43 responses so far ↓

• 1 George Phillies // Aug 10, 2009 at 7:26 pm

  So what do we offer?

  Liberty for America
  and its many fine friends
  Now Offer
  Membership — dues $15
  Two monthly magazines
  Liberty for America http:\\LibertyForAmerica.com
  Libertarian Strategy Monthly http://www.jakeporter.org/lsm
  …the only monthly magazines with a focus on libertarian political activity
  A Federal PAC…the Liberty for America PAC

  And see what our friends have created
  Gold America Group GoldAmericaGroup.com
  The Libertarian News and Commentary blog open to every libertarian.

  Pro-Liberty friends
  Antiwar.com Because war is the health of the state
  Ladies of Liberty Alliance LadiesOfLibertyAlliance.org
  Liberty for Maine Liberty4Maine.Org
  Outright Libertarians OutRightUSA.org

  Subscriptions to Liberty for America magazine are free and sent electronically as a PDF file. To request a subscription, email phillies@4liberty.net

• 2 Michael Seebeck // Aug 10, 2009 at 8:00 pm

  George, thanks for the props and the publication of Duesgate in there.

• 3 George Phillies // Aug 10, 2009 at 8:55 pm

  Mike,

  You are most entirely welcome. These are extremely important issues that our Party National newsletter would likely ignore, just as it ignored the second resolution on the Harry Browne matter back in 2002, assuming that we still have a national party newsletter that actually publishes issues.

  George

• 4 Brian Holtz // Aug 10, 2009 at 11:49 pm

  Bob Barr is a racist because he called Jesse Helms “deeply principled”?

• 5 Thomas Knapp // Aug 11, 2009 at 1:30 am

  Brian,

  You write:

  Bob Barr is a racist because he called Jesse Helms “deeply principled”?

  Not necessarily — but that was certainly part of a larger package of intentionally coded appeal to white southern voters.

  Taken together with:

  - Barr’s description of “states rights” as “the essence of libertarianism;”

  - His refusal to appear on stage with a black former congresswoman (and having his campaign spokesperson announce publicly that “[Barr] didn’t want to dilute his message by being on the same stage as people like [her]” [ahem ... cough ... nudge, nudge, wink]),

  - His loving attention to detail in age of consent cases involving males of dusky hue and females of ivory hue;

  etc., etc., etc. …

  It was fairly clear that Barr was doing everything he could to communicate his real message short of appearing on TV in a sheet and hood, or physically taking white southern voters by the shoulders and saying “I know you don’t want to vote for McCain, and I know you won’t vote for a [politically charged racial term starting with 'n'] … I’m your alternative!”

  Hell, one of his more prominent supporters in the conservative movement publicly promoted him in The American Spectator as the next George Wallace, and didn’t so much as hint that that might be a bad thing (nor, so far as I know, did the Barr campaign denounce the comparison).

• 6 Brian Holtz // Aug 11, 2009 at 2:18 am

  Your examples (1) and (2) don’t pass the laugh test, and your (3) is too content-free to constitute an example of anything. You can type “etc” and “sheet and hood” and fantasized n-word quotes all you want, but they won’t make Barr a racist.

  Even if ex hypothesi Barr were a racist, then we have to believe that either 1) the evidence for it only became available after Denver, or 2) the campaign management of his opponents was so incompetent that they couldn’t use that evidence to deny Barr the nomination. Your @5 is the beginnings of a case for (2), but Kubby was only one of Barr’s opponents. And of course, a corollary of (2) is that your man Kubby endorsed a known racist.

  Barr is no more a racist for associating with the likes of Helms than, say, Raimondo is a socialist for associating with the likes of Chomsky. This drivel about Barr being a racist says more about his detractors than it says about him. Specifically, it says they can’t make the case against Barr just by sticking to what the man says he believes. A telling admission, that.

• 7 Thomas Knapp // Aug 11, 2009 at 3:03 am

  Brian,

  I didn’t say that the points I laid out prove that Barr is a racist.

