Wayne Allyn Root: Obama to Jews, Christians and Israel–Drop Dead

Friday, May 20, 2011, 08:19 AM

Obama Awakens a Sleeping Giant

By Wayne Allyn Root, Former Libertarian Vice Presidential Nominee

Mark the date – Thursday May 19th. It’s the day the leopard showed his spots. It’s the day Obama stabbed Israel in the back. It’s the day he told Israel, DROP DEAD.

For the first time in history an American President has chosen to abandon our great friend and ally, Israel, in favor of radical Muslims led by the terrorist group Hamas. But, mark this also as a great day- the day Obama lost the 2012 election. Obama has awakened a sleeping giant- American Jews and Christians, united in their love and support for Israel. They are outraged, shocked and sickened. Obama clearly showed his radical and hateful colors. The American people will not forget.

Just days ago, because of the weak GOP field, I wrote that Obama was the favorite for re-election. Thursday that all changed. Obama’s ego and hatred of Israel could not allow him to play possum for another eighteen months when he’d be re-elected. He could then unleash the full extent of his anti-capitalism, anti-American, anti-Israel venom without having to ever face American voters again. But, like all radical true believers, his hatred is so extreme he couldn’t wait. He’s been so indoctrinated by communist organizers, Marxist professors, terrorist sympathizers, and radical Muslim apologists, that he just couldn’t contain himself.

On Thursday, Obama left no doubt that he sides with and wants to redistribute money from American taxpayers to Palestinians and radical Muslims like Hamas that target Israeli women and children…that encourage their own children to become suicide bombers…that hand out candy in celebration for the murder of an innocent Jewish baby…that force women to endure public lashings for disobeying a husband…that execute women for “allowing themselves” to be gang-raped…that pour acid on the face of little girls who dare to want an education…who throw gay men off the roofs of buildings…who marry off their 5-year-old daughters to pay the bills…who imprison all women for life behind dark veils in 120 degree heat, to keep them from being seen by other men.

Obama wants to redistribute your taxpayer money to radicals who attack churches and murder Christians. He wants more foreign aid for Egypt, a country headed for domination by the Muslim Brotherhood, an ally of Nazis in WWII. That is who Obama has chosen to side with over a modern, capitalist, American-loving Israeli society with democracy, freedom and equality for men, women, gays, and Arabs. Not perfection, because we all know that neither America nor Israel is perfect. But, like in America, all people (including Muslims) enjoy far more freedom in Israel in any Muslim country.

If you are a thinking, fair-minded person, Christian or Jew, that supports Israel’s right to exist, you must be sickened and outraged by Obama’s demand for Israel to return to its 1967 borders. That demand displaces over 300,000 Israeli citizens. What right does America have to make 300,000 people of another country homeless? What right does America have to meddle in Israel’s affairs? What right does America have to demand an ally give up its own territory won in a defensive war? Should America give Texas back to Mexico? Should we hand Boston back to the British? What right does Obama have to give away the land Israel needs to provide natural defenses from Hamas missiles and terrorist attacks? What if America’s meddling leads to the destruction of Israel and the death of millions of innocent Israelis? With friends like this, Israel no longer needs enemies.

If you are a Libertarian non-interventionist who has “no dog in the hunt,” you should be outraged that an American President is choosing sides at all. You should be outraged that Obama is inflaming tensions that could lead to World War III. You should be outraged that instead of cutting off foreign aid to radical countries, or eliminating all foreign aid, Obama on this same day recommended several billion dollars in new foreign aid to countries filled with radical hate for America, as well as Jews and Christians worldwide.

If you have common sense you should be outraged at the very idea of throwing away more money. America is broke. We must cut back dramatically on foreign aid, or eliminate it. Why would we commit billions to countries ruled by despots and radicals that hate America and support the destruction of Israel? Billions from where? We now borrow almost 50% of what we spend and Obama wants to give away more money that we have to borrow from China, or have the Fed print more fake money to give away to people that hate us? This defines reckless and radical.

Obama no longer speaks for the American people. On Thursday he made that clear. He also lost the election that day. Jewish voters will never again feel the same about Obama. And while Jews make up only 2% of America’s population, they provide a majority of the donations to Democratic politicians. Obama lost many crucial Democratic donors on Thursday. But Obama’s biggest mistake was awakening a sleeping giant. It is Christian voters that elect Presidents. And almost 100 million evangelical Christians who love Israel will now vote and donate to Obama’s opponents with a fervor and passion of a patriotic group on a mission to save America and Israel from destruction. And sadly, they will be right.

Posted to Wayne’s blog: www.ROOTforAmerica.com

411 thoughts on “Wayne Allyn Root: Obama to Jews, Christians and Israel–Drop Dead

  1. Nicholas Sarwark

    Talk about burying the lede. It took six paragraphs before there is any inkling of what Obama did to piss off Root.

    Even then, I’ve read it twice and all I get is that he suggested that Israel should use the 1967 borders as a starting point for peace negotiations. You may disagree, but it seems a far cry from telling Israel to “drop dead.”

  2. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    “On Thursday, Obama left no doubt that he sides with and wants to redistribute money from American taxpayers to Palestinians and radical Muslims like Hamas that target Israeli women and children…that encourage their own children to become suicide bombers…that hand out candy in celebration for the murder of an innocent Jewish baby…that force women to endure public lashings for disobeying a husband…that execute women for “allowing themselves” to be gang-raped…that pour acid on the face of little girls who dare to want an education…who throw gay men off the roofs of buildings…who marry off their 5-year-old daughters to pay the bills…who imprison all women for life behind dark veils in 120 degree heat, to keep them from being seen by other men.”

    There’s so much wrong with this paragraph that I don’t know where to start. It certainly looks like racism to me. And he put this in print???

  3. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    I don’t believe that people use their children as suicide bombers. I’ve asked for documentation over and over again, and no one has ever shown it to me. I think it’s like the babies in incubators story–total bullshit made up to justify hatred against a certain group.

  4. Steve LaBianca

    Not only is W.A.R. NOT a libertarian, he isn’t even a “founding fathers” constitutionalist.

  5. Ayn R. Key

    He does spend a paragraph trying to curry favor with libertarians, although he uses the phrase “Libertarian non-interventionist” instead of “Libertarian”. He still doesn’t quite realize that this party is the party of peaceful non-interventionism, although he learned to stop using the word “isolationist.”

  6. NewFederalist

    Well, Root might be correct about one thing. This could be a game changer for 2012. With this attitude he actually might be denied the LP nomination in 2012. It would be difficult for me to figure how anyone who claims to be any sort of libertarian (minarchist, anarchist or whatever) could embrace this diatribe. Game over.

  7. AroundtheblockAFT

    I doubt that giving up the Golan Heights would be the death of Israel. Should, say, Syria launch an attack from there, the Israeli air force levels Damascus. Modern warfare doesn’t depend on “holding the high ground” a la Gettysburg.

  8. NewFederalist

    AtbAFT… true dat. Since Israel has nukes and Syria doesn’t that might also dissuade them from lobbing artillery shells on settlements within range.

  9. Bill Wood

    Jill, Wayne probably read the news stories that are online about using children as suicide bombers. BBC has an interesting story about it, wiki has a list from 2004 to 2006 of some of the children ages up to 18 that were caught. I think you can ignore the photo of the under one year old his Father says he did that as a joke. It is amazing how many stories there are online.

  10. Bill Wood

    Caught this on youtube. It is a news cast of a 14 year old trying to remove a bomb vest at a check point in Israel. Of course is it real or staged would be the question, but it is interesting to watch.

  11. John Jay Myers

    This is horrible.

    The Libertarian stance is that the United States has no role to play in the Middle East…. we need to get out.

    But he spends paragraphs ripping apart anyone who is not a Jew or Christisan. He also unfairly seems to associate all Christians and Jews into one nice package, and then associates all Jews and Christians with Israel. It’s just ridiculous, but what is weird is Wayne really does have a dog in this fight, he is full on Israel firster and wants us to continue this unnatural, unconstitutional relationship which is exactly the type of relationship our founders had warned us about.

    He also manages to paint every person living in Palestine as some sort of monster who eats babies, that is class.

    Seriously Wayne, buy a gun or cut a check, but leave the rest of us out of your religious apocalypse.

    Wayne is a one man Israel suck up, he might as well wrap himself in their flag, and get a tattoo.
    He may find it more helpful if he puts “Attention major media outlets, I am completely ready to sell out so that you can say “Libertarians support Israel unconditionally””.

    Ron Paul had it right in his article where he says going to the 1967 borders wouldn’t be a bad idea, but it is none of our business.

    Wayne’s tyrade above is just a joke.

  12. Alan Pyeatt

    I don’t think Obama’s speech will have any significant effect whatsoever. Opinion makers and the power elite both in the U.S. and in Israel know that it was just a bunch of propaganda aimed at the so-called “Muslim world,” intended to lull them into complacency much like Andrew Jackson claimed to be a friend of the American Indians.

    It might make for decent fertilizer, but will result in absolutely ZERO change in policy. As a result, the Court Intellectuals will still shill for Obama in 2012, Israel’s officials will be publicly outraged but privately confident, and Obama will be re-appointed in 2012. Meanwhile, I don’t see many Muslims believing anything an American president says. If he had closed Guantanamo and stopped the endless war in Afghanistan and Pakistan, maybe they would have reason to believe him. As it is, don’t expect much. This is all window dressing, and the Muslims know it, for the most part.

    There is one thing I agree with in Wayne’s article, though: “If you have common sense you should be outraged at the very idea of throwing away more money. ” Yes, I am, and that includes the $3 Billion per year the Obama administration is sending to Israel (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/01/27/time-foreign-aid-israel-we-anymore-sen-paul-warns/).

    It’s funny how many people that are complaining now didn’t object when the U.S. sent our tax money to the Palestinian Authority to support “democracy” and Mahmoud Abbas’ perceived “moderate” party, Fatah. But now that the West Bank Palestinians that elected Fatah have seen how much Abbas conceded to the Israelis (http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/01/wikileaks_shames_palestinians.html), they are beginning to agree more and more with their countrymen in the Gaza Strip, who elected the more hard-line Hamas party. And even Abbas seems to be giving up on his “moderate” strategy, and backing away from collusion (or if you prefer, “cooperation”) with the Israeli government. Meanwhile, there is no reason to think that construction of Israeli “settlements” on the West Bank will stop, nor the demolition of Palestinian homes, nor their water being given to the Israelis, nor closure of the checkpoints (“Your papers, please…”), or opening of the borders…

    Rather, the two things that seem to be making a difference in the region are loss of American/Israeli influence due to the Arab Spring, and at least some re-unification of the Palestinian people, who have been split over the question of how to maintain their land base and regain their right to self-government in the face of continuing Israeli hegemony (http://www.democracynow.org/2011/5/17/a_new_non_violent_resistance_movement, scroll down to Christopher Whitman’s comment).

    As an Indian, I can’t help but notice the parallels between how this country was stolen from the Indians and Israel’s policies (even down to collecting the Palestinian Authority’s taxes, and then refusing to remit them when they don’t like something the PA does, which is an exact copy of U.S. policy toward the Cherokee Nation). But as a born-and-raised Texan, the comparison of Israel’s expansion to the Texas Revolution (“Should America give Texas back to Mexico?”) is downright insulting.

  13. Michael Cavlan RN

    Wayne Newton is singing in Las Vegas.
    I want a nice cup of coffee to go with my fig newton.

    Wayne who?

    The man is an idiot. Do not allow him to destroy your party.

    A friendly voice of experience from a former Green Party activist.

    Listen to Wayne Newton instead.

  14. Kimberly Wilder

    Wish someone could just steal Wayne Allyn Root’s pen. It hurts to read most of what he writes.

  15. JT

    JJM: “Wayne is a one man Israel suck up, he might as well wrap himself in their flag, and get a tattoo.”

    The Jewish religion is against tattoos :-)

  16. David Colborne

    Ignoring the strongly pro-Israeli rhetoric, this isn’t that far off from peaceful non-interventionism. This is sort of the flip-side of Paul’s “not a bad idea, but it’s none of our business” comment – Wayne’s arguing that asking/demanding Israel return to its pre-’67 borders is, in fact, a horrible idea and it’s none of our business anyway.

    It’s definitely a creative sales job, though I doubt there are too many people looking at what he wrote and saying, “Wow, we need to stop meddling in the Middle East!” The beauty of this piece is it gives him enough wiggle room to say with about the same level of credibility that he’s a non-interventionist and he’s pro-Israel. I don’t mind seeing pro-Israeli non-interventionists – too many people out there equate a non-interventionist policy regarding Israel as open support for Israel’s enemies, in no small part because many of the people calling for a non-interventionist policy regarding Israel are, in fact, openly pro-Palestine (or anti-Israel). If we ever want a non-interventionist policy to be politically palatable, we need as many pro-Israeli people as possible to stand up and show how our policies are doing just as much damage to Israel as they’re doing to Palestine.

    In short, we need to decouple the issue of whether we have any business there (we don’t) from the issue of whether Israel is treating the Palestinians fairly (or vice-versa).

    Personally, I like Israel far better than any of its neighbors – though Israel is certainly not without its faults, it’s culturally and politically closer to us and our beliefs than Palestine, Syria, or even post-Mubarak Egypt, in my opinion. However, our material support for Israel is a relic of post-Holocaust guilt and the Cold War, when we viewed Israel as a strategically useful counterweight to the Soviet-sponsored client states in the region. Now that the USSR is gone, Israel is more than economically and militarily capable of defending itself without us throwing money at it, especially if we stop trying to buy off the Palestinians and the Egyptians at the same time. Let them sort it out, get it over and done with, and let them deal with the consequences of their actions on their own. It’s really none of our business either way who wins.

  17. JT

    NF: “After the way they got numbered by the Nazis who can blame them?”

    Well, it’s not because of that. The Old Testament condemns any desecration of the body. Tattoos are considered to be in that category, which is why Jews with tattoos (that rhymes) can’t be buried on religious burial grounds. Anyway, I just mentioned that in passing.

  18. Thomas L. Knapp

    DC@17,

    Thanks for saying most of what I intended to say, probably better than I would have said it.

    I am a pro-Israel libertarian non-interventionist.

    While I think that:

    - Israel’s government would be wise to engage in talks with the 1967 borders as a starting point; and that

    - Israel’s government would be smart to recognize an Arab state in the West Bank and/or Gaza; and that

    - Israel’s government would be doing itself a favor by ceasing its high-seas piracy, support for squatting on already-owned land (“settlements”), etc. …

    I also believe that every bit of intervention in the matter by the US harms everyone involved except the political power-brokers and corporate welfarists who make bank on a continuous state of low-intensity conflict always threatening to expand to all-out war.

    While the prose is, per Wayne’s standard, embarrassingly purple, the only things I disagree with that much in the piece are

    1) The absurd notion that Israel is a “capitalist” (by which Root presumably means “free market”) country (it was founded by avowed socialist and has been a “social democracy” with a very mixed economy for its entire existence); and

    2) The even more absurd notion that Israel’s government is a “US ally.” The relationship between the US government and Israel’s has always been one of “America gives, Israel takes.”

    Israel is the single largest recipient of US government foreign aid, not counting the aid to Arab regimes given for the express purpose of bribing them not to attack Israel.

    Israel’s government flagrantly spies on the US and pisses and moans when one of its agents gets caught.

    The Israeli armed forces have attacked US vessels (the USS Liberty), murdered US citizens in the course of land theft in the West Bank (Rachel Corrie) and piracy on the high seas (Furkan Dogan on the Mavi Marmara), purchased sensitive US defense technology under restricted conditions and then re-sold it to Communist China in defiance of those conditions, attempted to dictate US policy vis a vis other countries (as when Menachem Begin publicly stated that he “would not allow” the US to sell AWAC aircraft to Saudi Arabia) …

    … and while the case is not airtight, the available evidence indicates that Israel’s government may very well have had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks and decided to withhold that knowledge for the express purpose of bringing the US even more strongly into its orbit as a proxy for military adventurism in the Middle East.

    Balanced against that, what has Israel’s government ever done for the US except throw an occasional vote to the US for meaningless UN resolutions?

    Israel would probably become much more well-behaved if Uncle Sugar stopped spoiling it.

  19. John Jay Myers

    Well this is about to get heavy, so hold on to your hats.
    I actually don’t care about the countries around Israel. I know they are not bastions of freedom. But I also know that without our involvement in the Middle East especially Israel they would not care about us.

    But it seems in our political discourse in America we have room for only two views, you either love Israel and believe we must defend Israel at all costs, or you don’t care. Or something in between. And normally if you side with “I don’t care” you are called anti-Semitic.

    What is absolutely not allowed is to actually say that you don’t approve of Israel or the way it does things.
    I am one of those people.

    I believe that through AIPAC and other groups in the United States our foreign policy is not only manipulated but close to dictated by those whose interest are not our own.

    For that reason I do not share the “I like Israel more than Syria” belief, because Syria is not manipulating our foreign policy costing us a trillion dollars a year. They on the other hand just want us to leave them alone, a sentiment I very much agree with.

    I would love for us to leave all of these people alone, but Israel has so much influence through their lobby and their influential friends that we are not allowed to just leave any of this alone.

    I understand that the Libertarian Party takes no side in this, other than to say we need to get out and stay out, which is something I strongly agree with.

    But in my opinion Israel is nothing like the United States, they are a genocidal group of non-secular, apartheid loving thugs, and I am not a fan.

    This is not about religion this is about a country, a country whose policies I do not agree with.

  20. Tom Blanton

    Here’s a true gem:

    The US president is seeking a settlement freeze in the West Bank. Key aides in his administration are convinced that the further Israel expands its footprint beyond its pre-1967 borders, the harder achieving peace will become. The administration’s vision is for an eventual Palestinian state along the general lines of the borders that prevailed before the Six-Day War that began June 5, 1967.

    The hard-line Israeli prime minister and his aides are furious. “There can be only one meaning to this demand: It is an attempt to determine Israel’s borders and the ultimate status of the areas in question in advance of negotiations,” the Israeli prime minister says. “We shall never agree to such a step.” An aide to the prime minister is even more dramatic, calling the old armistice line the “borders of Auschwitz.”

    Sound like the back and forth today, with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu lashing out at Obama, and Republican presidential aspirant Mitt Romney saying the president had “thrown Israel under the bus”?

    Yes, it’s almost identical. But this was 1992, with George H. W. Bush’s administration and the government of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir. Mr. Netanyahu, an aide to Mr. Shamir at the time, made the “Auschwitz” comment.

    This is all less than 20 years ago and far from ancient history. Which is why it’s strange that so many quarters reacted to Obama’s statement Thursday as if he’d broken new ground or done something to threaten Israel.

    What did he say? “The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed land swaps.” What does that mean? Well, in practice it means the Israelis and the Palestinians would negotiate bits of a future Palestinian state that would not follow the 1967 borders, with some Israeli settlement blocs presumably being swapped for other bits of Israeli land. 1967 is just a starting point.

    That’s been the general working idea for the last four US presidencies, including two Republican administrations.

    AND

    Netanyahu, who sometimes users bluster as a negotiating tool, practically ordered Obama to change course yesterday. In a statement ahead of his US trip that began today, Netanyahu said a Palestinian state would not be founded “at Israel’s expense” and that he “expects to hear from President Obama a reconfirmation of commitments to Israel from 2004.” The Jerusalem Post characterized Netanyahu’s response as “quick and bitter.”

    But what is the commitment from 2004? It’s a letter written by President George W. Bush that … suggests more or less the same thing that Obama said yesterday.

    “In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli population centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion,” President Bush wrote to former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in April of 2004. “It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities.”

    Now, the language of Bush’s comment may be flipped a little, in the sense that he emphasizes that the borders will be different from the 1949-67 borders rather than emphasizing that those should be the starting point, but the overall sense is the same. The real contours of the borders will be determined between the Israelis and Palestinians with “mutually agreed changes” (in Bush’s formulation) or “mutually agreed land swaps” (in Obama’s)

    This is from the Christian Science Monitor:

    http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Backchannels/2011/0520/What-s-so-shocking-about-Obama-mentioning-1967-borders

  21. Tom Blanton

    Not only is Netanyahu and all his boot-licking sycophants in the GOP completely full of crap, Wayne Allyn Root is also full of it.

