video of the speech was posted at the Wasilla Assembly of God’s Web site before finding its way on to other sites on the Internet.
Palin told graduating students of the church’s School of Ministry, “What I need to do is strike a deal with you guys.†As they preached the love of Jesus throughout Alaska, she said, she’d work to implement God’s will from the governor’s office, including creating jobs by building a pipeline to bring North Slope natural gas to North American markets.
“God’s will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that,†she said.
“I can do my job there in developing our natural resources and doing things like getting the roads paved and making sure our troopers have their cop cars and their uniforms and their guns, and making sure our public schools are funded,†she added. “But really all of that stuff doesn’t do any good if the people of Alaska’s heart isn’t right with God.â€
Palin attended the evangelical church from the time she was a teenager until 2002, the church said in a statement posted on its Web site. She has continued to attend special conferences and meetings there. Religious conservatives have welcomed her selection as John McCain’s running mate.
Rob Boston, a spokesman for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, lamented Palin’s comments.
“I miss the days when pastors delivered sermons and politicians delivered political speeches,†he said. “The United States is increasingly diverse religiously. The job of a president is to unify all those different people and bring them together around policy goals, not to act as a kind of national pastor and bring people to God.â€
The section of the church’s Web site where videos of past sermons were posted was shut down Wednesday, and a message was posted saying that the site “was never intended to handle the traffic it has received in the last few days.â€
10 John P Slevin // Sep 8, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Walter, you do remember that the honorable Murray defected to the GOP, or do you?
11 G.E. // Sep 8, 2008 at 5:08 pm
By Richard’s logic, because we have non-violent drug offenders in prison (in no small part thanks to Bob Barr, Richard’s candidate who is also pro-life), we should legalize murder and any other real crimes in order to decrease the prison population.
Ripping the limbs off a baby in your womb because you decided, after fucking, that you didn’t want to deal with the consequences, is murder. If people are to be put in the state’s animal cages, this is a good reason for doing so, and that is entirely independent of the real reason our prisons are so overcrowded: BOB BARR’S DRUG WAR.
12 G.E. // Sep 8, 2008 at 5:09 pm
paulie – I’m still rooting for an Obama win. But Palin is the least evil of these Four Horsemen, no doubt, and still more libertarian than Barr/Root.
13 paulie cannoli // Sep 8, 2008 at 5:16 pm
Trying to decide who is the least libertarian among Biden, Obama, McCain and Palin suffers from an embarrassment of riches. With so much statism to choose from, where to begin?
It’s sort of like an emergency crash landing where you jump out of an airplane and must choose between four large piles of horse manure in which to land. They all look to be about the same size, you can’t see the bottom of any of the piles below the clouds, and you are hurtling toward them at free fall speed. It appears that the four piles are actually just humps of two larger piles.
Have you read my first link above yet? I reproduced the second one, but thought the first one was too long to be a comment.
14 paulie cannoli // Sep 8, 2008 at 5:18 pm
entirely independent of the real reason our prisons are so overcrowded: BOB BARR’S DRUG WAR.
And Palin is what, a legalizer?
15 paulie cannoli // Sep 8, 2008 at 5:19 pm
At least Barr now opposes at least some aspects of the federal drug war. Does Palin?
16 pdsa // Sep 8, 2008 at 5:52 pm
G.E.: – we all know you’re opposed to abortion, but clearly it is not murder. that is a legal definition which cannot rightfully be applied ex post facto, and the current law of the land states that it is lawful. Furthermore, the 14th Amendment is clear: a person must have been born, a citizen is a person who was either born withing US sovereign territory, or has been naturalized.
If you do not agree with this, work to change the constitution lawfully, through the Amendment Process. You know that your beliefs would not carry far enough for a Constitutional Amendment, so instead you cheer on legislation which is unconstitutional, and would be a sweeping expansion of enfranchisement.
You believe that abortion should be an act of murder. this is your right to believe, but the fact remains that murder is a crime, which need be clearly delineated as law rightfully in Constitutionally sound legislation. Do not conflate and polarize the truth.
No Alaskan Governor or elected Federal politician can be a libertarian. Alaska is the welfare mother of all states in the Union. It is utterly absurd to claim that politicians from a state which insatiably suckles off of the public teat could possibly be libertarian. They would never survive an election if they were.
Alaskan libertarianism is a pipe dream.
17 inDglass // Sep 8, 2008 at 6:17 pm
Walter knocked his Block off!
18 paulie cannoli // Sep 8, 2008 at 6:49 pm
pdsa is correct. In fact, Palin was a particularly rapacious politician when it came to federal money for city and state projects.
Allegedly, the other piece of evidence that she is libertarian is that she prefers to be called Mrs. Palin rather than Ms. Palin. Um, yeah, sure.
19 G.E. // Sep 8, 2008 at 6:56 pm
psda – Is Palin literally advocating that abortionists should be jailed ex-post facto? I do not share that view.
I do not accept the 14th amendment in whole or in part. It was not ratified and I do not submit to the mass delusion that it was.
I do not let the state define “murder” for me. If post-birth infanticide on two-year olds were “legal” in the U.S., it would still be “murder” in my eyes.
I do not support a national abortion ban for which there is no authority. I agree. And I also agree that Alaska is a major welfare state with socialism written into its Constitution, but it still has more libertarian tendencies than most other states.