  What they do fairly firmly establish, however, is that his campaign strategy was, to a non-trivial degree, aimed at procuring the votes of southern racists by appealing — not overtly, but not especially subtly, either — to their racism.

  Most of the evidence for that did, indeed, become available only after the convention in Denver.

  The only “advance” clue that I can think of offhand was his preoccupation with the Genarlow Wilson case, in which he took such an indefensible position that he was driven to publicly advocate government distribution of child pornography on demand in order to support that position.

  When someone goes that friggin’ far to defend the proposition that a black 17-year-old having consensual sex with a white 15-year-old is proper grounds for sending the black 17-year-old to prison for 10 years, the assumption that the word “black” in the description explains a lot.

• 8 Thomas Knapp // Aug 11, 2009 at 3:05 am

  “the assumption” in the last sentence of comment 7 should have been “it’s a reasonable assumption.” I hit the post button too soon. Sorry about that.

• 9 George Phillies // Aug 11, 2009 at 8:24 am

  The article from Arthur Torrey opens

  “The Barr Campaign:
  Racism Outs Itself…

  As most of us probably know by now, Senator Jesse Helms passed away this July 4th… Senator Helms was a significant figure in American history, and one of our more “colorful” Senators – One who was never afraid to say what he believed.

  Unfortunately, what he believed was not always the best of his fellow man. Helms was notorious for his prejudices against blacks, and later in life his bias against GBLT individuals. His was one of the uglier faces of the Conservative movement….

  One of the early accusations made against Bob Barr, and his campaign was that it may well have been racist – Not only was his campaign manager Richard Viguerie associated with Helms, as well as George Wallace, Sun Young Moon, Oliver North and other problematic folks, but Barr himself had addressed a convention of the “Council Of Conservative Citizens” – a group best described as an upscale version of the KKK.

  Barr denied knowing what the group was about, but his excuse seems thin at best…

  Fast Forward to this past weekend….”

  You can read the whole thing at http://libertyforamerica.com/lfamagazine.htm

  The August issue is the one at the top of the list.

• 10 George Phillies // Aug 11, 2009 at 8:45 am

  When you call an old line bigot, homophobe, etc. “deeply principled”, well, that says something about what you recognize as legitimate principles. In fact, it says a lot.

  A fuller quote is

  “I was deeply saddened to hear of Sen. Helms’ passing and want his family to know they are in my heart and prayers at this time. Sen. Helms was one of the finest, most courageous and deeply principled men to ever serve in the United States Congress. As President’s Reagan’s right hand and ally, he helped bring down Communism so that nations might grow and flourish in freedom. He was a stalwart ally of freedom fighters around the globe, knowing that we are all diminished if we allow fascism to flourish. He was also the consummate gentleman, revered by colleagues, staff and friends for his unfailing kindness, good humor, generosity and patriotism.”

• 11 libertariangirl // Aug 11, 2009 at 9:33 am

  having been a teenager in the 80’s let me just say fuck Jesse Helms and his PMRC against free speech . I believe he fought against porn too .

  funny thing is he was probably a closet gay or a child molester , you know usually those who point the biggest fingers have the most to hide.

  anyways , i hope he rots in hell

• 12 John C. // Aug 11, 2009 at 10:44 am

  Not that it really changes things, but I thought I read all the Genarlow Wilson sex participants were of the same race.

• 13 libertariangirl // Aug 11, 2009 at 10:52 am

  they were . Barr was wrong for supporting incarcerating Genarlow but I doubt it had anything to do with race.

• 14 JT // Aug 11, 2009 at 10:57 am

  I agree with Brian’s post 6.

  Tom, I usually find your comments to be smart. I’m not a big fan of Barr, but the weak evidence and logical leap you presented here to prove a serious claim of racism isn’t worthy of you. George Phillies, certainly. But not you. Oh well.