    This is not about having a reasonable differences of opinion. Nearly everything Root has written in this “Obama is Hitler” op-ed is factually incorrect or propaganda that is based on half-truths and double standards.

    Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, a contributing editor to The American Conservative and executive director of the Council for the National Interest wrote an article yesterday that asked 10 questions of Netanyahu. Perhaps Mr. Root could respond to them:

    http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/2011/05/18/some-questions-for-bibi/

  22. George Phillies

    @25 You got that one completely and totally right. What can you expect from an LNC member who smears our party reputation by associating it with right wing extremists like Michael Savage, Glenn Beck, and Sarah Palin?

  23. Robert Capozzi

    wr: If you are a Libertarian non-interventionist who has “no dog in the hunt,” you should be outraged that an American President is choosing sides at all.

    me: Thank you for your counsel, but I’ll pass on the “outrage” part. Myself, I’m pro-US, pro-Israel, pro-Palestinian, pro everyone. I agree that BHO has done yet another deeply dysfunctional thing here. Whether this act leads to his electoral undoing…we’ll see.

    I prefer to see the US take a “tactful extrication” stance in the ME, i.e., a graceful, deliberate exit from a mess of our own making. Some may find this disappointing, but for a lot of reasons, the US should stick to its knitting and mind its own business.

    There is certainly much “blame” to go around, but I don’t see how amping up the blame game helps in this (or any) situation.

  24. Robert Capozzi

    re: Blanton’s link of the Philip Giraldi piece, I’ll answer not as “Bibi,” but a L advisor to BHO:

    pg: In light of all that, why do you keep complaining about being vulnerable and threatened by the other countries in your region?

    - Israel is a militarily “strong” country, but it is surrounded by nations and territories containing people hostile to it. To deny that seems non-serious. Despite its many assets, Israel remains in a troubled situation. We’ve concluded that US policy exacerbates Israel’s and the Arab world. That’s why we believe it’s time to exit gracefully.

    pg: Will you ever open up your records relating to the Liberty?

    me: Dredging up grievances like this is counter-productive.

    pg: What can possibly justify American taxpayers subsidizing the Israeli standard of living, which includes free medical care and university education, at a time when social programs in the US are being cut?

    me: Good question. We trust that by exiting the ME, Israel and the Arab world will sort out their differences. It’s clear to us that our continued presence there makes a bad situation worse.

    pg: Don’t you think that it is time for Israel to admit that it has been spying on Americans and for it to make a firm commitment to stop doing so with sanctions for non-compliance like shutting your exports out of our domestic market?

    me: it’s no surprise that clients want more from their sponsors. The past is past. Cataloging alleged mistakes does no one any good.

    pg: How can someone who has done so much damage to the United States be considered a hero in a country that is the biggest recipient of US aid dollars and that relies on Washington for political protection?

    me: A fair question, but we’ve decided to go in peace.

    pg: Isn’t it time for Israel to begin accepting the consequences for its own policies and stop using its powerful lobby to make Washington act against the interests of the American people?

    me: Accepting responsibility for the consequences of one’s actions seems like the appropriate, adult thing to do. Washington is a town filled with lobbyists, all claiming to have the interests of the American people at heart. We’ve determined that tending to our business is a win/win situation for all.

    pg: Isn’t it time to stop citing Iran as a justification for the American military’s costly and dangerous remaking of the Middle East to suit Israel?

    me: Yes. Iran is a separate question. We will be announcing a new perspective on Iran’s alleged nuclear ambitions in due course.

    pg: Shouldn’t your country delegitimize the terrorist argument by behaving responsibly and beginning to take genuine steps that will satisfy reasonable Palestinian demands for a viable state?

    me: No, to deny terrorism seems off point. Going forward, the US is neutral on the question of a Palestinian state. OTOH, we do support the general notion of self determination.

    pg: A useful starting point might be the 2002 King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia proposal for a comprehensive peace settlement which would have all of Israel’s Arab neighbors recognizing Israel in exchange for fixed borders and creation of a Palestinian state. Israel has rejected the plan. Given the unrest resulting from the Arab Spring, isn’t it time to reconsider?

    me: Yes, the Arab Spring seems like a potentially encouraging development for world peace. We take no specific position on the King’s proposal except to say that if it supports and advances world peace, we consider it productive.

    pg: Isn’t it time to distance yourself from such policies if you want to be seen as a genuine statesman instead of the leader of an extremist party?

    me: We no longer get involved in the internal affairs of other nations.

  25. David Colborne

    JJM: Israel doesn’t need corporate backers or AIPAC to lobby for them. Most corporate money would probably prefer Israel to become a non-issue since it would make negotiating with oil-producing Middle East governments far less complicated. As for AIPAC, who needs them when so many on the religious right view Israel the same way lonely, nerdy teenagers look at Japan?

    Frankly, the sooner Israel is free from the millenialist yolk of the American religious right, the sooner it can decide whether it will be a pluralistic democracy or an ethnic state. Don’t think for a minute the lobbying only goes one direction.

  26. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    For some reason, I’ve had this little ditty running through my head today:

  27. paulie

    For some reason, I’ve had this little ditty running through my head today:

    Is it because I “returned”? LOL (although I’m going to try to focus on work again starting tomorrow…)

  28. JT

    JJM: “What is absolutely not allowed is to actually say that you don’t approve of Israel or the way it does things.”

    Well, I don’t approve of some of the Israeli government’s actions. I strongly disapprove of some of them. And I’m not a fan of groups like AIPAC (or CAIR, for that matter). I think the U.S. military exists to defend people and property in the U.S., not in any other country (though I don’t think the bulk of U.S. military spending is because of Israel). And I also dislike wedding religion and government (though a great many Israeli Jews are less religious than a great many American Jews).

    I do recognize the political fact, however, that in Israel people (regardless of religion, gender, sexuality, etc.) are afforded some rights that people in the region’s predominantly Muslim dictatorships don’t have. I believe that’s what most people who say Israel is better than its neighbors are referring to (including charges of “genocidal” and “non-secular” and “apartheid-loving”).

    But as David said above, there’s no need to verbally attack or defend Israel in particular in order to make a strong case for foreign non-interventionism. I think most Libertarians can agree with that and should take that approach.

  29. JT

    I didn’t realize I was using so many parentheses in the above post. Seems kind of annoying. Sorry about that.

  30. Tom Blanton

    The fact is that Jews in Israel are afforded rights that Arabs in Israel are not afforded. Rather than being the regions sole democracy, Israel is a socialist theocracy where Jews are more equal than Muslims and Christians.

    Read up about Palestinian Christians and see what they think of the Israeli occupation.

    I realize there is a lot of social pressure to conform to the “I am pro-Israel” schtick, but Israel behaves badly. The Likud extremists are liars and murderers – certainly no better than any of the Muslims they demonize. The Likudniks do not want peace and they have done everything possible to destabilize the entire region. America needs to cut ties with this gang of thugs.

    The story I posted at #24 above demonstrates that Netanyahu is is a lying scumbag who can’t be trusted to tell the truth even when the truth is easily verified.

    I’m surprised that Root has bought the whole Netanyahu line – usually a bullshitter recognizes another bullshitter right away. Maybe Root is really a hardcore zionist.

  31. Don Lake, FYI, not necessarily a unilateral endorsement

    Michael Cavlan RN // May 20, 2011:

    Wayne Newton ……. fig newton ……….. [Lake: and Sir Issac Newton ???????]

    JJM// May 20, 2011:

    “Wayne is a one man Israel suck up”

    [Lake: ya never heard of Joe (Israel First ) Libermann of Connecticut ???????? Lib Bruce Cohen ???????? Deform Party /Reform Party John Dennis Coffey, John Blare, John Bambey, Valli Sharpe Geisler ?????????]

  32. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    Paulie @ 35: No, the little song was for a certain individual who constantly comes around, saying things to drive me crazy. Couldn’t he take a year off, and just show up for the convention next year? With the quality of his last two essays, he might have a better chance of becoming the LP presidential candidate if he doesn’t write any articles between now and then.

    IMO, of course.

  33. Palestinians Are Indians

    Pyeatt @ 12 As an Indian, I can’t help but notice the parallels between how this country was stolen from the Indians and Israel’s policies

    I too have noticed parallels between the US and Israel taking brown people’s land. But there’s a Big Difference…

    America was conceived as a white Protestant nation (not officially, but it was assumed). The Europeans that landed here stole Indian and Mexican land, and enslaved blacks. At one point, immigration policies were designed to keep out Catholics, Jews, and Chinese.

    Israel was conceived as a Jewish state (officially), and stole Arab (Muslim and Christian) land.

    But America evolved. It kept the land, but extended equal rights to non-whites, and abolished its racist immigration policies.

    Unlike America, Israel wants to keep Arab land, but maintain its Jewish dominance by law, and its racist immigration policies (no “Right of Return.”).

    America kept the land, and paid the (proper and just) price of ceasing to be a white, Protestant nation. Its identity is multi-ethnic, multi-religious diversity.

    Israel wants the land, but refuses to pay the price (land for equality).

    Colborne @ 31: the sooner Israel is free from the millenialist yolk of the American religious right, the sooner it can decide whether it will be a pluralistic democracy or an ethnic state.

    Israel CAN decide now. Israel WANTS to be an ethnic state.

    Christian millenialists send money to Israel, but they don’t control it.

  34. paulie

    But America evolved. It kept the land, but extended equal rights to non-whites, and abolished its racist immigration policies.

    Both in the 1960s, after nearly 200 years as a nation and nearly 400 years of European colonization.

    BTW, there was a fairly substantial Jewish community in the area that became Israel throughout the 2,000 years of Jewish diaspora. Revisionist theories aside, I haven’t heard much in the way of evidence or even supposition of any similar European history in America throughout the ages. Yes, I know Vikings and some others landed sporadically, but that’s not the same thing.

  35. paulie

    Also, the US is not a nation of 5-10 million Europeans on a tiny piece of land surrounded by dozens of hostile Indian nations comprising over a billion people, and most European American are not descended from people who were semi-successfully genocided 70 years ago, or who had undergone systematic persecution for thousands of years.

    Don’t forget also that a huge percent of Israeli Jews are immigrants (or descended from immigrants within the last century) from Arab and Muslim ruled nations, from which they were expelled or otherwise made unwelcome.

    Prior to the post-1990 immigration of Jews from the ex-USSR, there were more of these Middle Eastern Jews in Israel than there were Jews who came from Europe or descended from recent immigrants from Europe.

    The Palestinian/Indian comparison only goes so far.

  36. Wayne's False Teeth

    Doesn’t Bruce Cohen ghostwrite Wayne’s junk so well?

    I know this was the case as I saw Wayne read Bruce’s email from my spot in the jar of water on his desk, right next to my pal the silver toupee.

    If the Libertarian Party is to be taken seriously, then Wayne needs to get a clue. I’d rather he spend his time doing something he understands, which is using me to promote his other scams.

  37. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    They’re NOT false!

    They’re AWESOME!

    Root’s teeth are SO awesomely bright and fabulous and gleaming, I must wear protective UV shades when viewing photos of Root, or I’ll go blind!

  38. Liberty Woes

    Again a republican in libertarian clothing! Obama makes a suggestion and this guy calls it abandonment. Typical GOP strategy. What’s more interesting is that both Israel and Palestine want a 2 state solution. But it’s the radical leaders that inhibit what its citizens want. Our middle eastern policy is what creates terrorism….we need to stop foreign aid to Israel and all other dictatorships we prop up, especially since we are broke! Give us aid for once! Get this Root guy out of the LP, he is bringing us down!

  39. JT

    Tom: “The fact is that Jews in Israel are afforded rights that Arabs in Israel are not afforded.”

    Legal rights such as what?

    Tom: “Read up about Palestinian Christians and see what they think of the Israeli occupation.”

    I don’t need to do that. I’ve been there before. Obviously, the Palestinians don’t like it. That’s why they fire rockets and set off bombs in areas that kill Israeli citizens.

    Tom: “The Likud extremists are liars and murderers – certainly no better than any of the Muslims they demonize.”

    Given that both the Israeli government and the Arab governments are militarily stronger than their own populations, I wonder why there’s no violent rebellions in Israel like the ones against the dictators sweeping the Middle East?

    Good post 47, Paulie.

  40. Tom Blanton

    Obviously, the Palestinians don’t like it. That’s why they fire rockets and set off bombs in areas that kill Israeli citizens.

    Ahh, but it is always Muslim radicals blamed for this because of their hatred for Jews – Israel never blames this on political reasons. I specifically mentioned Palestinian Christians who presumably don’t hate Jews.

  41. Tom Blanton

    Tom: “The Likud extremists are liars and murderers – certainly no better than any of the Muslims they demonize.”

    Given that both the Israeli government and the Arab governments are militarily stronger than their own populations, I wonder why there’s no violent rebellions in Israel like the ones against the dictators sweeping the Middle East?

    Well, there are a number of leaders in America that I would consider liars and murderers. Not that you would. I’m not seeing any violent rebellions in America.

    Outside of Libya, where rebels were apparently supplied with arms by outside sources (wink), I’m not seeing violent rebellions in the Mideast – at least not by the rebels so much.

    I can think of one nation that I am sure you would consider pretty awful where there was no violent rebellion – Hitler’s Germany. That there was no rebellion there is hardly a ringing endorsement of that regime.

    Primarily, the reason a lot of Israeli citizens aren’t in the streets is the relatively high standard of living in Israel – free medical care, free higher education, and relatively high incomes – thanks in some part to American support and the support of many Jews worldwide.

    I’d note that the Mideast is not the only part of the world where people are in the streets due to economic reasons – right this minute it is Spain, which is a fairly liberal nation in the same sense that America and other western nations are liberal.

  42. Adrian Galysh

    I used to give Wayne Root the benefit of the doubt, and considered him the “gate way drug” of libertarianism. He has always been nice/polite to me. But his recent press releases/editorials/op-eds – what ever these are, are so off base with what the Libertarian view is, I fail to understand how he has any executive position in the party. Wayne, respectfully, please read a few Harry Browne books.

  43. JT

    Tom, there are many people and organizations in America, as I’m sure you know, who cite disparity in various areas of society among races and sexes as though that’s proof of widespread institutionalized discrimination. It’s not. There are many other reasons. The fact that there’s a greater rate of black people to white people in prison, for example, doesn’t prove the U.S. legal system discriminates against black people.

    Moreover that article also refers to passages such as this one:

    “According to Ishmael Khaldi, an Arab citizen of Israel and the nation’s first high ranking Muslim in the Israeli foreign service, while Israeli society is far from perfect, minorities in Israel fare far better than any other country in the Middle East. He wrote:

    I am a proud Israeli – along with many other non-Jewish Israelis such as Druze, Bahai, Bedouin, Christians and Muslims, who live in one of the most culturally diversified societies and the only true democracy in the Middle East. Like America, Israeli society is far from perfect, but let us deal honestly. By any yardstick you choose — educational opportunity, economic development, women and gay’s rights, freedom of speech and assembly, legislative representation — Israel’s minorities fare far better than any other country in the Middle East.”

    Tom: “Well, there are a number of leaders in America that I would consider liars and murderers. Not that you would.”

    I do.

    Tom: “Outside of Libya, where rebels were apparently supplied with arms by outside sources (wink), I’m not seeing violent rebellions in the Mideast – at least not by the rebels so much.”

    There has been violence on both sides, despite the U.S. administration’s attempt to portray the events as peaceful protest gatherings against the rulers.

    Tom: “I can think of one nation that I am sure you would consider pretty awful where there was no violent rebellion – Hitler’s Germany. That there was no rebellion there is hardly a ringing endorsement of that regime.”

    My point wasn’t that the absence of a violent rebellion is a ringing endorsement of that regime. My point was that there’s no rebellion in a state without vast human rights abuses and no electoral way to get rid of political leadership.

    Tom: “Primarily, the reason a lot of Israeli citizens aren’t in the streets is the relatively high standard of living in Israel – free medical care, free higher education, and relatively high incomes – thanks in some part to American support and the support of many Jews worldwide.”

    “In some part” is the key here. There’s no so-called “free” anything without production and investment to make those things possible. Why can’t the Arab countries achieve the same level of widespread prosperity? Because of Israel, I guess.

    In any event, I suppose you want to continue arguing the moral status of the Israeli government vs. that of its neighbors? I’d rather focus on the policies of the U.S. government, such as how Americans would be much better served by a non-interventionist foreign policy.

  44. NewFederalist

    Wouldn’t it be great if a person with the tenacity and media grabbing ability of Wayne Allyn Root could deliver the message of Harry Browne? It would truly be the message America needs to hear. As well as Browne delivered his message I suspect Root could actually do it better if only he would. Oh well, we can always dream.

  45. Tom Blanton

    In any event, I suppose you want to continue arguing the moral status of the Israeli government vs. that of its neighbors?

    Wrong, JT. It seems to be you that wants to make all the comparisons in defense of Israel. First, I am relying on news sources that I personally trust when I say that other than Libya, most of the rebellions going recently in the Arab nations (Egypt, Bahrain, etc.) have not been violent other than the violence committed by the state.

    If I’m wrong, present to me why.

    I am not making any case that any of Israel’s neighbors are wonderful – they aren’t. I am saying that when it comes to having clean hands regarding peace between these nations and Israel, Israel is no better than any one of them.

    I take no sides in this endless drama. Unlike you, I am not pro-Israel. I find that nation to be horrible – not so much to its own people but to everyone else in the world (Goyims). I am also not pro-Palestinian, however my sympathies tend to be with the ordinary Israelis and Palestinians as they bear the brunt of the violence and fear. The Likud rules through fear, much as the neocon element of America attempts to do.

    I would also prefer if America stop backing Israel with arms, money and protecting Israel from the consequences of their own actions. This would also extend to their illegal lobbying efforts in America, their spying in America, and their industrial spying and theft.

    I claim to only speak for myself, and unlike so many who are pro-Israel, I will try to explain and source information that I base my opinions on (see the links, etc above). But, this is not about how I think. This thread is about Mr. Wonderful who holds himself out to represent libertarians. He presents himself in his latest article as both a bigot and a liar, at least for those who have some knowledge of the Mideast situation.

    I am sorry that I can not impart to you every piece of information and the sources that I have read over the past 30 years regarding Israel and the Palestinians. There’s not enough time or space. I would suggest that you learn how to use Google effectively and read various sources of information regularly, including English language foreign media.

    I think what I posted @ #24 reveals the deceit of Netanyahu and illustrates why I consider him to be a liar. Keep in mind this is but one example. It also illustrates that Root is either a fool or a liar also. Not to mention the false outrage of many in the GOP.

    It also illustrates how the so-called liberal media refuses to call out the false outrage by the GOP by providing the context that Obama’s reference to adjusted 1967 borders is no departure from the past 3 presidents.

    The pro-Israel folks may want to rethink whatever it is they think is going on over there as it should be obvious that they aren’t getting much more than Likud propaganda from the mainstream media.

    Since 9/11, assuming this was done by radicalized Muslims, Americans have paid dearly with lives, money, freedom and loss of security for the actions of our own politicians meddling in the Mideast for over 50 years for the benefit of Israel, Big Oil, and Big Banksters.

    Israel has been lobbying in America for years to go to war with Iran. The Likud propaganda has many believeing that Ahmadinejad, a figurehead with little real power, is the next Hitler. We are told he is a holocaust denier, despite his acknowledgment that it occurred on more than one occasion (to Katy Couric for example). We are told that he has threatened to destroy Israel when he quoted an Ayatollah that the Israeli regime would not continue forever and compared them to the Soviet Union. As mentioned in the Giraldi article I posted above, Israel has repeatedly claimed that Iran was on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons for years – never acknowledging that they have been wrong year after year.

    This is outrageous behavior on the part of Israel and those Americans who are pro-Israel will share the blood on their hands if, or when, America decides to go to war with Iran based on the pretexts provided by the Likud Party.