The whole Mrs./Ms. thing is stupid, imo. But I think Block is taking delight in the fact that the feminazis are so irate over Palin’s choice, because it should be up to the individual what she goes up, not the feminist gang.
20 Fred Church Ortiz // Sep 8, 2008 at 6:59 pm
I’ve yet to see any evidence Palin’s a libertarian in any sense of the word. From the looks of the vetting report on her from the dems she seems to be okay-to-good in isolated instances, which is probably true of anyone. Shouldn’t be hard to measure match that record against the other 3 duopolists to figure out who’s the most libertarian of 3 non-libertarians, but just topically I suspect she’d come out ahead in an unweighted matchup.
She seems to touch Barr & Root in different ways & different places, so its harder to line that up.
21 G.E. // Sep 8, 2008 at 7:03 pm
On the subject of Obama vs. Palin
22 G.E. // Sep 8, 2008 at 7:06 pm
Palin cut Alaska’s budget by 10%. Barr promises to raise government spending (“freezing” the budget at the 2009 level) and cut a pitiful 10% of the executive office of the president. Are you serious? The guy has no danger of being elected and that’s the biggest promise he can make?
Palin is pro-gun. Barr, like his lapdog Redpath, is a gungrabber. He brags about the anti-gun legislation he passed.
Palin is pro-life and walks the walk. Barr says he’s pro-life, but one of his would-be progeny ended up in a dumpster on his dime. I think consistency is libertarian!
23 Fred Church Ortiz // Sep 8, 2008 at 7:23 pm
I’m enjoying the vids
Like I said, she seems to be good in some spots. Does the 10% figure include her bond measures?
I’m also still waiting to hear where exactly you guys heard Barr paid for the abortion.
24 paulie cannoli // Sep 8, 2008 at 7:29 pm
Well, if you can’t bring Mohammed to the mountain…well, I warned you it was long.
http://www.laprogressive.com/2008/09/05/alaskans-speak-in-a-frightened-whisper-palin-is-%E2%80%9Cracist-sexist-vindictive-and-mean%E2%80%9D/
by Charley James –
“So Sambo beat the bitch!â€
This is how Republican Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin described Barack Obama’s win over Hillary Clinton to political colleagues in a restaurant a few days after Obama locked up the Democratic Party presidential nomination.
According to Lucille, the waitress serving her table at the time and who asked that her last name not be used, Gov. Palin was eating lunch with five or six people when the subject of the Democrat’s primary battle came up. The governor, seemingly not caring that people at nearby tables would likely hear her, uttered the slur and then laughed loudly as her meal mates joined in appreciatively.
“It was kind of disgusting,†Lucille, who is part Aboriginal, said in a phone interview after admitting that she is frightened of being discovered telling folks in the “lower 48†about life near the North Pole.
Then, almost with a sigh, she added, “But that’s just Alaska.â€
Racial and ethnic slurs may be “just Alaska†and, clearly, they are common, everyday chatter for Palin.
Besides insulting Obama with a Step-N’-Fetch-It, “darkie musical†swipe, people who know her say she refers regularly to Alaska’s Aboriginal people as “Arctic Arabs†– how efficient, lumping two apparently undesirable groups into one ugly description – as well as the more colourful “mukluks†along with the totally unimaginative “f**king Eskimo’s,†according to a number of Alaskans and Wasillians interviewed for this article.
But being openly racist is only the tip of the Palin iceberg. According to Alaskans interviewed for this article, she is also vindictive and mean. We’re talking Rove mean and Nixon vindictive.
No wonder the vast sea of white, cheering faces at the Republican Convention went wild for Sarah: They adore the type, it’s in their genetic code. So much for McCain’s pledge of a “high road†campaign; Palin is incapable of being part of one.
Tough Getting People Who Know Her to Talk
It’s not easy getting people in the 49th state to speak critically about Palin – especially people in Wasilla, where she was mayor. For one thing, with every journalist in the world calling, phone lines into Alaska have been mostly jammed since Friday; as often as not, a recording told me that “all circuits are busy†or numbers just wouldn’t ring. I should think a state that’s been made richer than God by oil could afford telephone lines and cell towers for everyone.
On a more practical level, many people in Alaska, and particularly Wasilla, are reluctant to speak or be quoted by name because they’re afraid of her as well as the state Republican Party machine. Apparently, the power elite are as mean as the winters.
“The GOP is kind of like organized crime up here,†an insurance agent in Anchorage who knows the Palin family, explained. “It’s corrupt and arrogant. They’re all rich because they do private sweetheart deals with the oil companies, and they can destroy anyone. And they will, if they have to.â€
“Once Palin became mayor,†he continued, “She became part of that inner circle.â€
Like most other people interviewed, he didn’t want his name used out of fear of retribution. Maybe it’s the long winter nights where you don’t see the sun for months that makes people feel as if they’re under constant danger from “the authorities.†As I interviewed residents it began sounding as if living in Alaska controlled by the state Republican Party is like living in the old Soviet Union: See nothing that’s happening, say nothing offensive, and the political commissars leave you alone. But speak out and you get disappeared into a gulag north of the Arctic Circle for who-knows-how-long.