• 15 Ron // Aug 11, 2009 at 11:01 am

  Hi,

  Unrelated question here, not sure where to ask so…

  In 2000, other than Harry Browne and Art Oliver, who would be considered the 5 or so most important Libertarian Party leaders at that time? Was Badnarik a party leader in 2000? What about this L. Neil Smith in Arizona?

  Thank you in advance all you Libertarian Party historians…

  Ron

• 16 Thomas Knapp // Aug 11, 2009 at 11:10 am

  JT,

  You write:

  “the weak evidence and logical leap you presented here to prove a serious claim of racism”

  I made no claim of racism. I made a claim of appeal to racism. There’s a difference.

  Ron,

  I suppose it depends on what you mean by “party leader.” As of 2000, L. Neil Smith had been involed with the LP for about 20 years longer than Harry had; he held the record as its top-polling candidate in a two-way race in Colorado; he had been a speaker at at least one LP national convention (maybe even keynote speaker, I can’t remember — it was 1993’s convention); and he probably was (and may still be) the libertarian movement’s most prolific published novelist. So yes, I’d call him an “LP leader.”

• 17 libertariangirl // Aug 11, 2009 at 11:16 am

  who was Chair then , was that Lark?

  Nolan should be on the short list

• 18 George Phillies // Aug 11, 2009 at 11:28 am

  @15

  Ron,

  You can get some impression by reading my book “Funding Liberty”. Names I would mention would include

  David Bergland
  Gene Cisiewski
  Steve Dasbach
  Harry Browne
  Perry Willis
  John Famularo
  Don Gorman
  Ernie Hancock
  Michael Cloud
  Ken Sturzenacker
  Carla Howell
  Eli Israel

  Lark was Chair in 2000-2002.

  A bunch of these people found themselves under a cloud and faded away after 2000-2002.

• 19 Brian Holtz // Aug 11, 2009 at 11:30 am

  Below is an opinion piece by Bob Barr that Tom Knapp thinks can be fairly characterized as advocating “government distribution of child pornography on demand”. Knapp’s smear is as reprehensible as the worst of the vicious attacks on Mary Ruwart last year. Libertarians, of all people, should be better than that. We defend the legality of many things we find unfortunate and even reprehensible, and so are natural targets for such smears. Shame on Tom Knapp.

  http://www.bobbarr.org/default.asp?pt=newsdescr&RI=865

  That the U.S. Department of Justice has allowed itself to be brought into the debate over whether the citizens of Georgia should have access to evidence in this case, as Georgia law not only provides but mandates, is mystifying. The department issued its unusual statement July 10, in which it responded to “inquiries” from unnamed people apparently upset that McDade’s office had released — consistent with mandates contained in the Georgia Open Records Act — copies of the videotape evidence that figured in convincing a jury that Wilson was guilty of the crimes charged.

  The department’s statement noted — correctly — that federal laws dealing with child pornography make the distribution thereof a crime. The federal government’s statement also correctly recognized, albeit implicitly, that Georgia law requires that “public records” (a term very broadly defined under state law) generally must be made available to the public.

  In fact, “public records” under our state laws explicitly includes exhibits generated or used in criminal and civil trials such as Genarlow Wilson’s.

  Insofar as both the U.S. and Georgia constitutions provide for trials in criminal cases to be open to the public, clearly it makes sense for the evidence in such cases to be similarly open to inspection by the public. Only if there is evidence that a court explicitly orders be kept under seal, such as might otherwise endanger life or an ongoing investigation, is it proper for a public official, such as a district attorney, to refuse to make records of a trial available publicly, following conclusion of the case.

  The Georgia Open Records Act is even more explicit. If the judge with jurisdiction over a case does not approve public inspection of the evidence, the person responsible for the maintenance of the evidence, including a district attorney, is then required by the law to make available a reproduction or copy.

  While federal laws regarding public access to court records, including evidentiary records, are far less robust than Georgia’s, the general rule is the same — trial records and evidence developed therein, are to be available for public inspection.