    If America does go after Iran, we will sure to hear how we must establish a democracy there. I wonder if the media will remind Americans that Iran had a democracy until the CIA and MI6 deposed their elected leader and installed the Shah and trained his secret police force to silence his opponents.

    I’m sick of all of this. I imagine many Arabs and Muslims are also. I favor leaving them alone and I favor cutting all ties with Israel.

    If Root and his neocon buddies are so outraged by how Israel is treated, I invite them to go there and make it all better. Just leave America out of it.

  46. JT

    I can’t possibly respond to all the things you said in that massive post, Tom. Sometimes my posts are fairly long, but that’s because I include a lot of quotes from the person I’m addressing. I don’t want to spend much time writing my own thoughts on a single post on a discussion board, particularly when I’ve pretty much already said everything I have to say. So I’ll just say a few more things in response:

    Tom: “I am sorry that I can not impart to you every piece of information and the sources that I have read over the past 30 years regarding Israel and the Palestinians. There’s not enough time or space.”

    I never asked nor expected you to do that.

    Tom: “I would suggest that you learn how to use Google effectively and read various sources of information regularly, including English language foreign media.”

    Wouldn’t be Blanton without at some point being insulting and condescending. Gotta love it.

    I’m not confused about the relationship between Israel and the Palestinians. I’ve been there many times and I’ve seen things with my own eyes.

    Tom: “Israel has been lobbying in America for years to go to war with Iran.”

    That would be one of the things I strongly disapprove of, as noted above.

    Tom: “…those Americans who are pro-Israel will share the blood on their hands if, or when, America decides to go to war with Iran based on the pretexts provided by the Likud Party.”

    I think any American who’s pro-Israel but opposes any U.S. aid or militarism against Iran or any other nation on behalf of Israel doesn’t “have blood on their hands.”

    Tom: “I’m sick of all of this. I imagine many Arabs and Muslims are also. I favor leaving them alone and I favor cutting all ties with Israel.”

    Me too. But if you think making a strong case against foreign interventionism requires a tirade against Israel, then count me out of that.

  47. David Colborne

    See, this argument is precisely what I was talking about earlier in the thread. Selling Americans on the idea that Israel is evil won’t decrease our intervention in the region – it’ll merely make us switch sides. Of course, that assumes that most Americans could be sold on the idea that Israel was evil, which is a little difficult to do when both sides toss rockets at one another. It’s not like South Africa, where it was pretty clear the Afrikaaners were under no serious threat of violence.

    It really doesn’t matter either way, though. The simple truth that needs to be communicated is that our interference in the region is not good for us, it’s not good for the Israelis, and it’s not good for the Palestinians. It doesn’t get any simpler than that, and this is a message that a majority of Americans might grow to agree with.

  48. Tom Blanton

    But if you think making a strong case against foreign interventionism requires a tirade against Israel, then count me out of that.

    I’m not even making a case against interventionism. I’m denouncing in no uncertain terms the policies of the government of Israel which is run by a bunch of Likud thugs. I’m saying that even interventionists should not support Israel. You can call that a tirade if you wish. But, then you must also call Root’s article a tirade against America.

    I don’t deny making condescending remarks regarding the use of Google, but I am appalled that you and many others seem to be unaware of so many things. I find it appalling that so many pro-Israel people must demonize and fabricate lies against Israel’s opponents to justify the actions of Israel and pretend these Likud policies are the epitome of morality.

    That is not making a case for any other country or their policies. It is not making a case against the Jewish people. It is not making a case for Israel’s enemies. In fact, it may be more pro-Israel than those who claim to be pro-Israel and do not denounce policies that harm Israel.

    Support for Likud policies and regurgitating their bellicose propaganda, like Root is doing, is not doing any favors for the Israeli people. The path Israel is on will eventually lead to much suffering for the Israeli people. Time is not on their side because of demographics. Israel needs to make peace and the Likudniks refuse to make peace.

    Those who are sincerely pro-Israel should also be denouncing Likud policies.

  49. Marc Montoni

    I agree with David Colborne. No matter who the bad guys are — we all have differing opinions on that — the best possible outcome for freedom in America is for the US government to end all aid — military and economic/charitable — to all nations. Period, end of story.

    You don’t need to single any of the players out; and if you’re speaking publicly as a Libertarian, you never should single out any recipient of our government’s aid. The point is that aid injures us and gets us involved in foreign quarrels.

    Keep it simple.

  50. paulie

    Good post 47, Paulie.

    Thanks….I could have made it longer of course :-)

    Bottom line though is that is all a distraction.

    As far as US politics goes, IMO what matters is whether you want the US regime involved in any way (I don’t), not whether you favor Israel, Arabs, both or neither as an individual.

  51. Robert Capozzi

    62 dc: The simple truth that needs to be communicated is that our interference in the region is not good for us, it’s not good for the Israelis, and it’s not good for the Palestinians.

    me: Yes! That’s the general principle, and it’s one that bears repeating. The question is: How is that engaged with and communicated? For a subset of the population, being “pro Israel” is very important. For another set, being pro Palestinian is.

    For these subsets, cataloging the violence of either side(s) seems to prove their case to them. If one doesn’t agree with their worldview, one become the enemy. My take is that people who are that invested in one side or another are unlikely to buy a ticket on the peace train.

    Where things get more muddled is that many view Israel as a US ally. That implies that the US will intervene if Israel is threatened with extinction. As a practical matter, the idea of ending ALL alliances immediately doesn’t seem at all in the cards any time soon. My take is that’s not a productive case for Ls to take.

    Our potentially more viable position is to say that we support the continuation of Israel, but we realize that US policy and involvement in this conflict is counterproductive, like a bull in a china shop. The parties involved should turn to a more neutral body, perhaps the UN, to mediate. We Ls surely want to see a peaceful resolution to this decades-long conflict, but our direct involvement makes no sense. Further, our own economic challenges require us to wind down foreign aid, which has also served to fan the flames of hate.

    Staying this course does not work. Let’s stop pouring gasoline on this fire. That’s the optimal course of action for the US.

  52. Robert Capozzi

    63 tb: Those who are sincerely pro-Israel should also be denouncing Likud policies.

    me: Perhaps. If this is so, then a appropriate venue to make this case is to organizations like AIPAC. Garnering the support of the American Jewish community is convincing the government of Israel to cease certain actions seems best addressed to them, as their influence on the State of Israel is significant.

    I don’t think the LM in general is well positioned to make this case. I certainly don’t think the LP is. It’s a world filled with carnage and singling out one example can come across as questionably motivated.

  53. Israel is NOT a U.S. Ally

    Capozzi: Where things get more muddled is that many view Israel as a US ally.

    Then let’s “unmuddle” it — it’s not hard to do.

    Israel is not an ally. An “ally” is a nation with which the U.S. has a treaty of alliance.

    The U.S. has no treaty of alliance with Israel (surprised me when I first heard this), because Israel doesn’t want to sign such a treaty.

    This is because alliance treaties impose obligations on the ally, such as informing the U.S. before engaging in certain military actions, or refraining from certain military actions.

    Israel does not wish to be so bound. (I’m not sure why Israel would care; they break other agreements with impunity).

    Of course, this doesn’t stop U.S. politicians from beating their chests raw with calling Israel “our greatest ally.” It’s politically risky to do otherwise.

    Israel has the best of both worlds — the U.S. sends money and weapons, and dares not criticize it too harshly — and in return Israel gives us nothing.

    Indeed, its spies steal whatever we don’t give it.

  54. Screw "Productivity"

    Capozzi: As a practical matter, the idea of ending ALL alliances immediately doesn’t seem at all in the cards any time soon. My take is that’s not a productive case for Ls to take.

    This is one of those mindless non sequiturs that people toss in when they can’t address an issue and wish to change the subject.

    We’re talking Principle, or Justice, or Truth — then someone chimes in “That’s not helpful,” or “How is that productive?” or “That’s too divisive.”

    Apparently, we’re to ignore Truth or Justice because…why? It’s not good for the GNP?

    Or because the Truth hurts some people’s feelings?

    Or pursing Justice doesn’t attract statist voters?

    As a practical matter, I think it’s impractical to focus on practicality.

  55. Robert Capozzi

    70 Israel: Israel is not an ally.

    me: Please reread my statement. I said: “…many view Israel as a US ally.”

    Surely you see that I didn’t say Israel and the US ARE allies.

    71 screw: “…ignore Truth or Justice…”

    me: Who said anything about ignoring anything?

    screw: As a practical matter, I think it’s impractical to focus on practicality.

    me: If you divide the world into pure either/or choices, I trust that’s working for you. For many if not most, tain’t so simplistic. I’m suggesting a paradigm in which one focuses on practicalities that advance peace, liberty and justice. I gather no satisfaction from holding high theoretical (unattainable) positions that in my judgment do nothing to advance (and seem highly unlikely to be persuasive to large numbers of people) the goals I prefer and I believe will be beneficial for most, if not all.

  56. Tom Blanton

    The idea that the extremist policies of Likud should be addressed to AIPAC is absurd as AIPAC and Likud are joined at the hip.

    An interesting article from 2006 discussing AIPAC and Likud written by Daniel Levy is linked below. Daniel Levy was an adviser in the Israeli prime minister’s office, a member of the official Israeli negotiating team at the Oslo B and Taba talks, and the lead Israeli drafter of the Geneva Initiative. He is now a senior fellow and director of the Middle East Task Force at the New America Foundation and is an editor of ForeignPolicy.com’s Middle East Channel.

    http://prospect.org/cs/articles?articleId=11647

    I find it remarkable that there is the sentiment that no criticism should be made of Israel by libertarians when Israel plays such a big part in American politics and foreign policy. It apparently is viewed as another third rail of American politics.

    Perhaps libertarians should never discuss other third rails either like Social Security or Medicare as it might alienate someone.

    But, among many libertarians it is perfectly acceptable for the LP’s self-appointed spokesman Wayne Root to support Israel and insist that America should do so, regardless of Likud policies. How many of these people would find it acceptable if Root pulled out his wide brush and painted all African-Americans as lazy criminal welfare cases? What if he complained that American tax money was used to give advanced weaponry to ultra extremist blood thirsty Jews in order to murder Palestinian women and children?

    Once again, Root helps to position the LP as some sort of extreme bigoted right wing organization, which tarnishes the entire libertarian movement.

    I suppose there are libertarians that will say Mr. Wonderful has progressed as he did not use the ridiculous term “islamofascist” in this article like he used to in his earlier rants.

    Will libertarians defend Root saying that he has finally become a noninterventionist, except for Israel, and that makes him 90% libertarian on that issue?

    The clever amateur LP strategists that shy away from perceived third rails miss the bigger picture. Root’s op-ed doesn’t make a good case for or against foreign aid or interventionism, it helps to relegate the libertarian movement to being a fringe far right subset within the conservative movement.

    Television and radio aside, the fact that adjusted 1967 borders have been part of the American position on a Mideast peace plan for over 20 years is being written about in the print media. So, in addition to adding to the public perception that libertarians are just wacky bigoted right-wingers, he adds to the mix that libertarians have a spokesman who is a liar and/or stupid.

    Continued support for this type of nonsense within the LP is political suicide. It is unfortunate that the LP seeks to immolate itself. I just wish it could happen without affecting the entire libertarian movement.

  57. John Jay Myers

    @Tom Blanton, your responses on this thread have been reasoned and backed by references, and in my opinion you are telling it like it is. Thank you.

    Unfortunately most Americans we are so brainwashed into believing that people in the Middle East “hate us because we are free” that it even somewhat effects Libertarians, because there is a knee jerk reaction to telling the truth, and the truth is that we are being lied to.

    Marc and David have both argued that our statements are exactly why we shouldn’t take sides in this, but the problem is we have taken a side, and our statements might help to make people realize why we really should not take sides in this.

    It is not okay for Root to lash out against Palestinians and Iran using the same rhetoric that we are spoon fed by the war machine, even if he accompanies it with “but we shouldn’t be involved” Why? Because he is wrong, for all the reasons Tom has listed.

    Because people only hear “Libertarians agree terrorists hate us because we are free”.

    Government shouldn’t be involved in business, that is a libertarian principle, no one minds if we expand on that and list specific problems created when government does get involved right? Even though it really doesn’t matter, why, libertarians believe government shouldn’t be involved in business.

    Well, we don’t need to be involved in the Middle East (or anywhere), but if we try to explain why one of the most common reasons given for us to be involved in the Middle East is a really bad deal, then all of the sudden the topic is off limits?

    The American people are lied to on a daily basis in regards to what we are doing in Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan etc, which is really the heart of the matter. And we need to take a stand against the people who perpetuate these types of lies, and one of them is Wayne Allyn Root.

  58. David Colborne

    JJM: Given a choice between convincing Americans of one thing (we need to end foreign involvement) and convincing them of two things (Israel is evil and we need to end foreign involvement), I would rather focus on the simpler of the two options, especially since convincing Americans that Israel is evil might just convince Americans to support the Palestinians instead.

    For what it’s worth, I would use the same argument if we were talking about Rwanda, Darfur, Taiwan, or anywhere else for that matter. When you openly take sides, people will assume, right or wrong, that your position was chosen to advance your side and judge it accordingly. This is a big part of the reason why so many Americans equate a non-interventionist stance with Israel as “supporting the Palestinians”, which couldn’t be further from the truth. Frankly, our support for Israel might be the only thing keeping them accountable over there.

    Personally, the only side I’m on is the American side. Judge accordingly.

  59. JT

    JJM: “Well, we don’t need to be involved in the Middle East (or anywhere), but if we try to explain why one of the most common reasons given for us to be involved in the Middle East is a really bad deal, then all of the sudden the topic is off limits?”

    Just so I can be clear on this, are you saying that Libertarians should condemn Israel as part and parcel of our argument against foreign interventionism? I don’t remember Ron Paul doing that and, unless I’m mistaken, you and Blanton seem to think he’s a pretty good spokesman against foreign interventionism.

    Every Libertarian should read the great Congressman’s May 19 statement posted on http://www.americansforisrael.com. He takes a clear libertarian stand, and I agree completely.

    Enough said.

  60. John Jay Myers

    JT, no I am not saying it should be part of our platform. Or even a major talking point, but I think everything Blanton has said on this blog is pretty much right on, if that is true, then it’s not something we (as individuals) should ignore.

    Ron Paul does approach this from the right direction, but like I said, he also commented on Obama’s plan not being a bad idea, but not any of our business, in other words he was giving a nod towards the fact that Israel has expanding borders, and this is a problem in the Middle East.

    Also, like I said earlier, everyone always seems to say, “of course Israel is the great and true ally of the U.S. it’s just no our business”.
    Which is like saying “obviously we should all support Israel unconditionally, but we are not going to”, which of coure leads to most of America supporting Israel unconditionally.

    But I have explained how there are countries over there that believe this is none of our business, so I have more in common with them.

  61. Robert Capozzi

    73 tb: I find it remarkable that there is the sentiment that no criticism should be made of Israel by libertarians when Israel plays such a big part in American politics and foreign policy.

    me: Yes, it would be remarkable for a political movement to transcend decades-long tit-for-tat-ism. Getting into the weeds and determining that one foreign nation is “worse” than another nation (or disenfranchised peoples) sounds like a fool’s errand, especially in light of the fact that both sides have engaged in violent acts against innocents. How that is productive is not obvious, and how that advances liberty is also not obvious. To what end?

  62. Tom Blanton

    To conflate criticism for the policies of Israel under the Likud and other extremist parties with making the case that Israel is evil is totally off the mark.

    It is very much like equating criticism of Israel’s policy to anti-semitism – even to the point of labeling Jewish people who do so as self-hating Jews.

    I don’t understand why Wayne Root is not being accused of making the case that America is evil since he is making a career out of criticizing the policies of Obama. If I am making the case that Israel is evil, then Root is making the case that America is evil. Right?

    Nowhere have I made any case for intervening into Israel’s affairs or the Palestinian’s affairs. I am no spokesman for either the LP or the American government. Nor am I so delusional to imagine what I say pressures Israel or convinces others to support Palestinians. Nobody else should harbor these delusions.

    Not so much with Wayne Root:

    And almost 100 million evangelical Christians who love Israel will now vote and donate to Obama’s opponents with a fervor and passion of a patriotic group on a mission to save America and Israel from destruction. And sadly, they will be right.

    His factually incorrect rant against Obama (or America for those unable to separate a nation from its politicians) for adhering to longstanding policies (adjusted 1967 borders and foreign aid to Arab nations – including Palestinians) would appear to support Israel emphatically and with much hyperbole. I give no support for Palestinians and don’t suggest others support them.

    Even Ron Paul suggests that Israel’s policies are counter-productive:

    While President Obama’s demand that Israel
    make hard concessions in her border conflicts may very well be in her
    long-term interest, only Israel can make that determination…

    Ron Paul also states:

    We should respect
    Israel’s sovereignty and not try to dictate her policy from Washington.

    He forgot to add that Israel should respect America’s sovereignty and not try to dictate American policy from unregistererd lobbying organizations cloistered in Washington. He also forgot to mention that America should cut off aid to Israel.

    Wayne Root and pro-Israel libertarians should be able to figure out that foreign aid and political support always comes with strings attached. As long as America is expected to unconditionally back Israel’s provocative acts and fork over billions of dollars, there will be some strings attached. This is the way of the world.

    I say this not in support of meddling in Israel’s affairs or of foreign aid, but as an observation of fact. As long as pro-Israel Americans back AIPAC, political support for Israel at the U.N., and billions of dollars in foreign aid and military hardware, America has an interest in what Israel does.

    Those who are upset about America’s involvement with Israel’s policies should realize it is a two-way street. Perhaps it would be in the interest of both nations to end this “special relationship” – but I won’t hold my breath waiting for pro-Israel Americans to support that.

  63. Tom Blanton

    Another Capozzi strawman:

    Getting into the weeds and determining that one foreign nation is “worse” than another nation….

    Who is trying to make that determination here other than Wayne Root? Why direct that nonsense at me, Capozzi?

  64. Robert Capozzi

    81 tb, I’m sorry, it appears to me that both you and Root have unbalanced, one-sided, and highly judgmental attacks on either the conduct of Israel or the Palestinians. I don’t need to be convinced that both have committed what might be characterized as “atrocities.” It’s a world filled with atrocities and if I had a magic wand, I would stop them, EVEN THOUGH they are none of my (direct) business.

    If the Likud/AIPAC supported atrocities are pronouncedly unbearable for you, you might develop a PowerPoint presentation and make your case to AIPAC. Convince them to detach from the hip of the Likudites, to change their ways. I might well support your effort, depending on how you present your case. It might be the best thing you can do to change US policy vis a vis Israel, and thereby changing the Israeli government’s practices, if AIPAC has any influence there, which I assume it does.

    My point is a different one. I stipulate that atrocities have been done on both sides. I also stipulate that I believe US policy exacerbates ME tensions, even if that’s not the intent of the policy. My opinion is that US policy should shift into neutral in this and many other policy stances. I would prefer that the LM and LP share my view rather than cataloging atrocities and assigning “blame.” Playing the blame game seems highly counter-productive to me, especially in light of the morass that is US ME policy (and most other policies).

  65. Alan Pyeatt

    Let me clarify a few things.

    Paulie @ 47 says, “The Palestinian/Indian comparison only goes so far.” That’s very true. In fact, because of differences in location, culture, and time of contact, even the Indians in this country experienced European and Euro-American hegemony in very different ways. So the the comparison should not be taken too far, and no, Palestinians are not Indians as stated @ 45. However, there ARE parallels in the process. In fact, Adolph Hitler noted the effectiveness of America’s territorial expansion compared to the British empire in “Mein Kampf,” and intentionally followed the American pattern. So, if one group of Europeans can learn from the history of North America, it would be no surprise if another group of European expansionists found methods that they could use, too. I’m not saying this is what happened, only that there are parallels in policy.