Alright, that’s an exaggeration brought on by my getting too little sleep and building too much anger as I worked this article. But there’s ample evidence of Palin’s vindictive willingness to destroy people she sees as opponents. Just ask the Wasilla town administrator she hired before firing him because he rebelled against the way Palin demanded he do his job, or the town librarian who refused to hold the book burning Walpurgisnach Mayor Palin demanded.
Ironically, Palin was pushed into hiring the administrator by the party poobahs who helped get her elected after she got herself into trouble over a number of precipitous firings which gave rise to a recall campaign.
“People who fought her attempt to oust the librarian are on her enemies list to this day,†states Anne Kilkenny, a Wasilla resident and one of the few Alaskans willing to speak on-the-record, for attribution, about Palin. In fact, Kilkenny actually circulated an e-mail letter about Palin that was verified and printed by The Nation.
For good measure, Palin booted the Wasilla police chief from office because, she told a local newspaper, he “intimidated†her.
Running on Extreme Fringe Evangelical Views
Sarah Palin drew early attention from state GOP apparatchiks when, during her first mayoral campaign, she ran on an anti-abortion platform. Normally, political parties do not get involved in Alaskan municipal elections because they are nonpartisan. But once word of her extreme fringe evangelical views made its way to Juneau, the state capitol, state Republicans tossed some money behind her campaign.
Once in office, Palin set out to build a machine that chewed up anyone who got in her way. The good, Godly Christian turns out to be anything but.
“She’s doesn’t like different opinions and she refuses to compromise,†Kilkenny notes. “When she was mayor, she fought ideas that weren’t hers. Worse, ideas weren’t evaluated on their merits but on the basis of who proposed them.â€
Sound familiar? Palin may well be Dick Cheney’s reincarnate.
Something else has a familiar Republican ring to it: Her tax policies, and a “refund surpluses but borrow for the future†attitude.
According to Kilkenny and others in Wasilla as well as Juneau, Palin reduced progressive property taxes for businesses while mayor and increased a regressive sales tax which even hits necessities such as food. The tax cuts she promoted in her St. Paul speech actually benefited large corporate property owners far more than they benefited residents. Indeed, Kilkenny insists that many Wasilla home owners actually saw their tax bill skyrocket to make up for the shortfall. Two other Wasillian’s with whom I spoke said property taxes on their modest, three bedroom homes rose during the Palin regime.
To an outsider, it would seem hard to do, but an oil-rich town with zero debt on the day she was inaugurated mayor was left saddled with $22 million of debt by the time she moved away to become governor – especially since nothing was spent on things such as improving the city’s infrastructure or building a much-needed sewage treatment plant. So what did Mayor Palin spend the taxpayer’s money on, if not fixing streets and scrubbing sewage?
For starters, she remodelled her office. Several times over, as a matter of fact.
Then Palin spent $1 million on an unnecessary, new park that no one other than the contractors and Palin seemed to want. Next, Sarah doled out more than $15 million of taxpayer money for a sports complex that she shoved through even though the city did not own clear title to the land; now, seven years later, the matter is still in litigation and lawyer fees are said to be close to at least half of the original estimated price of the facility.
She also worked hard to get voters approval of a $5.5 million bond proposal for roads that could have been built without borrowing. Anchorage may not be the center of the financial universe but, like good Republicans everywhere, Sarah Palin knows how to please Alaskan bankers and bond dealers.
For good measure, she turned Wasilla into a wasteland of big box stores and disconnected parking lots.
Sarah Barracuda
En route to the governor’s igloo, Palin managed to land what Anne Kilkenny says is the plumb political appointment in the state: Chair of Alaska’s Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (OGCC), a $122,400 per year patronage slot with no real authority to do anything other than hold meetings. She took the job despite having no background in energy issues and, as it turned out, not liking the work.
“She hated the job,†an OGCC staff member who is not authorized to speak with the news media told me. “She hated the hours and she hated what little work there was to do. But she couldn’t figure out a way to get out of the thing without offending Gov. Murkowski†and the state Republican Party regulars, some of whom were pissed off they didn’t get appointed.
But ever the opportunist, Palin quickly concocted a way. First, she waged a campaign with the local news media claiming that the position was overpaid and should be abolished – despite the fact that she lobbied Murkowski hard to get it. Then, mounting what she saw as a white horse, Palin raised a cloud of dust by resigning from the OGCC and riding away with an undeserved reputation as a “reformer.â€
But when a local reporter dared to suggest that the reformer Empress has no clothes, Palin tried to get her fired.
“She came at me like I was trying to steal her kids,†said the targeted reporter, who now works for an oil company in Anchorage. “I heard she had a wild temper and vicious mean streak but it’s nothing like you can imagine until she turns it on you.â€
Not surprising since some of her high school classmates still openly call her “Sarah Barracuda,†Kilkenny insists.
Still, as a Republican Party hack Palin managed to get herself elected running under the false flag of a “reformer.â€
And what did she bring to the job? No legislative experience other than a city council of a village of 5,000 people, which is smaller than some high schools in Chicago. Little hands-on supervisory or managerial experience; after all, she needed to hire a city administrator to run Wasilla. No executive experience, except for almost being recalled as mayor. A philosophy of setting public policy based on one word: No.
And what has she done since winning the job?