  Notwithstanding these laws and the fundamental public policy of openness they represent, the Department of Justice statement last week indicated that simply because certain categories of evidence (such as the Genarlow Wilson videotape) are subject to “federal law,” any state law provision that deals with such evidence differently, even if being followed by a duly elected state official carrying out the proper laws and procedures with which he or she is charged, must ignore the state laws to which their oath of office requires allegiance.

• 20 Jim // Aug 11, 2009 at 11:33 am

  Doesn’t Bob Barr get all hot under the collar whenever anyone suggests he may have some African American ancestry, as his appearance suggests?

  Who were “these people” like Ms. McKinney that Barr would not be on the stage with?

  What sorts of principles did he admire Jesse Helms for upholding?

  The girl that Genarlow Wilson was with was white, as far as everything I ever read.

• 21 libertariangirl // Aug 11, 2009 at 11:53 am

  Barr is a jackass for calling the Wilson case one of child molestation , but he does not advocate goverment distribution of pornography and the article does not led to that conclusion.

  that is a far fetched , un-true attempt at spin

• 22 Thomas Knapp // Aug 11, 2009 at 12:07 pm

  Brian,

  You write:

  “Knapp’s smear is as reprehensible as the worst of the vicious attacks on Mary Ruwart last year.”

  Except for the fact that — as you prove by pasting in the column — my “smear” is simply a true factual claim, while the attacks on Ruwart required massive spin her actual stated position in order to sound even facially credible.

  LG,

  Which part of what Barr said did you not understand?

• 23 libertariangirl // Aug 11, 2009 at 12:12 pm

  i understood what he said , hesaid Georgia’a public records law supercedes the Federal Governments child pornography laws .

  States rights outweighing the right of the feds to dictate laws to the state.
  oh the horror..

• 24 Thomas Knapp // Aug 11, 2009 at 12:28 pm

  LG,

  You write:

  “States rights outweighing the right of the feds to dictate laws to the state.”

  Bingo. Now, ask yourself what use that language has historically been put to, and you’ll understand why he used it.

  Hint: There is no such thing as “states rights.”

• 25 libertariangirl // Aug 11, 2009 at 12:37 pm

  Tom , I never said that i didnt buy your claim he was ‘APPEALING TO ‘ racism ( enlarged for those of you who missed the point on that ) . I actually kinda think thats true .

  Im saying the piece referenced on the Wilson case does not merit the conclusion that Barr is advocating child pornography. anymore that supporting Genarlow is advocating child molestation . it is A RIDICULOUS spin .

  TK_There is no such thing as “states rights.”

  so then by that logic , CA legalizing medical marijuana has no precedent over the Feds rights to enforce ITS own laws?

• 26 Thomas Knapp // Aug 11, 2009 at 12:42 pm

  LG,

  You write:

  “Im saying the piece referenced on the Wilson case does not merit the conclusion that Barr is advocating child pornography.”

  Then you need to re-read the piece, because what you’re saying is at odd with the facts.

  “TK_There is no such thing as ’states rights.’

  so then by that logic , CA legalizing medical marijuana has no precedent over the Feds rights to enforce ITS own laws?”

  There’s no such thing as “Feds rights” either.

  Governments don’t have rights. People do.

• 27 JT // Aug 11, 2009 at 12:53 pm

  Tom: “I made no claim of racism. I made a claim of appeal to racism. There’s a difference.”

  Either way, Tom. You didn’t present evidence of appeal to anything. For instance, if Barr said he didn’t want to appear onstage with “people like her” referring to Cynthia McKinney, I’d clearly think he meant the presidential nominee of a party that vociferously calls for a much bigger federal government. That’s the rational inference of a person who isn’t trying hard to bolster their already firmly held racial conclusion.

• 28 libertariangirl // Aug 11, 2009 at 12:55 pm

  incidentally depending on where I am and who Im talking to , if i were a candidate i could possibly use my Paternal long-line-of-white-devil -from VA- last name Payne- heritage or my West Coast Maternal part-Mexican – part oppressed from CA interracial heritage.