    As for America’s evolution, yes, there have been changes. We’re no longer being killed outright (at least, not since the Lakota traditionalists were defeated in the FBI cointelpro operations of the 1970′s. In one of the documentary films (can’t recall if it’s “In the Spirit of Crazy Horse” or “Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee”) the filmmakers interviewed a former GOON squad (Guardians of the Oglala Nation, who supported the non-traditionalist group that wanted to violate Lakota religion and allow gold mining in the sacred Black Hills) member. He told how the GOONs used to commit drive-by shootings against the traditionalists, and said the FBI even gave them ARMOR-PIERCING ROUNDS to shoot up their shacks with. The Val Kilmer film “Thunderheart dealt with this issue surprisingly well. Meanwhile, Leonard Peltier still rots in a federal prison, despite the fact that the others who were tried for the same incident were found not guilty by reason of SELF DEFENSE. (Leonard’s judge did not allow him to present a case for self defense.) Since his conviction, information that has been released has revealed that the FBI violated the law in his trial by withholding the result of ballistics test that showed that his gun did NOT fire the shots that killed the two FBI agents involved. There are a lot of other unanswered questions in this case, like how the FBI was able to mobilize so many agents in a remote South Dakota reservation over a case that involved nothing more than a pair of stolen boots. So I think Leonard probably would like to see a little more evolution, especially after it was rumored that the FBI agreed not to prosecute President Bill Clinton (after his term ended) in exchange for his decision not to give Leonard an 11th-hour pardon.

    Google Anna Mae Pictou/Aquash some time. She was an AIM activist and traditionalist in the 1970′s. An FBI agent and a BIA agent found her dead on the Pine Ridge rez, and said in their reports that they found no signs of violence. The FBI did an autopsy and buried her before her family could examine the body. The autopsy determined that there were no signs of violence, and that she died of exposure to cold. The family obtained a court order to exhume the body (when have you ever heard of Indians doing THAT?) Lo and behold, they found a bullet hole in the back of her head, despite the autopsy report. (So yeah, go ahead and believe whatever the government tells you about Bin Ladin!) Her killer or killers have never been brought to justice.

    More recently, the Western Shoshone Nation is just about at the end of their fight to restore their right to self-government. Their claims are based on the 1868 Treaty of Ruby Valley, which is a treaty of peace and freedom, NOT land cession. And even though the Indian Claims Commission (which was created in 1946 specifically to extinguish Indian rights to self-government) ruled that the Shoshones were entitled to a cash payment for their land (and sovereignty), the Shoshones refused to take it. The Dann family held out for decades, despite being jailed and having their livestock confiscated so the BLM could lease their ancestral land to white ranchers. Since the Shoshones refused to take money in exchange for their claims, in 2004 the U.S. government deposited money in their account AGAINST THEIR WILL. The price? $0.14 per acre (http://www.h-o-m-e.org/Shoshone/).

    Want to talk about evolution? The Indian Claims Commission (which dealt with several indigenous nation, not just the Shoshones) was set up so that the attorneys all had to be pre-approved by the U.S. government. If the Indians refused to participate in the process, the government was empowered to appoint an attorney who would act “in their behalf.” In fact, this is exactly what happened to the Shoshones. And for the coup de grace, the enabling legislation provided that the attorneys would only be paid a percentage of the settlement amount. In other words, if the Indians kept their land (and thus there was no settlement), the attorneys WOULD NOT BE PAID. This is the context that frames the Indian land base TODAY, not in ancient history.

    How about the Cobell case? A court recently awarded a $3.4 billion settlement over BIA mis-management of approximately 500,000 Indian accounts held “in trust.” The amount of funds the Indians had actually lost was estimated at one time to be $30-40 billion. TWO Secretaries of the Interior (Clinton and Bush administration) had been found in contempt of court for failure to turn over records to the court and failure to obey the court’s direction to protect records in the case. From an article about the case: “On September 29, 2003, Special Master Balaran filed a site visit report after being ordered to vacate the premises of the Dallas office of the Minerals Management Service. In the report, Balaran cited ‘chaotic document management, an inability to locate audit files…and the unexplained presence of an industrial shredder’” (http://loudcanary.com/2003/12/15/trust-us-were-the-government/). None of the Interior Department or Treasury staff were punished, BTW.

    Water rights? A Congressman once called the U.S. handling of water rights “one of America’s sorrier chapters.” Peter LaFarge said it best in this song covered by Johnny Cash: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKDLQWEvubc. And now, Las Vegas is trying to get permission to withdraw more water from the aquifers to support its growing population. Think anybody’s going to give a shit about the Indians downstream?

    How about that shining example of U.S. evolution, the NFL franchise ironically located in Washington, DC with the racist name?

    Just last month, the BIA ruled on the status of the Acagchamen (a.k.a., ” Juaneno”) people in Orange County. According to the U.S. government, they are not an Indian tribe with their own government, and will not be recognized as such. Of course, if Americans actually instituted the principles of the Declaration of Independence, they could simply form their own government and secede. Instead, tribe after tribe of indigenous nations have been forced into a nation we did not choose, and against whom our ancestors fought for generations to maintain our independence. Contrast this with the many examples of Indian secession (among the Cherokees alone, one group seceded at the first land sale in 1721, and the Chickamaugas seceded after the illegal sale of rights to Kentucky in 1775). So, before anybody pats themselves on the back too hard, we’d like to see a little more evolution, please.

    Sorry for the rant. Obviously, this is an open nerve for me. Then again, my friends and I traveled 1500 miles to face snipers in Tahlequah, Oklahoma in 1997 to stand up for our people’s sovereignty, limited though it is at this time.

  66. Tom Blanton

    Why address me, Capozzi? I have assigned no blame and am not playing any blame game. I have made no comparison as to what nation is better or worse than the other – in fact I stated Israel is no better than their neighbors and I never stated Israel is worse than their neighbors. None of them have clean hands as far as I’m concerned.

    Frankly, I could give a shit what Israel’s policies are as long as America doesn’t have to pay for them and also face national security threats in the form of violent blowback for supporting their policies.

    On the other hand, it is within my right to express a viewpoint, whether or not you like it or not.

    As for your plan to address AIPAC, that isn’t my job – it’s another one of your ideas, so you go do it. You might want to have a better understanding of the relationship between AIPAC and Likud. You’d most likely be shown the door making the presentation you want me to make.

    So, again Capozzi, don’t single me out as making statements I didn’t make, accusing me of doing things that I didn’t do, and erecting your phony strawmen, etc.

    Now, explain to me how claiming I am playing the blame game and claiming that I am making an unbalanced attack on Israel helping the cause of liberty?

    For that matter, what have I said about Israel that is incorrect? I would challenge you to quote anything I have said that is critical of Israel other than the criticism of the problem of civil rights in for Israeli Arabs. I certainly have not painted Isreal as “evil”, although I have been critical of Netanyahu and I have posted information to back it up. Please show me where I have made a “catalog of atrocities”.

    It seems to me you are making an unbalanced attack on me since you have not hurled unfounded accusations at each and every other participant on this thread.

    Your opinions of what I have said don’t count for much when you claim I have written things that I didn’t write and imply that I am incorrect without providing one scintilla of evidence as to why I am wrong.

    Capozzi, since you are so damned concerned about how I am advancing the cause of liberty, please explain to me how you are advancing the cause of liberty by falsely accusing me of playing the blame game and cataloging atrocities?

    In fact, I’d love to know from those who claim I have made the case that Israel is evil what I wrote that warrants that accusation and what did I write that is wrong?

  67. Tom Blanton

    Oh Alan, be careful what you write around here. What you have stated could be construed to be making the case that America is evil and that wouldn’t be helpful in advancing the cause of liberty, according to some of the strategic thinkers here.

  68. Robert Capozzi

    85 tb: I have assigned no blame and am not playing any blame game.

    60 tb: Unlike you [jt], I am not pro-Israel. I find that nation to be horrible – not so much to its own people but to everyone else in the world (Goyims).

    me: I will say you are a clever one, Brother Blanton! ;-) Reviewing your comments, you do attempt to thread the needle and appear balanced, and generally do it well. But then, you slip. IMO.

  69. Tom Blanton

    Oh my God, I’ve been exposed by Capozzi as a Jew-hater that blames everything bad in the entire world on Israel! Obviously my statement was not about the politics of Israel but rather an unbalanced attack on each and every Israeli citizen, except the Arabs who are all beyond reproach. I really slipped this time.

  70. Alan Pyeatt

    Back to the question at hand: Tom Blanton @ 80 makes a good case for the existence of self-hating Americans!

    However, it seems to me that as long as our tax money is going to some foreign country (which we agree that it shouldn’t), then we should make sure that money isn’t being used for nefarious purposes. If somebody wants to call that “meddling,” then no problem, just give the money back. But when our government helps a foreign nation with monetary aid, it should ensure that that money is used responsibly.

  71. Robert Capozzi

    89 ap:…. it seems to me that as long as our tax money is going to some foreign country (which we agree that it shouldn’t), then we should make sure that money isn’t being used for nefarious purposes.

    me: On its face, that’s not entirely unreasonable, IMO. However, it’s a trap for Ls, I’d suggest. Aid is fungible, so forensically determining where the money goes seems nearly impossible. Probably most if not all foreign aid goes to countries that are doing something that some American might find to be “nefarious.”

    Look at me — taking the “harder” core position!

    I’d say to the extent foreign aid is to continue, in-kind foreign aid seems less prone to being re-purposed to second-order violent uses (the first being US taxation!)…food and medicine come to mind.

  72. Tom Blanton

    I’ve learned my lesson. From now on I will preface every criticism of Israel’s policies with, “I am pro-Israel, but…”

    Then after describing how evil Israel’s policies are, I will describe the evil policies of each and every nation in the entire world to avoid the appearance of being unbalanced.

    I urge everyone to do the same, not only with Israel but America as well. Make sure you always say you love America and always criticize every other nation in the world so it won’t appear that you are unbalanced.

    Libertarians should be especially careful about supporting self-hating Americans that criticize American policies.

  73. Robert Capozzi

    92 tb, sounds like a lotta work! Good luck with that!

    You could just note that you’re aware that many hurtful things have been done by nations that the US provides foreign aid to as one of the reasons you believe that foreign aid should be ended. This can be done far more economically, word-wise.

    But, yes, if you want to be persuasive with Americans, stating that you love America is a good idea. You can suggest ways to make America work better, up to and including abolishing the State. Contrast that with saying you hate America and you advocate abolishing the State.

    Of the two, it seems plain that the former is more attractive than the latter!

    You know the song: accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative.

  74. All States Are Evil

    I remember when “All States Are Evil” was a given among libertarians.

    Even the U.S. government was a Necessary Evil.

    That’s not unpatriotic. The Founding Fathers thought the state was Evil. A Necessary Evil, but still Evil.

    Yet today, while even “non-interventionist” libertarians freely condemn North Korea, Iran, and the many foreign dictatorhips overseas — or even the soft socialist states of Western Europe — Israel is, again, an exception.

    Israel is perhaps the one state you can’t call Evil.

    How watered down LP “principles” have gotten since its hard core, “black flag of anarchy” early days in the 1970s/1980s.

    What a strange notion that condemning a foreign government violates the “non-intervention” principle. Libertarians often condemn repressive foreign governments.

    Just not Israel’s government.

  75. Tom Blanton

    First, let me say that I am pro-Israel and I love America. Now, I know the topic of this thread is “What Does Tom Blanton Think About Israel”, but I’d like to change the subject for just a minute and focus on what Wayne Root, spokesman for the LP, writes about Palestinians.

    Let’s move beyond the issue that he is pretending that Obama’s position and policies are materially different from the last few presidents. We can’t hold any politician accountable for dramatic excess in the political theater of the absurd.

    Let’s move on to his representation of Palestinians. Is it true that they encourage their children to be suicide bombers? Do they that hand out candy to celebrate murdering Jewish babies? Do they marry off their 5-year-old daughters to pay the bills?

    Is Root referring to one incident of each of these situations occurring, or do most Palestinians engage in this conduct? How widespread are these behaviors?

    It sounds like racist propaganda, but is it really true? Can anyone provide some sort of documentation that these things are ordinary occurrences among Palestinians?

    I am pro-Israel, but it seems these accusations are a little over the top and not helpful for moderate political pragmatists that wish to appear balanced.

    I love America and I certainly do not wish to accuse a fellow American of sounding like a bigoted racist, but I must say that Mr. Root, with all due respect, has overtones of racism contained within his commentary. I say this with the understanding that I am aware that there are many other Americans who are bigoted racists. He would certainly not be the only one. I would just point to David Duke for example. He also appeared to be a racist.

    I am wondering if there are any other pro-Israel Americans that love America who detect hints of bigotry in Mr. Roots op-ed piece or is it just me?

    Are other libertarian politicians saying these types of things about Palestinians? Is this the sort of thing that the LP should focus on?

    Perhaps the LP needs a “Palestinians Are Evil Sub-Humans” plank in the platform if these things Mr. Root is talking about are supported by LP members.

  76. Robert Capozzi

    94 all: I remember when “All States Are Evil” was a given among libertarians. Even the U.S. government was a Necessary Evil. That’s not unpatriotic. The Founding Fathers thought the state was Evil.

    me: It may be close to true that all Ls once viewed states as “evil,” some as necessary ones. This L — I — don’t. States just are. States do some things that seem necessary, at least in the short term, and the smallest states that govern least seem to work the best. Labeling what is as “evil” is a subjective evaluation that strikes me as oppositional and unhealthy. Others may derive satisfaction from such labeling.

  77. Robert Capozzi

    95 tb: I am wondering if there are any other pro-Israel Americans that love America who detect hints of bigotry in Mr. Roots op-ed piece or is it just me?

    me: He took the low road, citing facts that appear to incite contempt for the Palestinians who I have no reason to believe all perform the sorts of acts Root cites. Few do, although — while I’ve not fully researched the matter — I suspect the general culture continues to practice sexism and homophobia. Whether this essay is “bigoted” is something I cannot answer, since I cannot read Root’s mind.

    People who are born and raised Jewish understandably can be defensive about Israel. In my experience, dispassionate discussion of the Jewish state can be challenging, as knee-jerk reactions seem to come with great ferocity often.

    It’s yet another reason why I think it’s wise to go neutral on the specifics involved with the Israel/Palestinian conflict.

    Where the border should be is another question, and one that I’d just as soon see the US be neutral on.

  78. Jill Pyeatt

    Tb @ 95: Wayne Root`s parapgraph about Palestinians is as racist as anything ever published, in my view. He is a disgrace to our party, and is destroying the Libertarian brand. Of course, that`s just my opinion, but I`ll say it as often and loudly as I can.

  79. George Phillies

    After

    “On Thursday, Obama left no doubt that he sides with and wants to redistribute money from American taxpayers to Palestinians and radical Muslims like Hamas that target Israeli women and children…that encourage their own children to become suicide bombers…that hand out candy in celebration for the murder of an innocent Jewish baby…that force women to endure public lashings for disobeying a husband…that execute women for “allowing themselves” to be gang-raped…that pour acid on the face of little girls who dare to want an education…who throw gay men off the roofs of buildings…who marry off their 5-year-old daughters to pay the bills…who imprison all women for life behind dark veils in 120 degree heat, to keep them from being seen by other men. ”

    LNC tolerance for leaving Mr. Root on our National Committee should be recognized as LNC support for racism. Even by Republican standards, his remarks are vile.

  80. Thomas L. Knapp

    @100,

    That came off as pretty ugly the first time I read it, but for some reason the second time seemed far worse. The only term I can come up with for this time for it is “blood libel.”

  81. Tom Blanton

    According to Mr. Capozzi:

    Whether this essay is “bigoted” is something I cannot answer, since I cannot read Root’s mind.

    Let me make it clear that I’m pro-Israel and I love America. I also usually wait until after Capozzi does his mind reading before I make determinations on things. But, since he was unable to read Root’s mind, I entered into the dark recesses of Wayne’s inner world. What I found was disturbing – unspeakable horrors. But, in a box labeled “Tourette’s Syndrome Reactions to Islamophobia Episodes”, I found a file named “Why the 9/11 Mosque Controversy Is NOT About Religious Freedom…and Should Be Stopped!”

    I discovered that Root equates building an Islamic Community Center a couple of blocks away from the WTC site with building erecting a statue of Hitler in front of a Jewish Temple.

    http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2010/07/wayne-root-why-the-911-mosque-controversy-is-not-about-religious-freedom%E2%80%A6and-should-be-stopped/

    The putrid odor of rotting brain matter was too intense for me to continue exploring inside Root’s head and I had to leave before I was able to complete reading his mind. I can understand why Capozzi was unable to read his mind.

    However, I pretty sure there’s some ugly stuff in hidden in the crevices of Root’s mind – at least it smells that way.

    It is interesting how Ron Paul was criticized by many for the obscure Rodney King newsletter from 20 years ago that had some rather racist overtones directed at African-Americans who participated in the related violence that took place – as opposed to all African-Americans.

    I have not heard anything similar to that stuff from Ron Paul in the many years I have paid attention to him, so I tend to give him a pass on that. He has other problems perhaps, but I’m addressing charges of racism here.

    Root tends to paint Muslims and Arabs with a mighty wide brush and his remarks might lead some to conclude, even pro-Israel people like myself who love America, that Root has a bias against Arabs and Muslims.

    Until someone can read Root’s mind, we will never know if he is a bigot or a racist. We can only guess
    by reading Root’s rants that he doesn’t like Muslims or Arabs very much, and even if he does sort of like them, he thinks they are all horrible people.

  82. Robert Capozzi

    106 tb, you learn well, Grasshopper! ;-)

    There is a difference with the Ron Paul Letters and Root’s essays. The Ron Paul letters played on stereotypes that have culturally been front and center in the public square for decades…African Americans and gays were singled out in what Paul called “small-minded thoughts.” For me, his explanation that he didn’t know who wrote that hate is not credible; I get the sense he’s protecting the author, but, no, I can’t read his mind. Were I a journalist, I would have asked more probing questions to find out what he knew and when he knew it. When this issue likely gets re-opened later this year, I think it’s likely others will ask Paul the sorts of questions I’d ask. I trust he’s got a better, more comprehensive, coherent answer.

    Root, OTOH, is wading into a relatively new (for America) kind of stereotyping syndrome: Islamophobia. While Americans often distrust “foreigners,” my sense is Islamophobia is largely a post 9/11 trend. I don’t think he’s quite crossed a cultural line of appearing to hate ALL Muslims. Do you?

    As I said at the time about his essay on Cordoba House and now about this one, I get the sense that Root is a strong supporter of Israel who is inclined to shoot from the hip on the subject. I see no evidence that he’s internally incorporating sensitivities around the Palestinian cause, for ex., and he’s thoughtlessly reciting one distorted side of the story. This illustrates the downside of “people pleasing” in the extreme, and I counsel him to take stock of this. Me-too-ing the anti-Palestinian crowd is not going to get Root or the LP floods of supporters, IMO.

    I do find Rothbardian absolutism to be holding back the cause of liberty more than fusionism. So I do spend more energy sharing the downsides of absolutism for this reason. Fusionism, at least, addresses things as they are.

  83. Tom Blanton

    I find the dissembling prevarications of politicians and their strategists to be a major factor in turning people off not only to the watered down cause of liberty promoted by many in the LP but also politics in general. It is also a cause of infantalization of voters. It is why many people have no interest in politics at all.

    I’m aware that many have great difficulty discerning what is true and some believe there is no such thing as truth. I believe this is all rubbish. For example, either all or most Palestinians sell their daughters or they don’t.

    Facts are not opinions. There is such a thing as reality. Opinions are different. Different people reach different conclusions and hopefully they are forming their opinions based on reality (truth).

    Some may believe it is appropriate to imprison their neighbors for victimless crimes, others don’t. This is an opinion. Politicians (and everyone) should truthfully state what they believe in as opposed to what they believe others want to hear or what they believe everyone will accept.

    Absolutism is in the eye of the beholder. You either hold the line on an issue or you don’t. Labeling someone else an absolutist does nobody any good and it requires a conclusion be made. That determination could only be made by reading someone’s mind.

    How odd that Capozzi can spot an absolutist from a mile away, yet believes one must be a mind reader in order to determine whether a person is a bigot.