According to Kilkenny, nothing. Well, nothing other than suggesting the state’s multi-multi-million dollar, oil-generated surplus be distributed to residents and finance future state needs by borrowing money. Gee, doesn’t that sound precisely what George Bush did with the surplus he inherited from Bill Clinton in 2001 and we all know in what great shape Bush’s economic policies left the nation.
It may explain why, when asked by reporters, including me, what she thought about Palin being picked to be McCain’s running mate, her mother-in-law replied with a sardonic, “What has Sarah done to qualify her to be vice president?†Of course, when the woman – said by many I spoke with to be well-respected in Wasilla – was running to succeed Palin as mayor, Sarah refused to endorse her, so that may explain the family tension.
As Governor, Palin gave the legislature no direction and budget guidelines, according to the chair of a legislative committee. But then she staged a huge grandstand play of line-item vetoing countless projects, calling them pork. “They were restored because of public outcry and legislative action,†the aide said. “She vetoed them mostly because she had no idea what they were or why they were important.â€
But it was enough to get the McCain, who is mostly unobservant of the world around him anyway, to think Palin has a reputation as being “anti-porkâ€.
In fact, Juneau observers note that Palin kept her hand stuck out as far as anyone for pork ladled out by indicted Sen. Ted Stevens. She only opposed the “bridge to nowhere†after it became clear that it would be politically unwise to keep supporting it, these same insiders assert. Then, Palin fell back on her old habits and publicly humiliated him for pork-barrel politics.
As for being “ready on day one†to be commander in chief, despite the repeated public claims she’s made, the Alaska National Guard commander said that, “she has made no command decisions, other than sending some troops to help fight a few brush fires and march in parades at county fairs.â€
“Sambo Beat the Bitchâ€
“Palin is a conniving, manipulative, a**hole,†someone who thinks these are positive traits in a governor told me, summing up Palin’s tenure in Alaska state and local politics.
“She’s a bigot, a racist, and a liar,†is the more blunt assessment of Arnold Gerstheimer who lived in Alaska until two years ago and is now a businessman in Idaho.
charley-james.jpg“Juneau is a small town; everybody knows everyone else,†he adds. “These stories about what she calls blacks and Eskimos, well, anyone not white and good looking actually, were around long before she became a glint in John McCain’s rheumy eyes. Why do I know they’re true? Because everyone who isn’t aboriginal or Indian in Alaska talks that way.â€
“Sambo beat the bitch†may be everyday language up in the bush. Whether it – and the outlook, politics and worldview Palin reflects when she says such things in public – should be part of a presidential campaign is another thing altogether. The comment says as much about McCain as it does about Palin, and it says a lot of things about Americans who overlook such statements (as well as her record) and vote anyway for McCain.
by Charley James
25 G.E. // Sep 8, 2008 at 7:30 pm
Bogus smears. I read that at “Progressive Historians” — as if all historians haven’t already spread enough “Progressive” lies.
26 G.E. // Sep 8, 2008 at 7:32 pm
Google it. It’s all over. It’s not like we invented it. Was his wife working outside of the home at the time? She says he consented to her having the abortion in a sworn affidavit.
27 G.E. // Sep 8, 2008 at 7:33 pm
CORRECTION: Barr’s wife did not just imply, she swore under Oath that he paid for the abortion.
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/01/12/flynt.01/
Two cheers for the heroic Larry Flynt!
28 G.E. // Sep 8, 2008 at 7:35 pm
Barr and his wife Jeri are also guilty of adultery, it seems. They never denied they were having sex while Barr was still married to his second wife.
What a man of morality! President Abortionist and First Whore.
29 Ross Levin // Sep 8, 2008 at 7:38 pm
Too few ballots? It’s not like Barr has any chance of winning, at all. Why should that matter?
30 Fred Church Ortiz // Sep 8, 2008 at 7:40 pm
Was that so hard? All I was turning up were old newspaper articles that never went past “didn’t object”. TY
31 Fred Church Ortiz // Sep 8, 2008 at 7:40 pm
And I think I might be out of people to vote for…
32 paulie cannoli // Sep 8, 2008 at 7:41 pm
Bogus smears. I read that at “Progressive Historians†— as if all historians haven’t already spread enough “Progressive†lies.
Which part is bogus?
33 paulie cannoli // Sep 8, 2008 at 7:43 pm
Not that I want to get involved in the abortion debate, but I have been told that Barr’s wife was undergoing cancer treatments at the time of the abortion and that the decision was hers.
34 G.E. // Sep 8, 2008 at 7:43 pm
The claim that she’s a racist and, worse yet, a sexist (do the feminazis have any shame?) based on the report of a waitress.
35 Deran // Sep 8, 2008 at 7:43 pm
So, the G.E. brand of supposed liberty doesn’t apply to women, or gays, or cannabis smokers, etc, it only applies to fetuses. Palin’s not any brand of libertarian, capitalist or socialist. She favors all manner of social restrictions.
Palin is a corporate welfare queen. Look at her reign as mayor. Look at her love of federal pork.
It was mentioned that she cut the Alaskan state budget by %10. It’s more instructive to se what she cut, and what she did not cut, and what she increased. She cut social services, did not cut corporate subsidies, and increased the states police/law enforcement budget.
Palin is a lot like Dick Cheney. Scheming for more power, mainpulating people to her own will, and if you don’t do what she wants, she tries to get you fired or tries to ruin your public reputation.