  LOL

• 29 Thomas Knapp // Aug 11, 2009 at 1:33 pm

  JT:

  “For instance, if Barr said he didn’t want to appear onstage with ‘people like her’ referring to Cynthia McKinney, I’d clearly think he meant the presidential nominee of a party that vociferously calls for a much bigger federal government.”

  That might be true — if Cynthia McKinney had been the only person on that stage calling for a much bigger federal government.

  But she wasn’t. Ralph Nader was there, too.

  Barr singled out McKinney. He did so for a reason.

  That reason wasn’t that she advocated a much larger federal government, because she wasn’t the only one on that stage who did.

  Nor was it that she was relatively inexperienced or unqualified either compared to Barr or compared to others on the stage — she’s served half again as many terms as Barr has in Congress, and neither Nader nor Baldwin have ever served in federal office.

  Presumably it wasn’t because she’s from Georgia, since Barr is too.

  McKinney could be differentiated from Barr, or from any ONE other participant in the Paul event, on any number of characteristics (she was Green-affiliated, Nader was “independent;” she was nominally for bigger government, Baldwin was theoretically for smaller government; etc).

  Barr’s spokesperson didn’t refer to “people like” McKinney and Baldwin or “people like” McKinney and Nader. He referred to “people like” McKinney.

  Offhand, I can think of two characteristics which distinguish McKinney from not just one, but all, of the other participants, and from Barr:

  1) She’s black; and

  2) She’s a woman.

  Take your pick on which one Barr’s spokesperson was referring to.

• 30 libertariangirl // Aug 11, 2009 at 1:40 pm

  TK__Then you need to re-read the piece, because what you’re saying is at odd with the facts.

  me_ so you really want to play facts are facts?
  by that logic , Genalow WAS guilty of child molestation .

  I do not think he was because the law is stupid.

  Barr is not advocating child pornography , he’s advocating georgia law superceding federal law . the same could be said for folks who support prop215 but arent patients . are they advocating drug use? technically yes , but we would never interpret it like that .

  when the dispensary’s get raided in Cali , we say . , or at least I do , ‘hey thats not right , Cali voted to make it legal ad the Feds have no right to dictate to them’.

  at its root the argument is that state LAW should supercede federal LAW.Barr is making that same argument , at least in this article.

  its a stupid , blatantly clear SPIN to interpret he supports the gov distributing child pornography and you know that.

• 31 libertariangirl // Aug 11, 2009 at 1:42 pm

  Toms new name is Semantic Man

• 32 libertariangirl // Aug 11, 2009 at 2:02 pm

  interpretations are like assholes , everybody has one.

  my interpretation of the Barr dissing Mc Kinney and referring to ‘people like her ‘ was that he was arrogantly saying he was of a higher political stature and wouldnt appear with the pions .

  He and Nader wrked together because Nader is of the same level or higher of political celebrity as himself .

• 33 Thomas Knapp // Aug 11, 2009 at 2:47 pm

  “my interpretation of the Barr dissing Mc Kinney and referring to ‘people like her ‘ was that he was arrogantly saying he was of a higher political stature and wouldnt appear with the pions .”

  OK … the key word there is “arrogantly.” What would be his reason for such arrogance?

  It can’t be that she hasn’t accomplished as much as he has. He served four terms in Congress, leaving in 2002. She served six terms, leaving in 2006.

  In terms of stature, the LP is in the same league as the Greens, but not for much longer if we don’t get our shit together.

• 34 libertariangirl // Aug 11, 2009 at 3:04 pm

  what I said Tom , was that was my interpretation. I absolutely do not believe he meant ‘people like her’ referring to black people.

  he is way to smart to verbalize something like that even if he was thinking it

• 35 Octoroon Political Report // Aug 11, 2009 at 3:14 pm

  Bob Barr is black.