    How odd that Capozzi can be so concerned that absolutism, as he sees it, turns people off to the cause of liberty but fusionism as presented by someone who is arrogant and belligerent does not turn off people.

    So what is absolutism or fusionism? These are vague concepts that mean different things to different people because the elements require judgment calls that will be made differently be different people. On the other hand, facts are basically true or false. Sometimes the facts can’t be discerned and that is why it is best to make an attempt at determining the truth instead of waving the hand and saying it doesn’t matter because there is no truth or claiming the truth is what the observer believes it is.

    Perhaps those who seek to make laws for others to obey should study law a little bit. They might find that in making legal determinations that it is facts that are relevant, not opinions or conclusions. It matters not whether a person is a fusionist, an absolutist, a Jew or a Muslim when determining whether they pulled the trigger that fired the gun that killed a victim or whether they performed certain duties under a contract.

    A good jurist must be able to determine the difference between facts, opinions and conclusions. They must also be able to discern what is relevant and what is not when reaching a conclusion. You would think these things would be of particular interest to those who hold themselves out to be reasonable pragmatists.

    A jurist is also concerned with credibility. Those who have a history of veracity have more credibility than others. The trump card to impeach the testimony of a witness is evidence of a prior conviction for perjury. Politicians have little credibility to begin with due to the prevaricating nature of politicians since the beginning of time.

    The LP’s so-called strategists might want to think about what the old slogan “party of principle” means and why it might appeal to thinking people who distrust politicians.

    Take a look at the relevant issues regarding Root’s viability as a LP politician or spokesperson. Does he appear to be honest? Does he make factual statements? Has he been honest in the past? Does he appeal to libertarians in general? Does he appeal to persons that libertarians would want to join the LP?

    I am only a jury of one, but cutting through all the bullshit and setting aside irrelevant considerations, I would answer those questions no, no, no,no and no based on the best available information that I have made on my own observations over a period of several years.

    I value many of the ideas that have been presented under the banner of libertarianism for many years. That the LP wants to self-destruct is not my concern. My concern is that in doing so, important ideas will be discredited. It is bad enough that these ideas are constantly being watered down by strategists and fusionists and reformers always accompanied by promises of electoral success that never materializes. But to hold out these watered down fusionist positions and calling it libertarianism is dishonest, shortsighted, and has not produced the often promised results.

    The worst part is that once these ideas have been swept into the dustbin of history by the all the reformers, pragmatists, moderates, disgruntled conservatives, fusionists, strategists, and other self-serving power seekers, those ideas will be lost to the vast majority of people.

    All the hard work that many people have done over many years will have gone to waste. All the reformers, pragmatists, moderates, disgruntled conservatives, fusionists and strategists will be gone – most likely in the GOP or working at some corporate funded think tank.

    All the libertarians will be left talking to the wind in the wilderness, discredited as self-centered tools for the elite, racists, and idiots. Any hope for freedom will be lost in the nascent police state.

    Oh wait, maybe it’s already happened. Never mind.

  84. Tom Blanton

    Some may notice that I did not preface my remarks above with the obligatory “I am pro-Israel”.

    I decided that the open mockery of those who make that statement is lost on them anyway and that those who understood already are aware that those who write that are either posturing for their own political purposes or they judge others on the basis of religion.

    I am pro-individual regardless of religion or nation state of residence.

  85. Robert Capozzi

    108 tb: There is such a thing as reality.

    me: Yes, that has a certain resonance for me, too. But, is it simply an assertion on your part, one that cannot be substantiated? If it can be substantiated, what IS reality? Please describe it and how you KNOW it to be reality.

    tb: The worst part is that once these ["true" L] ideas have been swept into the dustbin of history by the all the reformers, pragmatists, moderates, disgruntled conservatives, fusionists, strategists, and other self-serving power seekers, those ideas will be lost to the vast majority of people.

    me: You’d really need to ID which are IYO the “true” L ideas first. Otherwise, we “false” Ls won’t know which ideas to dispose of in the dustbin! Based on your running commentary, I get the distinct impression that your views line up with LvMI’s ideas. Fair? I have seen no evidence the LvMI is going away, into the dustbin or otherwise. Near as I can tell, they are thriving. Those of us “impure” IYO Ls who don’t buy the LvMI plumb line have no interest in disposing of that earnest institution, at least that I’ve seen. Do you have facts that suggest otherwise? With the web, the works of MNR and others will be available to anyone who cares to follow that path to read up on that thought system to his or her heart’s content. And then there’s your website, fully functioning for Blantonites worldwide. If catastrophic failure is in the offing for your school of thought, please share how you know so.

  86. Hurt Feelings

    Capozzi: People who are born and raised Jewish understandably can be defensive about Israel…. It’s yet another reason why I think it’s wise to go neutral on the specifics involved with the Israel/Palestinian conflict.

    How would this have sounded in 1950:

    People who are born and raised as white Southerners understandably can be defensive about the South…. It’s yet another reason why I think it’s wise to go neutral on the specifics involved with Jim Crow.

    Capozzi suggests libertarians stay silent about injustice, if pointing to injustices hurt some people’s feelings.

  87. Fusionists Against Root

    Capozzi: I do find Rothbardian absolutism to be holding back the cause of liberty more than fusionism.

    You don’t have to be an “absolutist” to regard Root’s remarks as vile.

    You don’t have to be an “absolutist” to oppose bigotry.

  88. JT

    I posted this earlier: http://www.americansforisrael.com.

    JJM: “Ron Paul does approach this from the right direction, but like I said, he also commented on Obama’s plan not being a bad idea, but not any of our business, in other words he was giving a nod towards the fact that Israel has expanding borders, and this is a problem in the Middle East.”

    I have no problem with anyone saying something similar to Israel making “hard concessions in her border conflicts may very well be in her long-term interest,” which is exactly what Ron Paul said in his statement. I happen to agree with that.

    JJM: “Also, like I said earlier, everyone always seems to say, “of course Israel is the great and true ally of the U.S. it’s just no our business”.
    Which is like saying “obviously we should all support Israel unconditionally, but we are not going to”, which of course leads to most of America supporting Israel unconditionally.”

    But that’s basically what Ron Paul said in the third paragraph, isn’t it? I don’t think what he said leads to supporting Israel unconditionally.

    JJM: “But I have explained how there are countries over there that believe this is none of our business, so I have more in common with them.”

    I’m not sure what you mean by “more in common.” If you mean that you also want the U.S. government to extricate itself from Palestinian-Israeli affairs, then you do have that in common (as do I). But those other governments want that because the U.S. government supports the Israeli government, not out of libertarian conviction, so you don’t have that in common.

    I also suspect there are other things you’d have more in common with Israel than with Saudi Arabia or Iran or Syria.

  89. Robert Capozzi

    111 hurt, hmm, guess I have to explain why Jim Crow is different than the Israel/Palestinian conflict. Jim Crow was one way and was in the US. Israel and Palestinians is a two way street of injustice and harm and is not in the US.

    112 Fusionists, I agree, you don’t. Root is a fusionist, but not all fusionists are “vile” or “bigots.” I don’t say that about Root, either, but his tone in this essay is ill advised, IMO. Some might say that some Rothbardians hold “vile” and “bigoted” views, too. So, I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make.

  90. John Jay Myers

    JT @113, what I was trying to say is that Syria is not in this country spending millions of dollars to keep us involved in a conflict that costs us trillions.

    If the heat gets too hot for the people of Israel I would welcome them to America. But Americans who are concerned with Israel for religious or other reasons should send them personal checks or enlist in the IDF, but leave me out of it.

    And lastly Americans need to understand that Palestinians are not attacking because they are subhuman devil people bent on a reptilian take over of the planet, but for realistic reasons, reasons that are firing up the Muslim community around the entire world, if we do not come to grips with this, and stop people like W.A.R. from giving this crazy one sided interpretation, and at least say “there really are two sides to this” we are going to end up in a massive religious war with 1.5 billion people.

  91. Tom Blanton

    If it can be substantiated, what IS reality?

    How can you claim to have any opinion when you can’t discern what reality is and don’t even try.

    You seem to miss the point, once again. The point is not that ideas under the libertarian banner vanish into thin air, the point is that when vile racists who are arrogant and belligerent present statist ideas, calling them libertarian, it acts to discredit an entire movement and a range of ideas. People won’t even take the time to understand the ideas.

    This is already happening, but then you wouldn’t know, Capozzi, since reading is useless and facts don’t matter. You’re not even sure of what is happening in your own little world, much less having any awareness of what is going on in the wider universe of politics.

    There’s a little bit of reality for you.

    My impression is that you buy the plumb line of deceit and dissembling prevarications. This is what you continually preach. What Capozzi believes is a deeply held secret because what Capozzi preaches shifts constantly and is based on what will be the most expedient way to attract other people.

    Never does Capozzi reference a source outside of Capozzi’s own impressions or feelings. Never does Capozzi make a case for any one of Capozzi’s ever shifting positions or definitions other than Capozzi’s own feelings about what he imagines other people will accept.

    My impression of you, Capozzi, is that you don’t believe in anything in particular – you only claim to believe in what you imagine someone else wants to hear. You demonstrate a complete inability to argue the merits of any issue. You attempt to discredit others by pigeon-holing them with some label and claiming they are an absolutist while presenting yourself as an enlightened reasonable moderate. But you have no arguments, no ability to make the case for any idea, and your strange brand of politics thrives on creating double-standards and labels for everyone.

    You don’t promote anything other than the status quo as near as I can determine. But you do sort of reveal where you stand by who you pick to attack and challenge.

    I think it is fairly apparent that you strongly support Wayne Root for example. Sure, you make minor criticisms of him from time to time. But you lay heavy into people who harshly criticize him.

    Your criticisms of him amount to you writing that he could say things a little differently or such. You defend his obvious and repeated bigotry by claiming that such a determination can’t be made because you can’t read his mind.

    Well, you can certainly read his words that sound like something from Avigdor Lieberman. You can read his statist “The Reagan Libertarian Contract with America” and see that it is boiler-plate Republican dogma rather than some variation of plumbline libertarianism.

    While you love to paint me as an absolutist extremist, the actual reality is that I seem to be more flexible than you. I can accept a wide range of libertarians and anarchists. I gladly welcome any movement in a libertarian direction as opposed to tiny baby steps sideways. I also don’t believe in hiding what I would ultimately like to see and am happy to explain why. I don’t reject compromise or incremental/transitional movement.

    You seem to gravitate towards neolibertarians only. You seek to hide anything remotely resembling plumbline libertarianism from the general public, in fact you seem to reject it and encourage others to reject it. Your political strategy rests on secrecy and deceit.

    I can also accept a wide variety of strategies except dishonesty, misrepresentation, lies of omission – all of which you heartily endorse, Capozzi, as long as you believe it is effective in the short term.

    I would argue that a lot of people are smarter than you think – especially people that really might be interested in libertarianism. They can see through your transparent perception management techniques like the Ransberger Pivot. Nobody likes to be manipulated. These little tricks of persuasion might be good for one-time sales, like for used cars, not so much for a political philosophy.

    Get back to me after you figure out what your own damned reality is and when you can stop trying to fabricate mine, Capozzi.

    I’ve explained where I am coming from so many times it is ridiculous, Capozzi. Perhaps you think I am lying because you are projecting your tendency to be dishonest on to me. And just because you once worshipped Rothbard and Rand as infallible deities doesn’t mean I do or ever did. I only agree with Rothbard on some things and I have never liked Rand at all. Please remove me from your pigeon-hole.

  92. JT

    JJM: “If the heat gets too hot for the people of Israel I would welcome them to America. But Americans who are concerned with Israel for religious or other reasons should send them personal checks or enlist in the IDF, but leave me out of it.”

    I agree. Same thing for the Palestinians, and Americans and the PLO.

    What do you think about what I pointed out in Ron Paul’s statement?

  93. Tom Blanton

    I would also like to disassociate myself from the Rockwell/Mises group that Capozzi insists that I am devoted to.

    First, I do visit Rockwell’s site. I never read Walter Block (I find his topics uninteresting and his arguments a bit thin), I never read Gary North. My favorites are Butler Shaffer (excellent) and Karen Kwiatkowski (2nd favorite). I also read the Ron Paul stuff because many in libertarian circles do and they are usualyy short. Lew Rockwell is OK on economic issues. Michael Rozeff is OK sometimes but not really my cup of tea. I like Anthony Gregory, but his stuff is usually just republished from the Independent Institute.

    I have never sent Lew Rockwell a dime. I just sent Antiwar.Com $100 and I support the Future of Freedom Foundation by subscribing to their $15/yr print publication (My favorites there are James Bovard and Sheldon Richman). Laurence Vance also writes for them and appears at Lew Rockwell also – I like him OK. Antiwar.Com is very important in my estimation so I try to support them every chance I get.

    I also like C4ss – one of these days I may send them a few bucks. If I were richer I would have already done so. Kevin Carson and David D’Amato have been pumping out some good stuff.

    I mentioned the Independent Institute and Anthony Gregory (one of the best younger writers out there), but I also like Robert Higgs.

    I check out C4L, Strike-The-Root, and the Mises sites and find things I like from time to time. I also visit a number blogs from Claire Wolfe and Wendy McElroy to Gary Chartier and Radley Balko.

    I read a lot of stuff, all kinds of stuff by libertarians of different stripes. I also read a lot of news, especially the British press and English language media from other places. I even read the garbage by Wayne Root that gets posted at IPR.

    So, if you want to pigeon-hole me into some group(s) feel free to select AntiWar.Com or FFF as I visit their sites daily and actually send them money.

    Lew Rockwell, not so much.

    Now, Capozzi, let’s hear what you read. I’ll bet you read a lot of….. Capozzi, of course! Oh, and Wayne Root!

    What does a disgruntled Randian read? After reading that stilted tripe, anything would be more enjoyable.

  94. Robert Capozzi

    116 tb: How can you claim to have any opinion when you can’t discern what reality is and don’t even try.

    Me: I suspect that if you and I were comparing notes on our observations of the material world, we would largely agree on what is “real.” When moving through the material world, I do my best to observe what’s in front of me. When assessing what to do next, I often call on my recollections of observations of the material world. I suspect that’s pretty much what we all do. I do, however, have some questions about cause and effect. My neutrality about cause is a function of being open to a number of possibilities. I do sometimes have theories about why things are the way they are.

    Tb: You seem to miss the point, once again. The point is not that ideas under the libertarian banner vanish into thin air, the point is that when vile racists who are arrogant and belligerent present statist ideas, calling them libertarian, it acts to discredit an entire movement and a range of ideas. People won’t even take the time to understand the ideas.

    Me: I share your concerns about brand damage. Right now, my biggest concern is about the resurfacing of NewsletterGate, as it involves the most noteworthy L who is an R Congressman. I think we’ll survive. I also think we’ll survive Root’s IMO suboptimal views. What will be, will be, though.

    Tb: This is already happening, but then you wouldn’t know, Capozzi, since reading is useless and facts don’t matter.

    Me: I assure you that I believe facts matter. That’s the best information we have. How we interpret facts interests me more, and I grant others lots of latitude on how they interpret facts, being that I practice open mindedness.

    Tb: Never does Capozzi reference a source outside of Capozzi’s own impressions or feelings.

    Me: Never? Really?

    Tb: My impression of you, Capozzi, is that you don’t believe in anything in particular – you only claim to believe in what you imagine someone else wants to hear.

    Me: Oh? Seems to me I disagree with your opinions quite frequently, Brother. ;-)

    Tb: You demonstrate a complete inability to argue the merits of any issue. You attempt to discredit others by pigeon-holing them with some label and claiming they are an absolutist while presenting yourself as an enlightened reasonable moderate.

    Me: Surely you must see how overstated this is. I make arguments for my views all the time. Indeed, I’m doing so right now! I assure you that the only discrediting I do is when others claim their opinions are the only “correct” ones. THAT I DO pigeonhole!

    Tb: You don’t promote anything other than the status quo as near as I can determine.

    Me: Sorry you STILL have that impression. Again, I favor tax and spending cuts, deregulation, ending the 3 wars, and a near literal reading of the Bill of Rights. I’m sorry you find that insufficient promotion.

    Tb: I think it is fairly apparent that you strongly support Wayne Root for example.

    Me: I’ve said MANY times that I prefer Root as a pundit than as a L candidate. I preferred Barr to Root in 08. I’d prefer to see the LP nominate someone like Stossel, Napolitano, Johnson, Paul (if he fixes NewsletterGate), or Ventura (if he agreed to go silent on his Trutherism) over Root as the nominee in ’12. I do encourage Root in his efforts generally. I would very much like to see him modify some of his views. I do hope that’s clear.

    Tb: Sure, you make minor criticisms of him from time to time. But you lay heavy into people who harshly criticize him.

    Me: Because the criticisms often seem out of bounds. My preference is for civility, especially intra the LM.

    Tb: While you love to paint me as an absolutist extremist, the actual reality is that I seem to be more flexible than you. I can accept a wide range of libertarians and anarchists. I gladly welcome any movement in a libertarian direction as opposed to tiny baby steps sideways. I also don’t believe in hiding what I would ultimately like to see and am happy to explain why. I don’t reject compromise or incremental/transitional movement.

    Me: This is not a competition, at least for me. I merely share ideas. But I’m pleased that we’re both flexible. As for hiding, the truth is as a Hayekian I don’t have an “ultimate” end game. (I could cite Hayek’s books here if you need for me to footnote things ;-).) Social orders evolve. All I can do as an individual is to lend a hand in tweaking how things unfold.

    Tb: You seem to gravitate towards neolibertarians only. You seek to hide anything remotely resembling plumbline libertarianism from the general public, in fact you seem to reject it and encourage others to reject it. Your political strategy rests on secrecy and deceit.

    Me: I don’t know anyone who calls themselves Neo, except Keanu Reaves. If “neoL” means “hawkish,” then, no. I’m dovish. But, yes, I agree, I had a small hand in deleting plumb line-isms from the LP platform. I love theoretical discussions, they have their place. IMO, they don’t have their place in politics, which is a more near-term time horizon. The politics I am interested in involves applying theory, not spouting it.

  95. Tom Blanton

    Oh, I’m pretty sure Capozzi would be reading CATO, Reason, and Koch Industries websites on a daily basis as well as Root4America or is that Root4Israel?

  96. John Jay Myers

    I agree with Ron Paul on just about everything he said there, though he didn’t say more because he wasn’t asked or doesn’t have to.

    Above Wayne Allyn Root has basically pinned all conflict in the Middle East directly on the shoulders of the Palestinians.

    I don’t – and never have – placed all the blame on Israel. But I don’t think we should remain silent if we know something to be different than what we are told. The Israeli Lobby in the United States is a very powerful force and much of what our nation “swallows” hook line and sinker is a direct result of their influence.

    This should be alarming to a lot of people. Like I said, it should be okay to choose from at least 3 options in this dialog:
    A. Israel is the greatest thing since sliced bread.
    B. I am indifferent to this conflict and want no part of it.
    C. The Middle East conflict is complicated and we are being used as a pawn by a foreign country which is creating even more friction.

    Obviously you can see how there could expand this to many more variations of C, but in America as we saw with Obama, anything other than A or B results in people breaking out the Anti-semite card.

    Actually even choice B will result in a very negative reaction with some people, in particular in the media. Because most people have been spoon fed a lie and do not understand what is really going on, informed people must speak out, or the next thing you know we will be in WWIII.

    Do you see what I mean? The American people are being set up to believe XYZ theory, we can say that XYZ theory is none of our business, but if enough people are made to believe it, we will go to war, and then we will wish we would have said something.

    Should the party, no, the Party has made our non-intervention clear, but candidates are routinely asked to sign “pledges to Israel” why would we not think that candidates might stand up against this horrible disinformation campaign?

  97. Robert Capozzi

    120 tb, you’d be partially correct. I read Cato@Liberty, Reason, IPR, and LRC most days. Not the others. I also participate in FLOW a bit, which is Mackey’s organization. I also read RealClearPolitics, for a smattering of different thought streams. That’s about all I have time for.

    Do you have a problem with that?