G.E.’s just off on one of his “bolshevik” rants. Really more of a contrarian, than a “libertarian.”
36 G.E. // Sep 8, 2008 at 7:44 pm
paulie – Well then, she lied under oath.
37 G.E. // Sep 8, 2008 at 7:45 pm
Deran – WTF? I don’t support women, gays, or cannabis smokers? From whence do you deduce this?
Sarah Palin is a welfare statist. I’m just saying she’s more libertarian than Bob Barr, who also does not support the rights of women, gays, or cannabis smokers.
38 paulie cannoli // Sep 8, 2008 at 7:46 pm
Palin’s not any brand of libertarian, capitalist or socialist. She favors all manner of social restrictions.
Palin is a corporate welfare queen. Look at her reign as mayor. Look at her love of federal pork.
It was mentioned that she cut the Alaskan state budget by %10. It’s more instructive to se what she cut, and what she did not cut, and what she increased. She cut social services, did not cut corporate subsidies, and increased the states police/law enforcement budget.
Palin is a lot like Dick Cheney. Scheming for more power, mainpulating people to her own will, and if you don’t do what she wants, she tries to get you fired or tries to ruin your public reputation.
Gotta go with Deran on this one.
39 G.E. // Sep 8, 2008 at 7:46 pm
And yes, I am being contrarian. I’m still rooting for an Obama win and may in fact cast my vote for him in solidarity with the billions of foreigners to whom his victory would represent something of significance — and thus, could be a self-fulfilling prophecy.
40 paulie cannoli // Sep 8, 2008 at 7:47 pm
paulie – Well then, she lied under oath.
Nope, he did in fact pay for it.
41 G.E. // Sep 8, 2008 at 7:50 pm
My bad. I inferred something you didn’t imply.
If you’re pro-life, then obviously Barr is guilty of murdering his own preborn child.
If you’re pro-legal abortion, then Barr is a tremendous cretin — someone who fought to suppress that “right” for others while simultaneously paying for his own wife’s abortion.
No matter which way you slice it, this is a damnable offense. The only thing he could do is come fully clean about it, say he made a mistake, etc. But he won’t do that on the Patriot Act, on the war, on the Drug War, on DOMA, etc., so he’s not going to do that on this.
What could be lower than a pro-lifer who pays for his own wife’s abortion?
42 Trent Hill // Sep 8, 2008 at 7:53 pm
pdsa,
Murder is not defined by government rules, regulations, or definitions. It is an act that existed long before government–and thus exists independently of that tyrannical structure.
43 G.E. // Sep 8, 2008 at 7:54 pm
Trent – Traditionally, however, abortion before the “quickening” was condoned by common/Christian law.
44 G.E. // Sep 8, 2008 at 7:55 pm
Just to continue my contrarianism!
45 paulie cannoli // Sep 8, 2008 at 7:58 pm
Deran – WTF? I don’t support women, gays, or cannabis smokers? From whence do you deduce this?
GE is correct on this.
46 John P Slevin // Sep 8, 2008 at 8:03 pm
G.E. stated: “By Richard’s logic, because we have non-violent drug offenders in prison (in no small part thanks to Bob Barr, Richard’s candidate who is also pro-life), we should legalize murder and any other real crimes in order to decrease the prison population.
Ripping the limbs off a baby in your womb because you decided, after fucking, that you didn’t want to deal with the consequences, is murder. If people are to be put in the state’s animal cages, this is a good reason for doing so, and that is entirely independent of the real reason our prisons are so overcrowded: BOB BARR’S DRUG WAR.”
You have an excellent history of going the way all PAST LP grandees have gone. First, destroy ANY chance of cordial relations, then, get yourself some bs party title, then, move into the GOP.
Rothbard, Evers, Raimondo, Garris, Pillsbury-Foster, etc, etc, etc.
You might want to check for jobs at CATO or Reason, those former LP’er’s might be interested. You’d fit in right well with someone like Radley Balko (he of the “Libertarians all are kooks” credo) or, again, just about anyone at CATO.
47 G.E. // Sep 8, 2008 at 8:08 pm
What? How is my logic false? Richard says that the problem is too many people are incarcerated. THAT is why abortion cannot be made illegal, in his argument.
The facts are 1) Bob Barr is pro-life, and 2) Bob Barr sent people to jail for the type of non-crimes that do actually fill our prisons.
That you think I’d want to have anything to do with the neocon Stato Institute or tReason magazine shows you don’t know what you’re talking about. To think I’d ever consider affiliation with the Party of Lincoln is even more absurd.
I totally don’t understand what you’re saying. I’ve “destroyed cordial relations” with Richard Winger so that means I’m not a real libertarian and instead am a Statoite/neocon? (Which is the opposite of the heroic figures you list, of whom I’d be happy to be counted among when I’ve done something worthy thereof).
Maybe you are partaking of one of the substances Bob Barr thinks should be banned, because you’re making no f’ing sense.
48 Fred Church Ortiz // Sep 8, 2008 at 8:08 pm
Traditionally, however, abortion before the “quickening†was condoned by common/Christian law.
Not quite condoned. St. Augustine didn’t consider abortion before the quickening to be murder, though he did consider it immoral. The Didache, predating Augustine by as much as 200 years, explicitly calls abortion a “thou shalt not” alongside newborn infanticide.
