me: That depends on your definition of what “principle” is. Mine would be advocating less government across the board. Interestingly, most L candidates do exactly that, including Barr/Root. I can’t think of a L candidate (certainly ticket toppers) who has advocated no State, but rather incremental changes. Can you name one who explicitly held high the anarchist banner? If so, please cite specifics of his/her statements to back that up.

No, and I was disappointed she did not win the nomination. Her views may be controversial but at least she would have sparked a national debate on issues relating to personal morality and liberty.

The fact the LP rejected Ruwart in favor of a couple of caveman conservatives in Barr/Root is enough proof the LP is no longer the party of principle but rather the party of compromise and expediency.

Leymann: many people who propose the 10th Amendment do it on constitutional grounds, not “dixiecrat” ones. Although “states powers” would be a more appropriate and better term than “states rights”. It simply refers to decentralism. It is really ludicrous to throw the baby out with the bathwater and consider ALL dixiecrats as racists who want to take away voting rights for black people/African-Americans.
As to the term “paleoconservative”, you should know the term “paleolibertarian” has also been used and is NOT the same as paleoconservative. The person who coined the term is no longer using the term “paleolibertarian”. Mainly “paleo” refers to a more positive relationship towards religion and “pro-life” rather than a negative relationship. The latter would be represented by Ayn Rand’s objectivism, who was an out and out atheist (and actually not a libertarian in a few respects, she was more of a hawkish neocon with regard to war).

Do you consider Dr. Mary Ruwart being a LP candidate two times, as also “most of the other LP candidates and leaders” who are supposedly dishonest and not sincere about their intentions and beliefs?

I disagree greatly with your characterization of Root.

When Root makes comments about government confiscating wealth from “smart people in the private sector” it reminds me of similar comments made by social darwinists in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century to justify the enormous disparities of wealth and poverty in the days of robber barons and cowboy capitalists. Root implies that people who pay taxes are smart, and people who don’t pay taxes are stupid. From my own experience I know an awful lot of stupid people that pay taxes, and an awful lot of smart people that don’t pay taxes. And I also know an awful lot of “smart people” in the private sector who benefit directly from government contracts and other subsidies that come from the wealth that Root says is confiscated by government from the other “smart people”

I honestly have no respect whatsoever for the likes of Wayne Root. However, if he were to change his kid’s name from Reagan to Gandhi I might, just might, develop a smidgeon of begrudging respect.

As to George Phillies I may not agree with his politics but at least he is sincere and honest about his intentions and beliefs, unlike most of the other LP candidates and leaders I’ve been familiar with. And he is absolutely right about the shamelessness of the LP pandering to the paleocon dixiecrats in the Republican and Constitution Parties.

I think it has become an issue because it has been pushed from both sides, however there is a significant growth in religious activity in the military and this has resulted in much of the negative, anti gay activity we have seen and read about.

Is that a bit better?

Robert both gay men and lesbian women have been in the military for years. Though it has been unacceptable it has often been up to the local commanding officers to enforce the policy.
As a navy brat and as a veteran myself I can give you plenty of examples to support this.

Only in the last 20 or 30 years has the issue been in the news to the extent we now see it.

This amounts to the government creating seperate “privileged classes”, in this case, heterosexuals. I believe that government-mandated or enforced privilege classes are inherently wrong and should all be immediately abolished.

Perhaps “science” should be viewed as our best guess, given the fact set and ability to replicate isolated events. The Whole Truth? The evidence and track record seems to suggest not even close.

That may be a bit nuanced, but I can’t imagine how it’s offensive. It also may not be a forthright and strong endorsement of gay rights, but those were not the words of a hater.

Perhaps the policy should be Don’t Ask, period. And “telling” that one is openly gay should not violate military code.

I’m ambivalent on this one. Some have argued that integrating heteros and gays in the military is like integrating whites and blacks. I’m not sure that’s a fair analogy. I’ve never been in the military, but I understand they are often in close quarters, but they attempt to keep men and women in separate facilities for sexual reasons. That seems abundantly reasonable to me. If practicing gays were to be accepted in the military, the same logic would imply 4 rather than 2 facilities.

What am I missing?

I have read critically through the newsletetrs, rather only parts of the newsletters that were published 1,5 years ago and compared it to the Kirchzik articles, as well as many reactions on this whole issue. It became clear to me that Paul did not write many of the referred to passages – it is not his writing style as well – and that some (not all) sentences can be interpreted in a different sense than some do, except for the derogatory words like Dirtburg etc. Paul did not review everything that was written during that specific time when he was busy full time as a medical doctor, so he is not responsible. He is originally also no Southerner, he is from PA. The news letter issue is really a red herring and so much overblown, with political interests of stopping the only anti-war candidate in the GOP by TNR, who were all pro-war.
I did listen to his interview on the American View last year, where he spoke with understanding about gays, reminding the interviewer – who may be homophobic – that they are also God’s children. Listen to the interview again.