  98. John Jay Myers

    Let me try to make what I said above about XYZ theory more clearly.

    You see a guy run over and punch another guy in the face.

    You might say, this is none of my business. Others might call you a coward for making it none of your business, after all the guy was sucker punched. All the others join in and kick the living crap out of the assaulter.

    What you don’t know…. that the night before the person who was punched, broke into the other guys house and raped his 12 year old sister.

    Would the masses still want to kick the crap out of the other guy?

    Which is why it is important that all facts are known and we stand up against disinformation.

    Before I catch too much hell, let me also say this example is particularly harsh only to make the point.

  99. David Colborne

    Robert, Tom, I have bad news:

    My Libertarian web-peen is bigger than yours. I’m so centrist in my Libertarian beliefs (and if you don’t believe my beliefs are centrist, then you’re authoritarian state-fellating whore-bitches) that I believe Rothbard didn’t go far enough in his description of an anarchist society. See, anarchism is the absence of a state, which is incompatible with my view of centrist Libertarianism since accepting the absence of a state would be accepting a passive condition of state (the condition of a non-existent one). I believe we should advocate for a negative state, one that goes beyond minarchism and anarchism, and openly advocates the destruction of all states everywhere.

    First America, then Earth, then the Universe!

  100. Robert Capozzi

    123 jjm: Which is why it is important that all facts are known and we stand up against disinformation.

    me: I’d say it’s impossible to know ALL the facts. Knowing the salient facts seems far more useful.

    Knowing one’s conscience is at least as important. Mine tells me that getting involved in other people’s fights is something I have great biases against.

    Agree on disinformation.

  101. Tom Blanton

    Stossel, Napolitano, Johnson, Paul, Ventura, Barr and Root are varieties of “neolibertarian”.

    None of them are out there selling themselves as libertarians. They are all Republicans, libertarian conservatives or conservative libertarians.

    It may well be that you don’t know anyone who calls themselves Neo, Capozzi. But there are those who do call themselves neolibertarians and there are those who identify others as being neolibertarians.

    I suppose not having access to Google, you would have never googled the word neolibertarian and seen there are 127,000 results.

    I didn’t make the word up, nor do I define it. There seem to be more than one definition floating around. You’ve never seen me start a sentence with “Libertarians believe….” nor will I attempt to do that with the word “neolibertarian”.

    My rule of thumb is that if it doesn’t talk like a libertarian, and it doesn’t walk like a libertarian, but claims to be a libertarian or someone else is claiming them to be libertarian, it must be a neolibertarian.

    It wasn’t so long ago that Brian Holtz was on IPR making the case that Glenn Beck is a libertarian. I’d say even most LP members would say that is really pushing the envelope.

    But you proved me right, none of the people you would pick for the 2012 LP nomination consistently walk and talk like a Harry Browne libertarian who seemed to be fairly representative if libertarianism generally. I think they would all fall safely into the neolibertarian camp, with the possible exception of Ron Paul – a very libertarian traditionalist conservative who happens to be a Republican – paleocon perhaps?

  102. David Colborne

    In all seriousness, JJM @123, it’s a good point, and one everyone needs to absorb. It kind of ties into why I’m with Capozzi on this thread – Israeli-Palestinian relations have been problematic for the better part of a century now, with plenty of examples of egregious behavior on both sides, so taking a side on that situation using complete information is rather difficult to do when you live and work in Israel or Palestine. From our vantage point here in the States, it’s basically impossible, so why bother? It’d be as productive and accurate as taking sides in the Hatfield-McCoy feud.

    As for Root, he’s playing to his audience. Personally, I’d prefer he picked a different audience.

  103. Michael H. Wilson

    As Wayne is writing pieces like the one that started this thread over at The Huffington Post we get this from a U.S. Senator http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen-jon-tester/time-to-end-outdated-mili_b_864375.html.

    If Jon Tester can promote ideas like this so can libertarians. Unfortunately getting these ideas covered is difficult, but getting on the radio seems to be Wayne’s gift. Unfortunately he doesn’t seem to use it to promote the Libertarian Party, the Libertarian movement, or any ideas that have been developed, which tells me a lot about his priorities.

  104. Tom Blanton

    I also got the Reason/CATO thing right along with the neolibertarian thing.

    It seems I’m reading your mind better than you’re reading mine, Capozzi.

    Actually, they were just educated guesses based on consuming information, processing it, and attempting to discern reality based on factual data – despite the fact that all facts cannot be known.

    Reality bites.

  105. Tom Blanton

    Michael, fortunately many libertarians are writing about cutting the very things Tester suggests. But, as you suggest, it sure won’t be Wayne Root. His fans at NewsMax would have none of it.

  106. Tom Blanton

    From our vantage point here in the States, it’s basically impossible, so why bother?

    If you only consume mainstream American news, you may be right, David. Then there is Haaretz in English from Israel that gives news and views entirely different from the Likud version presented in America. Robert Fisk, Patrick Cockburn, Jonathan Cook, Uri Avnery also provide news and context that is educational. Even Al Jazeera is pretty good and not nearly as biased as many in America would have you believe. They’ve been kicked out of a number of Mideast nations (besides Israel) for reporting news that is not so favorable to various regimes.

    The best thing to do is to forget all the anecdotal stories of minor outrages and look at the bigger picture of what is happening overall. Both sides exaggerate and fabricate propaganda.

    Where the actual bombs fall, where the settlements are built, where the fences are built, what the leaders like Lieberman say in public make a compelling case that is causing every nation in the world except America to view Israel in an unflattering light, to their own detriment.

    This seems to be no big secret in Israeli media – just the American media. It isn’t illegal to criticize Israeli policies in Israel but you might be charged with hate crimes if you wrote in the American press what gets published routinely in Haaretz.

    Myers is right. Americans just don’t seem to know what’s going on and apparently don’t want to know as evidenced by your own comments. They don’t want to hear any bad news about deficits and the national debt either. They want happy talk and there are plenty of brilliant political strategists that are glad to provide it.

  107. JT

    JJM: “I agree with Ron Paul on just about everything he said there, though he didn’t say more because he wasn’t asked or doesn’t have to.”

    I do too. But I think if he believes the Israel lobby is the driving force behind U.S. foreign policy that’s costing Americans trillions of dollars and thousands of lives for the benefit of Likud thugs, he’d at least mention it briefly in a statement all about U.S. foreign policy, Israel, and Palestine. Seems like a big omission to me.

    Anyway, I’m not saying that any Libertarian needs to say Israel is our good friend, as RP does. But if Libertarian officers and candidates adopted RP’s language, I’d be happy with that.

  108. Thomas L. Knapp

    ——
    Tb: Sure, you make minor criticisms of him from time to time. But you lay heavy into people who harshly criticize him.

    Me: Because the criticisms often seem out of bounds. My preference is for civility, especially intra the LM.
    —–

    That doesn’t ring very true.

    You categorize nearly any criticism of Root whatsoever as “absolutist.”

    But when Root accuses two million people of: “target[ing] Israeli women and children … encourag[ing] their own children to become suicide bombers … hand[ing] out candy in celebration for the murder of an innocent Jewish baby … that forc[ing] women to endure public lashings for disobeying a husband…that execute women for ‘allowing themselves’ to be gang-raped … pour[ing] acid on the face[s] of little girls who dare to want an education … throw[ing] gay men off the roofs of buildings … marry[ing] off their 5-year-old daughters to pay the bills … imprison[ing] all women for life behind dark veils in 120 degree heat, to keep them from being seen by other men …”

    … that’s just “sub-optimal.”

  109. John Jay Myers

    Ron talks about “blow back” all the time, blow back is the response to our foreign policy, and the effect it has on the people in that region.

    I don’t think it is too much of a stretch to understand “blow back” and how it relates to our unconditional support of Israel.

    Again, this all operates under the assumption that you believe that some of Israel’s actions are not in our interest, as Walt and Mearsheimer point out in their book “The Israeli Lobby”.

    For some reason we as libertarians can come up with hundreds of specific examples of why government intervention in business is counter productive, like when we talk about Cash for Clunkers, and how many businesses that sell used cars, or used car parts would suffer from such a program.

    Is it okay to say that?

    According to some here the negative effects of the policy should be taken off the list of “talking points” and we should keep our opinions to ourselves. If you did that, it would be hard to show people the light in regards to why Cash for Clunkers is bad.

    In regards to the topic of Israel it is only okay to say “We need to stay out of it, but Israel is our friend”.

    It’s almost like saying “Cash for Clunkers is good idea, it just isn’t the role of government”.

    It wasn’t a good idea, and it is okay to discuss why, if you like, especially if you want to help people understand just how bad of an idea it is.

  110. Robert Capozzi

    126 tb: Stossel, Napolitano, Johnson, Paul, Ventura, Barr and Root are varieties of “neolibertarian”.

    Me: I cited these people as people I’d prefer OVER Root as the LP’s standard-bearer. None of them call themselves “neoL” to my knowledge. What I know of them, their views are closer to mine than Root’s is. They are articulate and interesting exponents of liberty with some profile who know how to perform in front of the camera. Whether they meet your continued refusal to define what you consider to be a L is on you. You may have a litmus test that you’re unwilling to share. If it’s a literal, absolutist, strict adherence to the NAP, then I’m not a L in your book. That’s OK, you’re entitled to your opinion. I – resonating with the sentiment of the NAP, but not a literal interpretation – still will ID myself as L.

    I’m sure I don’t agree with everything that they all believe. Napolitano and Paul seem to buy the revisionist take on the Confederate Elite Insurrection, for ex., and they’re pro-life. I wince when I see that issue come up, but I’d still support and vote for Napolitano and Paul. On net, they advocate things I do. Perhaps my standards are “lower” than yours! ;-)

    I have heard the term “neoL,” btw, but it doesn’t seem meaningful to me.

    Tb: My rule of thumb is that if it doesn’t talk like a libertarian, and it doesn’t walk like a libertarian, but claims to be a libertarian or someone else is claiming them to be libertarian, it must be a neolibertarian.

    Me: Sounds good, I guess. If that works for you, I support your desire for walking, talking Ls as you define them.

    Tb: But you proved me right, none of the people you would pick for the 2012 LP nomination consistently walk and talk like a Harry Browne libertarian who seemed to be fairly representative if libertarianism generally.

    Me: If you need to feel you are “right,” then you are. If there was a Harry Browne L who had the other qualities I cited, I would give him or her much consideration. I don’t know any, do you?

  111. JT

    JJM: “I don’t think it is too much of a stretch to understand “blow back” and how it relates to our unconditional support of Israel.”

    It’s not a stretch. It’s definitely related. Israel isn’t the entire reason, but it’s part of it.

    JJM: “For some reason we as libertarians can come up with hundreds of specific examples of why government intervention in business is counter productive, like when we talk about Cash for Clunkers, and how many businesses that sell used cars, or used car parts would suffer from such a program.

    Is it okay to say that?”

    Of course. I don’t have any issue with talking about how U.S. government support for Israel breeds hatred for America, is funded with a lot of money confiscated from Americans, etc.

    JJM: “According to some here the negative effects of the policy should be taken off the list of “talking points” and we should keep our opinions to ourselves.”

    I don’t agree with that at all. Libertarians should definitely point out the negative effects of government policies while offering pro-freedom alternatives.

    JJM: “In regards to the topic of Israel it is only okay to say “We need to stay out of it, but Israel is our friend”.

    Well, I guess you have a beef with what Ron Paul said then. You should write his office. I like his statement in its entirety, though I don’t believe any Libertarian needs to say anything nice about Israel or even approve of its existence.

  112. Robert Capozzi

    133 tk: You categorize nearly any criticism of Root whatsoever as “absolutist.”

    me: Where have I done this? I do believe that absolutism is unworkable. And I do believe that attacks on Root are over the top. But they are different thoughts.

  113. John Jay Myers

    Well JT it seems we pretty much agree, and if we are to split too many hairs on this we risk engaging in a “Capozzi”.

    Capozzi [Ca-poe-zy] noun “A back and forth conversation where the most minute details are parsed, in long ongoing conversations which only amount to hours of wasted time.”

    But to be honest I actually like RC though I don’t often agree with him, actually I never really know if I do or not, that’s the worst part.

  114. Robert Capozzi

    138 jjm, thanks. What I’m going for is, first, peace, and, second, a willingness — at minimum — to think differently. Endless parsing does SEEM like a waste of time, but the work of challenging deep-down premises is laborious-yet-unavoidable work. IMO.

  115. JT

    JJM: “Well JT it seems we pretty much agree, and if we are to split too many hairs on this we risk engaging in a “Capozzi”.”

    No, a “Capozzi” would be if we said we don’t know that Israel exists :-)

  116. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob @137,

    OK, let’s take “absolutist” off the table then.

    What has ever been said, by anyone, about Root, that is nearly as “over the top” as his allegations against 2 million Palestinian Arabs, which you describe as merely “sub-optimal?”

  117. David Colborne

    @141: Curiously, this actually branches into one of my explanations of atheism and why I have issues with faith.

    If you came up to me and said, “Prove to me that Israel exists!”, I could find various bits of literature with instructions (a map, in other words) that we could follow to determine conclusively the existence of Israel. If we follow the instructions correctly, assuming the instructions are correct, we’ll end up in Israel and be able to prove to one another that it does, indeed, exist. If the instructions are poor or inaccurate, we’ll at least be able to prove that much, at which point we can move to another, better set of instructions until we’re satisfied about the nature of Israel’s existence.

    Faith, God, and religion in general, on the other hand, is not conducive to such analysis, which bothers me. It doesn’t bother everyone, and I’m generally okay with that, but it does bother me, which is why I’m an atheist. I can feel, beyond a shadow of doubt, that Israel does not exist, yet follow a map and end up in Israel anyway, regardless of my thoughts or feelings on the matter. Faith, on the other hand, explicitly forbids such an approach – indeed, completeness of faith is predicated on achieving emotional acceptance of the faith first, then finding proof of faith after achieving emotional acceptance and embrace. Personally, I call that “confirmation bias”, but I wouldn’t call that a moral failing. It’s just human nature in action.

  118. Thomas L. Knapp

    DC @ 143,

    Existence implies identity. If Israel exists, then it is something.

    So, um … what is it?

    I’m serious.

    If it’s easier, insert “America” for “Israel.”

    My guess is that it would be difficult to find a very large group of people whose definitions of either term — let alone their opinions on what should be done by, for, about, etc. each term — map anything like identically to each others’.

  119. David Colborne

    @144: Really? Okay…

    Israel is a label applied to a geographical area in the Middle East that was formed from parts of former British Mandated Palestine (which, in turn, was formed from parts of the Ottoman Empire after it collapsed at the conclusion of World War 1). The geographical area represented by the label “Israel” is currently under debate, with the range of debate including “all of former British Mandated Palestine, plus the Golan Heights area of Syria” and “absolutely nowhere on Earth”, as well as several positions in between.

    Or did you want me to go into the governance of said geographical region labeled as “Israel”?

  120. Wayne Root

    @137 and pretty much everyone here…someone doesn’t read very carefully…I never accused ALL Palestinians of anything.

    I accused radical Muslims like Hamas of heinous crimes and terrorism.

    Just as the U.S. government does- afterall Hamas is classified as a “terrorist organization” by the United States of America.

    I said and I quote…

    “an American President has chosen to abandon Israel in favor of radical Muslims led by the terrorist group Hamas.”

    I repeated the comment later with:

    “wants to redistribute money from American Taxpayers to Palestinians and radical Muslims like Hamas that target…”

    So twice I stated “radical Muslims like Hamas”

    All reference to terrorism related clearly to “radical Muslims” and a terrorist organization named “Hamas.”

    I have never anywhere, at anytime, written or said that Muslims or Palestinians are terrorists or terrible people.

    Muslims are NOT our enemies, but radical Islam is. Two different groups.

    Unfortunately it appears that my critics at IPR put words in my mouth and make assumptions.

    Palestine is now run by a terrorist organization that preaches the destruction of Israel, encourages and lives by terrorism, and refuses to acknowledge even Israel’s right to exist. Those are facts. Thats all I said. That’s all I was referring to.

    Now to your second assumption- to all my wonderful critics that assume, or assign ideas or beliefs to me…

    You also assume this commentary by me pledges my undying support for foreign aid to Israel. It doesn’t. It should be clear that I have two point of view. Both are Libertarian and reasonable common sense opinions that mainstream voters will find appealing…

    #1) We phase out foreign aid to all countries- which in my opinion is a benefit to our ally Israel, because we currently give $3 Bb to Israel and $12 Bb to her enemies. Phase it all out and Israel is a net winner.

    Or

    #2) We phase out foreign aid by ending foreign aid to countries that support and harbor terrorists/terrorism and hate America…that allows us to dramatically cut foreign aid…and within 5 years we can safely phase out foreign aid to our friends too- that includes Israel.

    I think both views are Libertarian, but the second one has the potential to attract far more support from mainstream voters. That is my goal. To ELECT Libertarians by bringing more voters into our tent.

    All moderate, pragmatic and reasonable and appealing to the coalition of Tea Party, conservative and right center independent voters I want to attract to the LP.

    Best Wishes,

    Wayne

  121. Darryl W. Perry

    What’s the point of electing “Libertarians” if they don’t hold libertarian ideals?

    Also, when you “phase out” foreign aid, what is your ideal time frame? 2 years? 5 years? 10? 100?

  122. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    Wayne, I believe the paragraph about Muslim behavior will turn off most tea party and right center independent voters because it sounds very racist. Perhaps you didn’t mean it that way, but obviously it sounded like it to many people, including many of us on this thread and on Facebook.

  123. John Jay Myers

    This is exactly my point, Wayne has again said a slew of things, that can only lead people to have a very negative vision of people around Israel, making them believe that all of the turmoil in the region is directly related to these “terrorists”.

    This is exactly why I say it is important to stand up against this time of neo-conic propaganda, this is the type of talk that starts wars.

    It’s like saying, “I am not saying we should be involved but chances are these people are going to kill you, me and everyone else… because of their religion.”
    That is NOT what is going on in the Middle East, and to me a clear libertarian thinker needs to be able to explain that…. this is not about religion, or even radical islam, that is a scape goat, that is used to create an enemy.

    This is about blow back and the fact that these people want us to get out of their countries, this is a policy war, and the longer we allow people to ignorantly or intentionally spew propaganda stating otherwise, the longer we will be in it.

  124. Wayne Root

    Jill,

    The problem with leftists like you is you don’t accept the truth. Have you read the polls? The American people are hugely behind Israel. The numbers are overwhelming.

    The American people also believe that radical Islam is the enemy- in far larger numbers than even support Israel. If you don’t believe that, you are in a minority so small that you can’t find it.

    Or have you missed the never-ending attacks in America- Times Square, Ft Hood, the plane landin in Detroit on Christmas Day. Sorry Jill but you can’t twist the facts.

    My moderate, tolerant, common sense views are supported not just by Tea Partiers or conservatives…but by a huge majority of blue collar and blue dog Democrats across the entire country.

    You are all in a tiny tiny minority with virtually no support. You are in fact extremely radical, extreme, and out of touch if you don’t believe there is an attack on America from radical Islam. Your views are frightening to mothers, grandparents and Christians everywhere.

  125. Darryl W. Perry

    WAR “The American people are hugely behind Israel. The numbers are overwhelming.

    The American people also believe that radical Islam is the enemy- in far larger numbers than even support Israel.

    Just because people believe it, doesn’t make it right, let alone libertarian.

    During WWII – most Germans believed that the Jews were a problem.
    In the early history of the USA most Americans believed the Indians were “the enemy” and should be driven west, many also believed that some Americans had a right to own people as property….

    When you start basing your opinions on what “people believe” you slide down a slippery slope. Reminds me of the old saying we have down south, “If you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything!!”

  126. John Jay Myers

    Who cares about polls? I care about what is right.

    Gary Johnson and Ron Paul get it, America is not under attack by radical Islam, in fact statistically you have a better chance of being trampled by a cow then killed by an Islamic terrorist. That is a verifiable statistic.

    America would be even less likely to be attacked by a terrorist if we would get out of the Middle East.