49 paulie cannoli // Sep 8, 2008 at 8:09 pm
I can relate to not being happy with our presidential ticket this year, but that does not raise what my assessment of any other party’s ticket would otherwise have been.
In other words, McCain and Palin, Obama and Biden, Baldwin and Castle, etc., are the same people they would have been if the LP had run Kubby-Ruwart.
If I choose not to decide, I’ll still have made a choice. A better Rush quote than “feminazi” IMO.
50 johncjackson // Sep 8, 2008 at 8:37 pm
Trent 5,
As a libertarian I certainly DO NOT want the FEDERAL government to put murderers in jail. I figured “Constitutionalists” would agree.
51 John P Slevin // Sep 8, 2008 at 8:49 pm
G.E. bloviated: :…”
What? How is my logic false? Richard says that the problem is too many people are incarcerated. THAT is why abortion cannot be made illegal, in his argument.
The facts are 1) Bob Barr is pro-life, and 2) Bob Barr sent people to jail for the type of non-crimes that do actually fill our prisons.
That you think I’d want to have anything to do with the neocon Stato Institute or tReason magazine shows you don’t know what you’re talking about. To think I’d ever consider affiliation with the Party of Lincoln is even more absurd.
I totally don’t understand what you’re saying. I’ve “destroyed cordial relations†with Richard Winger so that means I’m not a real libertarian and instead am a Statoite/neocon? (Which is the opposite of the heroic figures you list, of whom I’d be happy to be counted among when I’ve done something worthy thereof).
Maybe you are partaking of one of the substances Bob Barr thinks should be banned, because you’re making no f’ing sense.”
Typical of the kind of articles IPR allows you to get away with GE. Typical dishonesty and flat out fantasy..mixed in with the kind of paranoia one expects from truthers.
I never said your logic was false (I wouldn’t confuse the word logic with any argument you make).
R. Winger never said anything like you attribute to him.
I never said you were a “neo-con” or that other thing you seem to think I called you…I simply don’t use terms like that…idiots do, conspiracists do, I do not.
I didn’t list any “heroic” figures. In fact, I listed no one(s)/no things.
And, I’m smoking nothing, but it fits my point you found time to accuse me of something like that.
That was my original point.
You have a bright future in one of the major parties GE. Why put it off? Go there now, they are eager for someone like you.
52 Trent Hill // Sep 8, 2008 at 8:50 pm
johncjackson,
No one said anything about Federal illegalization of abortion. We DO agree.
53 Trent Hill // Sep 8, 2008 at 8:58 pm
“Trent – Traditionally, however, abortion before the “quickening†was condoned by common/Christian law.”
Not true. St. Augustine considered abortion to beimmoral and sinful. The Didache–which was created in the 1st or 2nd century–equals abortion and murder as the same. The Epistle of Barnabus does the same, as does the Apacolypse of Peter. Tertullian, in “Apologetics” calls Abortion murder.
The council of Elvira produced 81 canons in its meeting held in Spain in the 4th Century. The 63 canon states: “If a woman conceives in adultery and then has an abortion, she may not commune again, evenas death approaches, because she has sinned twice.”
And I have more–if you like.
54 G.E. // Sep 8, 2008 at 9:03 pm
JPS says:
What is wrong with this person?
“I didn’t list any “heroic†figures. In fact, I listed no one(s)/no things.”
Where is this deranged individual pulling things from?
Winger absolutely did say what I said he said: That abortion should not be made illegal because the prisons are overcrowded; and he criticized Palin for her pro-life stance in comparison to Bob Barr, who is also pro-life.
You then suggest that I join the Cato Institute or the GOP, which by definition is calling me a neocon.
My bright future is in Hong Kong or Costa Rica. I’m getting the F out of the U.S. See ya!
55 G.E. // Sep 8, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Whoops
I intended to paste JPS’s list of figures he DID mention and then lie about:
“Rothbard, Evers, Raimondo, Garris, Pillsbury-Foster, etc, etc, etc.”
Are those not figures?
56 richardwinger // Sep 8, 2008 at 9:06 pm
I appreciate G.E. and feel that he and I have cordial relations. I will also say something nice about Sarah Palin. She debated all her minor party opponents for Governor (along with the Democrat) in October 2006. By contrast, in October 2004, Barack Obama was in a 4-person race (including a Libertarian Party nominee) but he and his Republican opponent, Alan Keyes, refused to debate the other two candidates in the race; they only debated each other. If Barack Obama were really thinking, he would agree to one 6-person general election debate, which would show that he is willing to take risks and that he the self-confidence to handle Ralph Nader.
57 G.E. // Sep 8, 2008 at 9:09 pm
Well then, tell me, Richard – If Palin is to be condemned for being pro-life, then what of Barr? He’s pro-life too. It’s just that Palin backs up her pro-life principles and Barr doesn’t. Is that a reason to give him more credit?