I think he changed his view on Dont ask, don’t tell, liek also Barr. It all depends on how one defines it. You know human science and politics is NOT exact science like in politics: one has to understand someone’s intention and meaning.
I may also note that Justin Raimondo – who is most definitely gay – is a great friend of Dr. Paul and certainly has also respect in this sense. Now
we have the initeresting issue that at least a few gays, who know Paul since years personally, do not regard him as a homophobe in any way, yet a “distant”(non-gay) professor, who does not know Paul personally in any way, consider him a homophobe. Well, it should be clear which opinion I do trust as reliable.

Badnarik supported Paul even when the LP already had its nominee. Mary Ruwart and Karen Kwiatkowski also supported Paul all the way, and they are Libertarians, yet Dr. Phillies do not consider Paul a libertarian/libertarian Republican or Republican with libertarian leanings in any shape manner or form. Very surprisingly. If you have to be consistent, you have to say Badnarik – on whose campaign you worked – is also no Libertarian, especially as you see such a similarity in their views.

Paul has as a fiscal conservative also in his campaign been left with a few million. He can use those money for any political or other non-money generating purpose, as far as I know. A presidential candidate may not use these funds in any way for personal purposes, like building a house, car etc. So what wrong has Paul done or acted as if no Libertarian in similar circumstances would do. Badnarik did not had 3,5 million USD left and was no congressional member to use the money for. had Badnarik been a sitting congressman, I am sure he would have used some of it for his own congressional campaign. Dr. Phillies also also not considered that maybe Paul has used some of his congressional money race previously, e.g. left overs or form his Liberty PAC and from his own personal expenses, for his presidential race in the beginning.

From Dr. Phillies’s discouse it is clear that he does not regard anyone who believes in creation
(including evolution in a christian context) as a libertarian or a scientist or intelligent. It sounds like religious bigotry! Paul is a specialist, and he has talked to specialists, e.g. medical professors/researchers about the birth issue, so he can ground it on scientific grounds. Creation is of course an issue that is to believed, one cannot explain it all, just like those that believe in “only evolution” postulate a “big-bang”a s the origin of evolution. The big-bang theory is a reconstruction and assumption: where is the scientific evidence for that? I do believe there is evolution in species etc, but not over categories, e.g Darwin theory of monkey – man.
I am not in denial, but rather aware of my limits, including the limits of reason and the ability to explain everything. There will always be a mystery, though I am no misticist. While being a very logical thinking person, I also know the limits of logic. It cannot explain everything!!

My father is also a scientist, Dr. Phillies. He has his PhD from MIT in Metallurgical Engineering.

Dr. Phillies has declared sen. Barry Goldwater as his hero, yet Goldwater was never a Libertarian (not any time since 1971), he was a libertarian Republican and was in 1963/1964 (falsely) described as the same sort of Republican Dr. Phillies currently describes Paul and Napolitano. It makes one think, doesn’t it?
On a positive note: Dr. Phillies, good luck with creating a “true” libertarian, fed-loving, non-eccentric political majority where you screen every LP whether he is really a libertarian according to your definition or not. You will certainly need all the help you got.

You should try looking at his newsletter. And you should note that he said that Dont Ask Dont Tell was all right with him. You should also try listening to his interview on The American View. It might clarify your thinking, though I doubt it. For example, it makes clear where Paul stands on evolution, and “evolution in an allegedly Christian context” is a branch of evolution denial.

As the fellow who wrote the serious analysis of Michael Badnarik’s book, I am unsurprised that Badnarik supports Paul. They are rather similar in many respects. However, unlike Paul, Badnarik dod not transfer three and a half million dollars out of his Presidential campaign fund into his Congressional campaign fund. My analysis was on LibertyForAll, Lee Wright’s newsletter.

Logical inconsistency? No, that’s only an issue for some of our party’s religious folks of a particular persuasion.

My late father and my brother were/are physicians. They are both wonderful and intelligent people. I am a physicist. The notion that an M.D. is a research degree, or that physicians are a type of scientist, is unusually deranged, and is enough to draw into question the rest of your claims.

What I got Stefan, is that like many Paul supporters — whether you are yourself I cannot tell — you are in denial.

To end this remark on a positive note, the Paul campaign was successful in luring many of the eccentrics who were subject to the delusion that they were Libertarians out of our party. And someday, the individual libertarians who are Democrats, Revolutionary Socialists, or whatever may come over to our party.