    The problem with what you said above (150) is that you are way out of touch with Libertarian philosophy of blow back, of endless wars created by a war machine, of a foreign policy of intervention that breeds hate through out the Middle East.

    We are not fighting radical islam in Afghanistan we are fighting people who don’t want us in their countries, we were not attacked by radical islam on 9/11 we were attacked by people who don’t want us in their countries.

    You might as well scream “They hate us because we are free”.

    Foreign policy has to be the libertarian trump card in 2012, 2016, and 2020 and your views are so convoluted, so off base, it’s just hard to imagine you running as a libertarian, or even advising libertarians.

    If I believed what you were saying I would probably feel like we need to have an interventionist foreign policy, but then common sense takes over and I understand what has created the terrorism we now face, and that is what I want to end.

  127. Wayne Root

    No Darryl,

    I stand for exactly what I believe in. I have never changed my views for a poll. Not once. My views are a combination of fiscally conservative, socially Libertarian and tolerant, and on most other issues I’d call them common sense and patriotic. I happen to understand what mainstream voters think…and on many issues I’ve figured out stances that are moderate Libertarian enough to win them over.

    I am the son of a butcher and I will always empathize with how middle class mainstream voters think about things. They won’t conform to stringent, pure, radical LP views. They won’t come to you. You have to figure out how to come to them. If you don’t understand that you are in for 40 more years of falling in quicsand and getting 1% of the vote.

    Moderation and trying to appeal to others with honey instead of vinegar is an important and valuable asset when trying to win elections.

    If you win those elections, you now have the ability to drive policy in a more Libertarian direction. I understand which views of mine are mainstream with huge majority acceptance and I stress them.

    I’ve said openly and strongly for 3 years now that the LP has hurt its image by sounding anti-Israel and to some, anti-semetic. The small business owners I want to attract are patriotic, believe in America, believe in God and faith, and are overwhelmingly for smaller government. They also support Israel strongly. They can be brought to the LP if handled correctly.

    I’ve found a Libertarian way to support Israel. First, I give my own private donations and encourage others to do so. Second, as I said above, I support foreign aid being dramatically cut, but phase out our enemies and terrorist supporters first. Thats the only way to treat friends. You don’t abandon them cold turkey. And if you do, you lose the support of the American people, and you’ll get no “buy in” for your plan.

    Everything I’m saying is reasonable, moderate and pragmatic. But it pushes America in a Libertarian direction.

    If your goal is the eventual elimination of all foreign aid and a smaller government, you’d be wise to support my stance. It will never happen any other way.

    John J Myers with all your screaming and outrage, you’ve never gotten $1 cut off foreign aid and with your “all or nothing” stance you never will. Your views are outside the mainstream and will not be accepted.

    Mine have some chance of gaining support by winning over the people who love and support Israel- the majority of Americans. My stance gives us a fighting chance to reduce foreign aid. Your stance guarantees a lifetime of failure…and worse…Obama is now giving billions more to Muslim countries that hate both America and Israel.

    You call that progress?

    Phase it out for enemies…and eventually you can safely phase it out for friends too.

    Reasonable, moderate, tolerant, pragmatic. Not frightening to 100 million evangelical Christians, or Jewsish suppiorters of Israel, or parents, or small business owners.

    But please stop criticizing a plan that is absolutely Libertarian…and stands a chance of moving America in a more Libertarian direction. To criticize and denigrate that is truly counter-productive.

    Just nicely fight for your radical plan. I’ll wager with you anytime who achieves success first.

    Wayne

  128. Wayne Root

    And John please stop misquoting my opinions.

    My views are very much in line on 95% of issues with Ron Paul, Rand Paul and Gary Johnson. They are guests on my radio shows and we have a lovefest when they are on. It’s a mutual admiration society.

    It’s all in how you communicate the message. Ron Paul, Rand Paul and Wayne Root are on the same team.

    You never mention JJ Myers that I support getting out of all 3 wars…dramatically cutting foreign aid, dramatically cut military bases, and cuts in the defense budget. But I know how to say it in such a way as to appeal to mainstream and Tea Party voters, without frightening them.

    Stop misquoting my views.

  129. Darryl W. Perry

    Just because you claim your stance is libertarian doesn’t make it so…

    You say you support aid being cut – the LP platform calls for its elimination.

    You’re so worried about winning an election and getting the LP to follow you, that you find a way to claim that your positions fit the LP and further perpetuate the notion that libertarians are nothing more than “Republicans that like weed” – though you rarely (if ever) talk about eliminating the “Drug War” because you claim that would “alienate voters.”

  130. Jill Pyeatt

    Wayne @ 150: I never said that there aren’t some radical Islamists who wish harm to our country. I’m sure there are, but they are a tiny tiny minority. I don’t care if most Americans believe it, since I think many of the reasons they believe so is because of bigoted propaganda which many people, including you, choose to perpetuate. The Ft Hood shooting, the underwear bomber..those are a tiny tiny minority, Wayne. In the paragraph you wrote in your article about Muslim behavior, you speak as if most, if not all, Muslims act the way you describe. Have you missed the fact that millions of Muslims live in this country, peacefully, and have for many years?

    I form my opinions based on what my my heart and intellect tell me is right, not what the polls say. I actually am not anti-Israel at all; it’s one of the few issues I don’t have a strong opinion on. Maybe that’s why I see bigotry when it’s there–and I absolutely see it in the article you wrote.

    Signed,

    Jill Pyeatt
    Mother, grandmother, Christian, small business owner, and Libertarian.

  131. John Jay Myers

    But Wayne, you say those things… you don’t mean them. You don’t know why the wars are bad, you don’t accept Ron Paul’s ideas of blow back, you would never take any of these issues on in the same way Ron has.

    You are nothing like him on foreign policy. I am not misquoting you anywhere.

    You write what you write, and then we just read it.
    You just told Jill:
    “Or have you missed the never-ending attacks in America- ” again statistically you have more chance of being trampled by a cow.

    More Christians have gunned down people in cold blood in the last few months then Muslims, but you need propaganda for your fake war.

    Seriously, you don’t get it, you never will…. and that is intentional.

  132. John Jay Myers

    Also, so are you saying that Gary Johnson and Ron Paul believe that America is attack by radical Islam?
    Obviously this is a cornerstone to your foreign policy opinion.

    The answer to that is NO they do not.

    The difference is one is a Libertarian principled philosophy and one is a neo-conic fear mongering philosophy.

  133. Thomas L. Knapp

    Wayne @146,

    You write:

    “I have never anywhere, at anytime, written or said that Muslims or Palestinians are terrorists or terrible people.”

    Maybe you didn’t mean to, but you did — and you quote yourself doing so:

    “wants to redistribute money from American Taxpayers to Palestinians and radical Muslims like Hamas that target …”

    It’s hard to parse that sentence without reading it as referring to two groups (Palestinians and Hamas) as both “targeting,” etc. And the subsequent list of alleged activities clearly doesn’t apply only to Hamas, or even to “radical Muslims” (hint: Plenty of non-radical Muslims adhere to Islamic dress codes).

    Did you mean it that way? Probably not. I hope not. But that’s how it reads.

    As a pro-Israel libertarian — check my record if you like, I’ve been fighting this fight since a long time before you made the move to the LP — there’s nothing more than when someone I agree with on the issue comes off sounding like an off-her-meds Carol Moore on Opposite Day.

  134. Steven Wilson

    I do not believe foreign aid is the problem at all times. The issue now is that many americans cannot take care of their families and their futures are now in doubt.

    Truman made the bed for us to sleep in it. The issue here is the cost. Americans paying for things they will never get.

    This is the price of being a world power and acting like God. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison both warned of what would happen to nosey parker.

    Shut up, pay the bill, and try to get some sleep.

  135. Gus Hasford

    Sleep, America.
    Silence is a warm bed.
    Sleep your nightmares of small
    cries cut open now
    in the secret places of
    Black Land, Bamboo City.

    Sleep tight, America
    dogtags eating sweatgrimaced
    TV-people
    Five O’clock news: My son the Meat.

    Laughing scars, huh?
    Novocained fist.
    Squeeze every window empty
    then hum.

    Fear only the natural unreality
    and kiss nostalgia goodbye
    Bayonet teddy bear and snore.
    Bad dreams are something you ate.
    So sleep, you mother.

  136. Wayne Root

    @161

    Steven,

    That’s the real crucial point of mine that my critics ignore…that in the end the issues Americans care about are jobs, taxes, spending, economy, jobs, and more jobs. I’ve said that since 2007 when I started running for the LP Presidential nomination.

    Those are the issues LP should promote 99% of the time.

    Those are the issues the Tea Party has promoted and it made them the most successful movement in modern history.

    Do you see what’s happening today in Joplin, Missouri? Those poor people still love God, believe in God, have faith in God, and love America.

    That will never change…never waver.

    That is what the LP has to tap into. Without understanding that, the LP cannot win the hearts of mainstream voters.

    Politics at it’s core is about making people feel good. And it’s about taking care of citizens in need. One mistake like Bush after Katrina and you lose the people.

    The politician that puts boots on the ground and spends day and night among the people of Joplin for the next weeks and months, will win re-election for years to come.

    Set aside views. Stop arguing. Take care of people…be there when they need you…and understand how important faith in God and patriotism is…and you will be elected to lead.

    And once you lead…you have a chance to lead America in a more Libertarian direction.

    Goodnight.

    Wayne

  137. George Phillies

    “My views are very much in line on 95% of issues with Ron Paul, Rand Paul and Gary Johnson. ”

    Thank you for reminding us that you support Republican conservatives, not Libertarians.

    “Jill,

    The problem with leftists like you is you don’t accept the truth. Have you read the polls? The American people are hugely behind Israel. The numbers are overwhelming.

    The American people also believe that radical Islam is the enemy- in far larger numbers than even support Israel. If you don’t believe that, you are in a minority so small that you can’t find it.”

    Dear Wayne,

    If the Libertarian Party had existed prior to Loving v Virginia, when the overwhelming majority of Americans opposed inter-racial marriage until the Supreme Court heroically fixed the matter, our platform would undoubtedly have supported the right of Americans of all races to marry each other.

    If the Libertarian Party had existed prior to Griswold and Roe, our platform would undoubtedly have supported the right of all Americans to have access to contraceptives and abortion arrangements. It still does. That’s because we are an opposite of Republican abortion-banners, Federal legislators like Paul and Paul.

    The Libertairan Party is not here to kiss the backside of Republican Islamophobe hatemongers, the people who attacked the Manhattan religious center, chase Islamic clerics off aircraft, etc.

    Given how many Libertarian stands you don’t like, and how well you get along with Republican conservatives — to say something nice about Paul and Paul, they are among the few real conservatives a la Taft in Congress — then perhaps you should consider whether you are in the right party or not.

    Our Libertarian Party rejects bigotry, and even with your parsing your remarks are a disgrace to our national committee.

    George Phillies

  138. John Jay Myers

    Thomas, add this to the list just 2 posts up:
    “Obama is now giving billions more to Muslim countries that hate both America and Israel.”

    Wayne can’t even be consistent in the same posting.

  139. Darryl W. Perry

    “Stop arguing. Is that you’re way of saying, “Agree with me. Don’t criticize me; I’m right, you’re wrong. Deal with it!”?

    You also say “… have a chance to lead America in a more Libertarian direction”. Can’t say I disagree with taking the country in a libertarian direction – though I would take it much further down the path than you would like…

  140. Wayne Root

    Funny George,

    “Your” Libertarian Party elected me the Vice Presidential nominee. What vote total did you enjoy that day?

    “Your” LP voted me to be their national chairman on two ballots before a close loss…then elected me as the #1 vote-getter among 14 candidates for LNC. What was your vote total that day?

    You see how silly you sound? You sound ridiculous George.

    I guess it’s not “your party” and I guess you won’t be purging me anytime soon.

    I guess there are alot more Libertarians with my moderate, pragmatic, common sense, reasonable views than yours George.

    By the way, have you been in the national media lately George? The media calls me “Mr Libertarian.” Why don’t they call you that? Maybe you’re the one who has mixed up what Libertarian means.

    Or maybe no one on this site holds the exclusive right to define Libertarian.

    But George, try not to sound so ridiculous.

    I’ve ALWAYS treated you with respect…never bad mouthed you in public…and yet you take any opportunity to publicly stab not just me, but countless others in the back on IPR.

    Maybe there’s a message here…if your outlet is IPR…and mine is thousands of radio and TV stations…

    You’ve got alot of catching up to do!

    Wayne

  141. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    Wayne @ 163: “Those are the issues the Tea Party has promoted and it made them the most successful movement in modern history.”

    Seriously, Wayne, you identify so closely with The Tea Party, why don’t you go there? Then you won’t have “leftists” like me pointing out your obvious non-Libertarian statements. I’m not going away, Wayne. If you say things that damage our Libertarian brand, I’m going to call you on it. I quit the CA EX Com specifically so I could be free to say what I felt needed to be said.

  142. Wayne Just Got Punk'd

    Damn, dude you just got punk’d big time!

    Wayne, go to: antiwar.com to find principled libertarian position on foreign policy, wars of agression, civil liberties, police state, etc. and learn from it.

  143. Wayne Root

    @157…to John Jay…

    “More Christians have gunned down people in cold blood in the last few months then Muslims…”

    If this is your calling card, good luck John. Very very extreme and out of touch with America. Bad message for LP. You will never get anywhere with messages like this. The media will never allow anyone with a radical out of touch message like this anywhere near a microphone.

    You need to do some serious thinking. Do yoga. Get involved with Pilates. Pray in the mountains. But find a way to get in touch with a message that won’t revolt mainstream Americans.

  144. Darryl W. Perry

    @160
    Knapp – add to the list :“I accused radical Muslims like Hamas of heinous crimes and terrorism.”
    AND
    “All reference to terrorism related clearly to “radical Muslims” and a terrorist organization named “Hamas…. Palestine is now run by a terrorist organization.”

    Wayne,
    most readers will read that as “Palestine is run by a terrorist organization that does X- therefore Palestine does X.” It may not have been your intention, though that’s how it reads.

  145. Wayne Root

    And to Thomas Knapp…

    My message was a huge hit with Americans. It was the featured blog at Newsmax.com to 6 million readers from Friday to Monday. It was published on dozens of other web sites.

    I probably received more fan mail on that commentary than any other. Hundreds of strangers thanked me.

    But for me the proof is always… does it attract mainstream media and what is their reaction? Well a dozen fantastic media appearances later, complete with call-ins from listeners who praised my views…that’s the proof in the pudding.

    A big win for me…for LP…for talk radio…for hosts…for listeners.

    Once again, the key to success for LP is tuning into what majority of mainstream voters are thinking….and being in a position to get in media to reach them and win them over.

    In the end, he who has the media exposure and presents articulate and reasonable views that don’t frighten mainstream voters…has the only chance to push America in a Libertarian direction.

  146. John Jay Myers

    Wayne my post was statistically accurate, unlike yours.
    More people who could be identified as “Christians” have killed more people in America than those who would be classified as “Muslims”.

    It doesn’t matter if you think it is extreme it is true.

    You are the one who talks about all the radical islamic attacks going on, when that’s just pure propaganda.

  147. Republican W.A.R.

    @154 – W.A.R. says, “It’s all in how you communicate the message. Ron Paul, Rand Paul and Wayne Root are on the same team.”

    Notice, W.A.R. is admitting he is on the same team as the Republicans. Libertarians take note of his true colors.

  148. Rob Joyce

    I think it`s time the American tax payer stopped being forced to financially support Israel in any manner other than good old private charity. I also believe those who speak for the LP should stop carrying the water for Israel as well, it is un-Libertarian. If you choose to contribute to their cause then so be it but don`t force me to.

  149. Wayne Root

    Daryl,

    First you said it right above…you said something to the effect that if I’m fighting to move America towards Libertarian direction…you want to move it farther along.

    Thats right…but if the message is too extreme, no one listens.

    Why would you complain if I can do it in small steps, instead of no steps?

    It would seem to me…we’d be teammates, not enemies.

    More importantly, because you and Knapp and JJ aren’t on 20 to 30 media per week…you may not realize how limited the time is while on. My goal is to give them my web site.

    The results are wonderful. I have over 3000 volunteers for any future political run i choose to undertake. About 8000 Facebook & Twitter fans. And 50,000 fans signed up to receive my newsletter.

    Thats what I’ve built in 3 years as a Libertarian. Quite amazing.

    Mark Hinkle and Wes were hired to run LP.org. Thats their job. Any LP results can only be assigned to those running the LP.

    But my results are rather dynamic. A very good sign that my message is attractive to mainstream voters.

  150. Kleptocracy and You

    Pleased to see WAR coming around on foreign aid ! Still hope he will start including “Contact LP.ORG for more INFO about the LP” somewhere in his media appearances !!

    John Jay Myers summarizes War For Terror for Lake Highlands High School: http://www.youtube.com/user/clearsky24#p/u/2/_WOL7hNPgqI

    Freedom fried random anti-war speech outtakes: http://www.youtube.com/user/clearsky24#p/u/8/wIfq-UoJaik

    ~~~

    To build the libertarian movement to a point of change for the better, it must be done one precinct @ a time. With warmer weather it is a great time to do some local door to door politicking. The good news is you can pick the precincts !
    Some items that can help…

    Help FIND the LIBERTARIANS in your area WITH the QUIZ ACROSS AMERICA: http://www.lp.org/blogs/staff/quiz-across-america-door-hangers-5-per-100

    Become a LP ACTIVIST where you live, SPREAD THE MESSAGE: http://www.lp.org/take-a-look

    Libertarian Products and Supplies make GREAT GIFTS too: http://www.LPSTUFF.COM/shop

    Have a great Spring and Summer in 2011 and ENJOY spreading the word ONE precinct at a time !

    Then some of you can go “wholesale” cheaply also !!!
    FreewayBlogging=How to reach 100,000 people for under $1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTf-dFfS-eU&feature=related

    Thanks !

  151. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    Wayne, Darryl W. Perry asked you a very good question in 174: “How many new members? How many new donors?”

    You get asked this question all the time, but you never answer it. You know, I don’t believe that you get thousands of emails thanking you for your racist article (which is what you said about your racist column about the non-Mosque which isn’t at Ground Zero from last summer.) I know you get on TV and the radio-congratulations- but, Wayne, the people are not coming over to the LP. As a successful small business owner for 27 years, I am results oriented. Where are your results? You keep telling us about your great numbers, but we never see them. Maybe you should evaluate your energies, and ask yourself if you might be more successful if you became the darling of the Tea Party.

  152. Darryl W. Perry

    Why would you complain if I can do it in small steps, instead of no steps?
    Except, you HAVEN’T done it yet…

    Any LP results can only be assigned to those running the LP.
    Then how do you know that any of your media appearances have been “wins” for the LP if you have no stats to back that up?

  153. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    Wayne @ 178: “Mark Hinkle and Wes were hired to run LP.org. Thats their job. Any LP results can only be assigned to those running the LP.”

    Huh?

  154. W.A.R. running the LP?

    @ 178 – W.A.R. says, “Mark Hinkle and Wes were hired to run LP.org. Thats their job. Any LP results can only be assigned to those running the LP.”

    But, isn’t W.A.R. on your national committee? Doesn’t he feel any responsibility to those that elected him to help run the party? Apparently not. Why would Libertarians put such an individual in charge of their party? He is obviously not interested in growing your numbers at all.

  155. Tom Blanton

    Everybody needs to stop arguing with Wayne and get down on their knees and thank God that Wayne is helping the LP!

    Why just look at how he has turned Nevada around. Millions of dollars raised, thousands of new members and hundreds of elections won – all because he has the message that God fearing and terrorist fearing Americans want to hear.

    He’s Mr. Libertarian, for Christ’s sake. Just like Ronald Reagan.

    People just don’t realize that God gave his chosen people a deed to Israel, so Wayne is helping to carry out God’s will by standing up for Israel and defending Israel from those evil Palestinians and liberals.

  156. Tom Blanton

    I know this is off topic, but I’d like to ask Wayne a personal question.