58 richardwinger // Sep 8, 2008 at 9:23 pm
I am afraid that Sarah Palin is anti-gay, I know she is anti-marijuana legalization, and after her comment about Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae I am afraid she is ignorant. Also her comment to her church that Alaska will be the refuge of thousands of outsiders in “the end times” seems to show she doesn’t even know how to think. And the fact that she never even had a passport until 2007, and has only used it to visit U.S. troops in Kuwait and Germany, tells me she is ignorant about foreign nations. Bob Barr, by contrast, grew up in Iraq and Iran; he is now in contact with many gay Libertarians and many pro-gay Libertarians; he is more in favor of marijuana legalization than Palin in; he is more concerned about saving our taxpayers than Palin (because he wants our troops out); and after more years in Congress than either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, he could do the job. Also he has said he would appoint Libertarian judges to the U.S. Supreme Court, like Jim Gray and John Buttrick. Palin would appoint more judges like Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia. Liberty would be in far better shape with Barr than with anyone running on either major party ticket. And McCain has said that if he had to choose between the 1st amendment and campaign finance restrictions, he would choose the latter. Yet he is so craven and cowardly that he also says he would appoint more judges like Scalia and Thomas, even though they (commendably) have thrown out 2 pieces of his precious Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act.
59 Ross Levin // Sep 8, 2008 at 9:26 pm
GE shows a sign of rationality and realizes that compromise can be a good thing after all, as he considers voting for Obama…
60 Trent Hill // Sep 8, 2008 at 9:30 pm
GE isnt going to vote for Obama. He’s going to move to LA and vote Ron Paul/Goldwater Jr.
61 Jeremy Young // Sep 8, 2008 at 9:31 pm
@ G.E., #25 — well, I myself am a proud statist, so I don’t mind those comments (I can’t speak for the author of the diary at my site). However, I do wish to point out that there are in fact libertarian historians, such as David Beito, founder of Academics for Ron Paul.
62 darolew // Sep 8, 2008 at 9:41 pm
G.E.’s seething hatred of Bob Barr once again biases his judgment. That Sarah Palin — a social conservative, neocon, and bigot — is more libertarian than Barr is an absurd statement indeed.
Ignoring all the social conservative pro-life crap, just look at foreign policy. Palin is going along with McCain. Barr has been very dovish. That alone speaks for itself. Look at spending. Palin’s credentials as a fiscal conservative are a joke. Barr, while no Ron Paul, is much better; and, contrary to what G.E. believes based on Barr’s slip-up during an interview, Barr (or at least his campaign staff) have condemned the Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac buyout.
There’s very little that’s libertarian about Palin. G.E. is just seeing what he wants to see.
63 darolew // Sep 8, 2008 at 9:44 pm
“…and, contrary to what G.E. believes based on Barr’s slip-up during an interview, Barr (or at least his campaign staff) have condemned the Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac buyout.”
See here.
64 Trent Hill // Sep 8, 2008 at 9:47 pm
darolew,
Keep in mind–you are also calling Walter Block unlibertarian, a pretty laughable statement.
65 darolew // Sep 8, 2008 at 9:48 pm
“Keep in mind–you are also calling Walter Block unlibertarian, a pretty laughable statement.”
Where did I say that? Walter Block is wrong about Palin, but I don’t recall calling anyone unlibertarian except Palin.
66 darolew // Sep 8, 2008 at 9:49 pm
Block, by the way, also has a seething hatred of Barr that I think clouds his judgment.
67 Trent Hill // Sep 8, 2008 at 9:52 pm
I actually agree that GE/Walter Block’s hatred for Barr coulds their respective judgements.
68 darolew // Sep 8, 2008 at 10:07 pm
Oh, I meant to point this out earlier. Philosopher is misspelled in the article, as “philosophe”. Just a quick-to-fix typo.
69 G.E. // Sep 8, 2008 at 10:12 pm
No. There is a difference between a philosophe (pronounced Fee-Lo-Soff) and a philosopher.
70 darolew // Sep 8, 2008 at 10:16 pm
Really? “Philosophe” shows up as a spell-check error, and I’d never heard of it before, so I had assumed it was an error. Sorry for the mistake.
71 G.E. // Sep 8, 2008 at 10:19 pm
Well, we both seem to be mistaken. Here’s the dictionary.com definition of “philosophe”
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/philosophe
And “philophaster”
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/philosophaster
Neither definition fit what I was trying to convey. The context I have seen the word “philosophe” in made it sound like a “philosophe” was a deep thinker, but not necessarily a philosopher. Jefferson, it was said, was a “philosophe.”
There, now we’ve both learned something!
72 Dylan Waco // Sep 8, 2008 at 11:30 pm
The biggest negative against Palin is that she is the Gov. of a “state” that has no business in the union.
She should be running for President..of Alaska.
73 Trent Hill // Sep 8, 2008 at 11:37 pm
Her husband thinks, or once thought, the same thing. =)
74 Spence // Sep 9, 2008 at 5:07 am
“The biggest negative against Palin is that she is the Gov. of a “state†that has no business in the union. ”
Same could be said for any state. What if I told you that the only state to be listed in the top 10 economies of the world, which subsidizes the U.S. government for almost 10 billion a year, is the largest agricultural producer, has the 6th most burdensome tax code in the US with exemptions, was not Alaska?
More and more, it is looking like the only answer to dissolve this unholy union is to start within our own states and work from there.
75 G.E. // Sep 9, 2008 at 6:55 am
About the “pipedream” of Alaskan libertarianism… Even the secessionists are welfare-state imperialists:
Sadly, I still don’t know of a better (i.e. less evil) state.