• 36 Brian Holtz // Aug 11, 2009 at 3:57 pm

  It’s simply not accurate to say that Barr’s article advocated “government distribution of child pornography on demand”. Rather, it advocated that Georgia follow its law requiring that evidence not under seal in criminal cases to be open to inspection by the public, even if it is video evidence in a case about consensual sex between a 15-year-old and a 17-year-old.

  Readers here can decide for themselves whether Knapp is guilty of the “massive spin” he complains was placed on Mary Ruwart’s comments about child pornography.

• 37 George Phillies // Aug 11, 2009 at 4:30 pm

  For those of you more interested in material content, here’s another article from the current LfA:

  Ladies of Liberty Alliance Forms

  Many women involved in the liberty movement have experienced the frustrating feeling of isolation when they look around and realize they are just a needle of estrogen in a haystack of testosterone. The Ladies of Liberty Alliance is a brand new organization working to end that feeling of isolation forever!

  This September 17th the LOLA ladies will unveil their first project at the Campaign for Liberty regional conference in Valley forge, PA.

  http://www.campaignforliberty.com/event/2009northeast.php

  Sixteen bold, beautiful and brilliant women are spotlighted in the LOLA calendar, each representing an issues that is passionate to them with a focus on activism.

  For a minimum donation of $25, individuals can support this brand new organization and learn about some of the very active women in our movement. Donations will help the LOLA ladies provide an educational curriculum designed to empower women to be leaders in whatever capacity they desire: this means running for office, becoming an effective activist, planning rallies or becoming an expert presenter on a topic they feel passionately about.

  LOLA: Conspiring to attract libertarian women into the movement One activist at a time http://www.ladiesoflibertyalliance.org
  Allison Gibbs, Executive Director 404-786-7151
  …Catherine Bleish

• 38 Brian Holtz // Aug 11, 2009 at 5:43 pm

  George, I’m glad you are building bridges to the Campaign For Liberty. I’m curious how you view that organization, given its association with Ron Paul.

  Maybe Tom’s ESP can tell us whether C4L is trying to appeal to racists with this language in its statement of principles:

  “We oppose the dehumanizing assumption that all issues that divide us must be settled at the federal level and forced on every American community, whether by activist judges, a power-hungry executive, or a meddling Congress. We believe in the humane alternative of local self-government, as called for in our Constitution.”

  Not having access to ESP or any other kind of brain-scanning technology, I’m left to wonder to what extent testosterone contributes to the urge among many Libertarians to try to read others out of the party and/or movement for various ideological heresies and strategic/tactical crimes. However, I quickly banish such thoughts, because Libertarian ethical theory collapses if people aren’t considered completely responsible for the choices made by their hormone-soaked brains.

• 39 Ron // Aug 11, 2009 at 6:44 pm

  Thomas, George and libertariangirl, (@16,17,18)

  Thanks!

  Ron

• 40 George Phillies // Aug 11, 2009 at 6:58 pm

  I am putting up something for the Ladies of Liberty Alliance, a group composed of real libertarians.

• 41 veterinarian // Aug 11, 2009 at 7:20 pm

  G-Phil,

  Don’t ask the LOLA ladies how many of them supported Paul or Barr if you’re trying to avoid another rabid episode.

  OTOH, it’s been almost 12 hours so you’re probably overdue for one.

• 42 Mattc // Aug 11, 2009 at 7:29 pm

  allison gibbs, the founder, is employed by the C4L if i’m not mistaken

• 43 libertariangirl // Aug 11, 2009 at 8:39 pm

  BH__i’m left to wonder to what extent testosterone contributes to the urge among many Libertarians to try to read others out of the party and/or movement for various ideological.

  its not testoterone B , its because in the game of Philosophy and Anarchy ( the libertarian version of Dungeon and Dragons) they have become 9th level Libertarian Wizards with unlimited hit points .

  It would be beneath them to hang out with the lower levels.

  *anyone who’s as big a dork as me will get that joke.

Leave a Comment