76 Trent Hill // Sep 9, 2008 at 10:37 am
GE,
I consider Alaska, Montana, Idaho, and North Dakota to be amongst the freest.
77 paulie cannoli // Sep 9, 2008 at 1:45 pm
@ Green Horizons
WithPalin, McKain Weds the Worst of America’s Past
Posted by John Rensenbrink on 09/08/08
Palin an albatross for McKain?
McKain and his “smart†crowd have crowded out a failed sitting president. In trying to turn a new leaf, they seek to co-opt the Obama litany of change. On the other hand, with the governor of Alaska in their attack pack, they are stuck with something really “oldâ€, an out-of-date right-wing factional extremist on “social†issues. I don’t think the Independent vote can stomach that crap—the Independent vote will decide this election.
If the Democrats have any brains left, or real courage, they will take Palin to the cleaners for her identification with a reactive and narrow faction representing the worst features of America’s past. They have a great opportunity to blunt and make nonsense of McKain’s in-authentic appeal to “changeâ€. It’s something he clearly cannot claim with Palin on his team. With Palin he’s turning the clock back. But do the Dems have the intelligence, savoir faire, and courage—and just plain common sense honesty to make that argument and make it stick? I doubt it. They will as usual temporize, temporize, temporize on this and on foreign policy as well. And they will lose the election.
John Rensenbrink
78 paulie cannoli // Sep 9, 2008 at 1:46 pm
27) Why Obama is likely to win despite the Palin bump
Human Events
by Mark Skousen
“If you think Gov. Palin’s addition to the McCain ticket will make a
big difference in the election, dream on. The evidence is overwhelming
that pocketbook economic issues — inflation and jobs — is the key
factor in determining the next president. The famous Misery Index
(unemployment rate + CPI inflation index) is at the highest level
since the first Bush lost his bid for reelection in 1992. Right now,
according to the Iowa Electronic Market, a futures market in politics,
Obama has consistently led McCain, and is most likely to win in
November with 53% of the vote. The IEM is also predicting that the
Democrats will maintain control of both houses of
Congress.” (09/08/08)
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=28419
79 Mike Gillis // Sep 9, 2008 at 1:52 pm
But even still, if anyone can pull defeat from the jaws of victory, it’s the Democratic Party.
80 Fred Church Ortiz // Sep 9, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Mike gets it.
81 Mike Gillis // Sep 9, 2008 at 2:09 pm
It’s really hard to say.
The Democrats generally win national elections when the Republicans have mucked things up in such a cartoonishly absurd way that the Dems win by default. In these cases, the Dems don’t even have to offer much of an alternative. They just have to be “the other guy”. See: 2006.
However, they’ve been completely worthless on scaling back executive power, ending the war and fighting government corruption, as they implied they would two years ago, and as such, are actually less popular now than Cheney was when he shot his lawyer friend in the face.
Add that with Obama’s drift to the right, his votes on FISA and assorted flip flops, his standard vanilla Dem campaign and choice of status quo Biden as VP, I’m starting to feel for the first time that Obama is going to lose this thing. And it’s all going to be his fault.
And through their patented bullshit/spin prowess, the GOP is actually positioning themselves as the opposition party. Nevermind that they’ve had the White House for the past two terms.
I would eat broken glass before I’d vote for Obama, but come on!
These guys can lose an election when every possible advantage is theirs.
I honestly hope I’m wrong. Not because I want Obama to be president, but because the Democratic Party has EARNED him. After all their lesser evil crap and the disgusting tricks they pulled on Nader in 2004, they deserve to get exactly what they’re asking for.
And get it hard.
I want them to see Obama change absolutely nothing.
After seven years of their arrogance, sense of entitlement to my vote and their dismissiveness to progressive voters and voters that value civil liberties, they need to get their Messianic golden boy and see how empty he really is.
82 paulie cannoli // Sep 9, 2008 at 2:11 pm
But even still, if anyone can pull defeat from the jaws of victory, it’s the Democratic Party.
True. If they manage to fuck this one up, it will be the mother of all fuckups.
83 Mike Gillis // Sep 9, 2008 at 2:15 pm
If I can count on anyone to pull off the mother of all fuck ups, it’d be the Dems.
They could lose money at the track in a one-horse race.
84 paulie cannoli // Sep 9, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Mike,
You are correct in everything you say in 81.
I just still see the economy and the war trumping all that, but yeah, if anyone can fuck this situation up, it’s the Democratic party “leadership.”
85 paulie cannoli // Sep 9, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Democrats: Are you better off now than you were eight years ago? It’s the stupid economy. Bush lied, troops died.
Republicans: Osama sounds a lot like Obama. Do you want your granddaughter dating a darkie? Look into Sarah Palin’s eyes. McCain is a war hero, like Bob Dole. You can’t spell BIn-laDEN without Biden. Obama-Biden/Osama-BinLaden. You are getting sleepy.
Look into Sarah Palin’s eyes.
86 paulie cannoli // Sep 9, 2008 at 2:48 pm
36) Sarah Palin’s secret emails
Mother Jones
by David Corn
“The Palin administration won’t release hundreds of emails from her office, claiming they cover confidential policy matters. Then why do the subject lines refer to a political foe, a journalist, and non-policy topics?” (09/07/08)
http://tinyurl.com/5toppl
Leave a Comment