    Are those your real teeth, Wayne? They are really shiny and white. I’ve never seen such dazzling teeth. Even after 7 packs of teeth whitening strips, I can’t get my teeth as white as yours. Tell me Wayne, do you use some kind of paint on them?

    Do you think the teeth play a large role in your ability to win people over to Reagan-Libertarianism?

  157. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    Tom Blanton: I’ve never seen such dazzling teeth.

    Of course you haven’t!

    That’s because NO HUMAN BEING — NO, NOT ONE! — has EVER walked the face of the Earth with such teeth!

  158. Thomas L. Knapp

    Wayne @ 173,

    You write:

    “My message was a huge hit with Americans. It was the featured blog at Newsmax.com to 6 million readers from Friday to Monday. It was published on dozens of other web sites.”

    Well, gosh, Wayne, now that you put it that way … if I knew that my article was going to be a huge hit with America, I think I’d want to get it right instead of fucking up and accidentally falsely accusing 2 million Palestinian Arabs of being murderers and worse.

  159. Aaron Starr

    I’ve been in this party for over 30 years and I am tired of our being the proverbial tree in the forest that no one hears.

    Does Wayne Root (or anyone else) say EXACTLY what I would say? No, no one is going to match my words and views. But I don’t require that anyone’s message be 100% in conformity with my own. Frankly, I don’t see how I am in any position to demand that of anyone willing to engage in the hard work of getting in front of the media.

    I’m just grateful that someone else is willing to do that and is doing that. I’d be even more grateful if many more would deliver that, including critics on this blog.

    Realistically, though, I don’t imagine anyone else in our party (or on this blog) successfully putting out any message to a large audience in any consistent way. Perhaps I’m wrong. If there is someone out there who is willing to demonstrate that, I’d like to see it.

    I am and will continue to be a wholehearted supporter of any member of our party who actually puts out on a regular basis a message to a large audience advocating more freedom than we have today.

    I look forward to the day when I can support dozens of such individuals.

    So far, I am only seeing Wayne Root out there.

    And for that reason, he has my support.

  160. Israel Funded Hamas

    Root: [Obama] wants to redistribute money from American Taxpayers to Palestinians and radical Muslims like Hamas that target…

    I doubt Obama wants to fund Hamas, but if he did, it wouldn’t make him anti-Israel, because…

    ISRAEL funded Hamas, back in the 1970s/1980s.

    Israel did so because it wanted to create an Islamist Palestinian group, to split Arafat’s secular PLO.

    Perhaps Israel regrets that today, but let us never forget history.

    http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2006/01/27/hamas-son-of-israel/

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article10456.htm

  161. Israel vs. Arab Aid

    Root: we currently give $3 Bb to Israel and $12 Bb to her enemies.

    Not true. The U.S. gives money to Israel to spend as they wish — on the best U.S. weapons — or even on its own domestic military. (Israel is the only U.S. foreign aid recipient that doesn’t have to spend all its aid on American companies.)

    By contrast (according to Antiwar.com Radio), the Arab nations are strictly limited as to what weapons they can buy. They can only buy arms that can be used to repress their own populations (guns and tanks), but which are useless in defending themselves against Israel’s Air Force. And even for their guns and tanks, the Arabs can only buy ammunition for three day’s worth of fighting.

    In the 1980s, the Saudis struggled to buy some defensive AWAC (radar) jets from the U.S. with their own money, because Israel didn’t want the Saudis to know if Israeli jets were invading their airspace.

    The U.S. had to give Israel additional money for offensive weapons, so they’d stop complaining about the Saudis spending their own money on defensive weapons.

    As for that “$12 billion,” I suspect that’s not money we give to the Arab states, but rather, the cost of keeping U.S. occupation troops in their countries — which troops can always turn their guns on the host Arab nations.

    The U.S. gives Israel money, and occupies the Arab states. Hardly “equal” aid.

    Really, both the $3 billion given to Israel, and the cost of maintaining U.S. troops in Arab states, benefit Israel. None of that money benefits the Arab people.

    Contrary to Root’s assertion, the U.S. does not finance “Israel’s enemies,” but rather, finances their occupation.

  162. Root's Publicist

    Root: By the way, have you been in the national media lately George? The media calls me “Mr Libertarian.”

    I suspect Root’s publicist, or Root himself, repeats the talking point that Root is “Mr. Libertarian” (it may be what he asks to be introduced as), so the media shrugs and complies. What do they care?

    Having the media parrot a publicist’s talking point does not prove that talking point’s substance.

    Lots of wrestlers, infomercial hucksters, con artists, financial gurus, psychics, and cult leaders are granted all sorts of titles by a lazy media that doesn’t care what today’s freak show lineup wants to be called.

  163. Michael H. Wilson

    Like most politicians around the world power is more important than peace as we see here.

    “For years the top generals in the IDF have agreed that Israel can handle withdrawing to the 1967 borders in military terms. But PM Netanyahu says that’s impossible because those borders are not defensible. It’s an amazing level of denial, intransigence and self-destructiveness on display today — something the pre-statehood and early statehood Zionist leadership was seldom so vulnerable to.

    I agree with Gadi Taub who said recently that while peace is the ideal the highest priority for both peoples right now is partition. Netanyahu’s position makes that impossible. The 1967 lines are the only practical and politically conceivable basis for such a division — with mutually agreed upon swaps of territory along those lines. Netanyahu’s plan is simply to withdraw from areas of dense population within the West Bank. In fact, I think that overstates the case. I don’t think
    Netanyahu has a plan beyond holding his coalition together and himself in the prime ministership. The rejectionists’ ‘plan’ is simply to hold on for as long as possible and play for time.
    The man is a fool at so many levels. But there’s no denying that he speaks for a very large chunk of the Israeli electorate.”

    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2011/05/fool_on_the_hill.php#more?ref=fpblg

  164. Robert Milnes

    Everybody, I am so sick & tired of this guy. Let’s stop wasting time & energy on him.
    Change the amended Nolan Resolution back to The Original Nolan Resolution.
    Use it to remove non-libertarians from LP official positions and candidacies.
    In the meantime SHUN THE PAULS.
    & Root.
    NM4RP

  165. Robert Capozzi

    143 dc, oh, sometimes you’ll see me using Cartesian/Advaita epistemological mind games in my comments. It’s not a matter of “faith” as most understand it. Hayek also makes the point that sometimes some confuse the scientific method with what he called “scientism.” (Whether the “scientific method” is actually scientific is an interesting question.) And then there’s the quantum physicists, whose work calls into question the perceptual world as we THINK we know it.

    It’s sometimes said that “seeing is believing.” Sometimes, I turn that around and say “believing is seeing.” That sounds on its face like nonsense, but if you really begin to question your perceptions, you begin to realize that your perceptions so color your interpretations of the world that it dashes most/all your preconceived notions. Many Ls enjoy busting myths; this idea takes mythbusting to another level. Put another way, skepticism about everything is a thought experiment that I find helpful.

    IOW, ask yourself the question, How do you know what you know? See what comes up, then ask How do you know that you know that? And so on. It may sound trite, but give it a try.

    Perhaps IPR comments are not the best place to play this game. THE MATRIX plays this particular game masterfully…Mr. Anderson THOUGHT that seeing was believing until Morpheus gave him the Red Pill, and Mr. Anderson unplugged from THE MATRIX, a metaphor for what “the world” told him was true. Dorothy thought there was a Tin Man, too, until she realized it was all a dream. In actuality, there is no Oz.

    And now back to our regularly scheduled programming…the meaning of liberty and whether deontology and extreme positioning is the optimal path toward it. ;-)

  166. Robert Capozzi

    171 wr: If this is your calling card, good luck John. Very very extreme and out of touch with America. Bad message for LP.

    Me: Yes, I agree, too extreme and Ls don’t get to play anywhere near the Great Microphone. Pander too much, on the other hand, and you undermine the message of liberty. In the Extremism/Pandering Continuum, there is no “right” answer. IMO, though, you careen too far into the pandering direction here:

    “Obama left no doubt that he sides with and wants to redistribute money from American taxpayers to Palestinians and radical Muslims like Hamas that target Israeli women and children…that encourage their own children to become suicide bombers…that hand out candy in celebration for the murder of an innocent Jewish baby…that force women to endure public lashings for disobeying a husband…that execute women for “allowing themselves” to be gang-raped…that pour acid on the face of little girls who dare to want an education…who throw gay men off the roofs of buildings…who marry off their 5-year-old daughters to pay the bills…who imprison all women for life behind dark veils in 120 degree heat, to keep them from being seen by other men.”

    My suggestion is that this citation seems highly unbalanced. Couldn’t you’ve said: “With their longstanding disenfranchisement, the extremist elements in the Palestinian community have taken to committing acts of barbarism. Many Palestinians – weary of this never-ending conflict – have accepted this state of affairs, frozen in a state of fear and hopelessness. In such a state, it’s no wonder that some turn to extremism out of a sense of desperation. Still, such barbarism cannot stand – on either side.”

    I respect that you support Israel privately. I get that – I’m pro Israel, too, in the sense that I support its continued existence. Citing a litany of exceptions by Palestinian extremists is likely to inflame. Israel has done some outrageous things, too. The argument that SOME in the Arab world remain committed to annihilating Israel does not justify the outrageous acts that Israel has done, even though they were done under the general heading of national defense. I suggest your column is too far in the pandering direction. Since we want the US to get out of this quagmire, why say things that suggest/imply we want to get in deeper?

    BTW, when you say this: “Obama’s ego and hatred of Israel …” you undermine your own call for moderation. I see no evidence that Obama “hates” Israel. I CAN see that he’s leaning slightly more to the Palestinian case, but outright “hatred”? Really? Has he said anything even close to “I “hate’ Israel”? Did he call for the Israel to be overrun or something? How is calling for “land swaps” hatred?

    There’s overstatement for effect, and then there’s hysteria.

  167. Adrian Galysh

    Shun the Pauls? Are you nuts, they’re the only good thing going in politics.

    Wayne’s explanation of his article, here, was much better than the actual article. I wonder why he didn’t just say it like he explained it? I suppose the shock of it’s delivery is what may catch readers’ attention.

    I think people worry that Wayne’s media exposure is like that of a Glenn Beck or Bill O’Reilly, in so far as it is relying on a certain amount of shock, pandering, and outrageousness in order to get ratings and get on the air. But neither Glenn Beck, Wayne Root, or anyone in the LP has had the broad appeal, reasonable delivery, and influence that Ron Paul has had over the last 4 years. While Ron Paul’s delivery is not as clear and concise as Harry Browne’s, at least his principles are.

    So when Ron Paul can gain millions of people’s support and money with his consistent and appealing libertarian message, why can’t Wayne try a more appealing and consistent message as well?

    Perhaps his delivery gets him print, press, and media exposure, but not the support, members, and donations that Ron Paul gets, and the LP needs?

    Also, are Ron Paul and Rand Paul Republicans? sure, technically speaking, but they are obviously libertarians… At the end of the day, I don’t care what party you belong to, as long as you share the same principles that I do.

    By the way, some Tea Party organizations are very supportive of Ron Paul, the Campaign for Liberty, AND the Libertarian party. However, many are not, and they will vote Republican – as in Newt Gingrich, Herman Cain, or Rick Santorum – mostly because they prefer them to a “non viable, will never win an election” third party candidate.

  168. Robert Milnes

    Shun the Pauls? Are you nuts, they are the only good thing going in politics.
    LOL! Moron.
    Say Wayne gets the LP nomination. Immediately appeals to the Tea Party. STARTS SAYING HE’S A VIABLE third choice because the LP has near 50 ballot access-WHICH THE CONSTITUTION PARTY does not. Starts getting 10-15% polling. Gets into debates like Perot. Starts getting around 25-30% polling. 1912 TR IN REVERSE.
    You people really want to risk that?

  169. Root's Flip-Flip Spin

    @ 197: Wayne’s explanation of his article, here, was much better than the actual article. I wonder why he didn’t just say it like he explained it?

    Maybe Root says two different things because his second piece is not an explanation of his first piece, but a substitution of it (at least for IPR/libertarian readers).

    Root tells his Neocon/Tea Party/Fox News crowd what he thinks they want to here.

    Then he “explains” what he “really meant” (i.e., substitutes something new) for his libertarian readers, some of whom will be delegates at the 2012 convention.

    Root’s in his typical Tricky Dick/Slick Willy mode. Say different things to different audiences, and hope that his Neocon fans don’t see IPR, while libertarians buy his “explanation” and disregard his original piece.

  170. Robert Milnes

    @199, agreed.
    Just like in 2008 Obama had to dupe the progressives into supporting him up to nomination,
    in 2012, Root needs to dupe the libertarians up to nomination.

  171. Wayne Root

    @189

    Your grasp of facts is beyond ignorant or infantile.

    “We give $3 billion to Israel and $12 billion to her enemies. Most Americans know that makes no sense.”

    Who said it? Wayne Root?

    The quote is from Ron Paul’s press release just days ago.

    The same radicals and leftists and anti-semites on IPR that criticize my facts…adore Ron Paul and say nothing when he says the exact same things…quotes the exact same facts.

    Funny.

    Absurd.

    Hypocrites.

    Wayne

  172. Wayne Root

    “Israel is our close friend.”

    Who said it? Wayne Root?

    The quote is from Congressman Ron Paul’s press release just days ago.

  173. Wayne Root

    “Gary Johnson supports the right of Israel to exist as a sovereign country and believes that the United States should protect that right militarily if needed. He champions smaller government, lower taxes, looser business regulations, and marijuana legalization. He’s often said his highest priority is balancing America’s federal budget.”

    I think perhaps this site is filled with people living in denial. Your favorite candidates Ron Paul and Gary Johnson both sound just like Wayne Root.

    If the LP sounded just like Wayne Root, we’d actually be appealing to mainstream voters and have an opportunity to win a few elections.

    Libertarian mixed with Moderate. Pragmatic. Reasonable. Commonsense.

  174. Robert Capozzi

    wr, yes, ya know, I think I’d support the US formalizing our alliance with Israel while stepping aside from this awkward, power-broker, bull-in-a-China-shop role the US has been playing all these decades. Obviously, what the US is doing now ain’t working….

  175. JT

    I for one appreciate Wayne’s willingness to engage his critics here. I don’t expect him to respond to every comment, but at least he’s been posting.

    Wayne: “The results are wonderful. I have over 3000 volunteers for any future political run i choose to undertake. About 8000 Facebook & Twitter fans. And 50,000 fans signed up to receive my newsletter.”

    That’s great for you. That’s not great for the LP though. Great for the LP would be far more donors, members, candidates, officeholders. So if all of your vast exposure has been helping the LP a lot, as you say, where are they?

    You definitely get in the media a great deal–but you aren’t the Libertarian Party. There’s a big difference. And one-man shows don’t have a good political history either.

  176. Thomas L. Knapp

    Wayne,

    You write:

    “I think perhaps this site is filled with people living in denial. Your favorite candidates Ron Paul and Gary Johnson both sound just like Wayne Root.”

    I don’t have “favorite candidates” any more, but if I did you’d be ahead of either of the Pauls, or of Gary Johnson, for my vote (all three are Republicans, and I’d have my own arms chainsawed off before I’d vote Republican).

    That’s not saying much, of course, but it’s true as far as it goes.

  177. Robert Milnes

    @207, LOL.
    That’s kind of like saying one slug is ahead of another.
    & how are you going to gouge your eyes out before voting for me with your arms chain-sawed off?

  178. wolfefan

    Hi –

    Thanks, Wayne, for participating in the discussion. I appreciate seeing and learning from the back and forth. I wondered what you thought of Netanyahu’s statement re: borders from a few months ago – it sounds a lot like what you criticize Obama for “demanding.” Andrew Sullivan has the quote and a link to the original:

    http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/05/a-joint-statement-from-clinton-and-netanyahu.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+andrewsullivan%2FrApM+%28The+Daily+Dish%29

  179. Wayne Root

    Netanyahu just gave speech of a lifetime in front of U.S. Congress.

    He said in front of the entire Congress, media and world that Israel is ready to make major concessions, including giving up some settlements…but will NEVER go back to 1967 lines. Never. Thats a pretty clear message.

    He explained very clearly why Israel could not go back to 1967 lines. He could not defend his country with those borders. Every single home in Israel would be in the line of fire.

    And he explained that in the end it isn’t up to Obama or U.S., or U.N., it is a negotiation between Israel and the Palestinians. I agree 100%.

    And there can only be a Palestinian state if Palestinians agree to the right to exist for a Jewish state.

    Palestinians have to want freedom more than they want to hate Jews.

    Fantastic speech- met by perhaps 30 standing ovations from both sides of aisle.

    That speech is the reason it the LP will never gain the votes of mainstream voters until it recognizes the love and affinity the American people have for Israel.

    Netanyahu’s speech made one of the great points of all time…

    “300 million Muslims in the Middle East…and only 1/2 of 1% enjoy freedom…and every one of them lives in Israel.”

    Standing ovation by every single Congressperson.

    There is so much more to politics than many Libertarians understand. It is 30% issues and 70% emotion. It always will be. Libertarians must learn to understand the emotions, heart and soul of the American people and find ways to craft our message (on issues) to attain popular appeal, votes and win elections.

    I’m doing just that.

    Best,
    Wayne

  180. JT

    Wayne: “I think perhaps this site is filled with people living in denial. Your favorite candidates Ron Paul and Gary Johnson both sound just like Wayne Root.”

    Well, Ron Paul for one does talk a lot about the nature of blowback and how U.S. government actions in the Middle East are strengthening terrorist groups,. The CIA says the same thing. Paul also says it could be in Israel’s own long-term interest to go back to its 1967 borders. None of that sounds “just like Wayne Root” to me?

  181. wolfefan

    Hi Wayne –

    Thanks for your prompt response. I will have to take a look at the transcript. Did Netanyahu explain why his position has changed in the last few months on the 1967 stuff?

  182. John Jay Myers

    Wayne loves to group people into a unit and then judge them as a whole. For instance some on here will judge Wayne but don’t like Ron Paul and others love Ron Paul, and still judge Wayne.

    But Wayne uses comments made by people who didn’t talk about Paul as to why other people on this board are hypocrites.

    I love Ron Paul, but would never vote in the Republican primaries. However if Republicans had the common sense to nominate someone like him it would be on like Donkey Kong in the general election.

    But Gary Johnson was only mentioned once in this thread that I remember, and that was because Johnson makes fun of people who say that this nation is under attack from “radical islam” (people like Wayne).

    Wayne not understanding why these people hate us, and that it is not based on religion is a huge misfire.
    To me, if people in the Libertarian Party felt like Wayne does, then it would be time for another 3rd Party, one that stood up against imperialism, another word Ron Paul uses that you wont hear in Waynes vocabulary.

    Let me put it simply, Wayne if the wars were free, they cost nothing, would they be okay?
    If not… why?

    Let’s get specific…. and on record.

  183. Robert Capozzi

    wr, I seen no evidence that LPers don’t “recognize” the love and affinity a lot of Americans have for Israel. A vocal minority in the LP may not, and may buy a Palestinian worldview. You may also see how the special circumstances of the state of Israel challenges an absolutist, strict non-interventionist stance.

    If you’re suggesting that Congress is a good proxy for the American people’s sentiments, I can’t say I agree. My guess is that for most, the issue of Israel is not real high on the priority list. For some, it’s VERY high. I suspect most want to see Israel survive and thrive, like England or Ireland.

    As for 30% issues/70% emotion, I’d suggest your ratio is way too low. Emotion creates issues at the deepest level. Positions we take are mostly about what we’re afraid of. The welfare state is there because people are afraid of poverty, or guilty about it. The warfare state is there because of the flavor of the era “menace” — once Red, now Islamic extremism.

    Most of the time, these emotional drivers are suppressed and public square discussions appear to be sober and rational. I would contend that actually this is an elaborate smokescreen.

    What I think you might be saying is that the Rs and Ds are schooled in MANIPULATING emotions, and there I’d agree. Ls often bristle at this idea, for a lot of reasons, but mostly because we as a group have convinced ourselves that OUR ideas are pure rationality. My take is that this is textbook denial. Humans are at root emotional beings.

    There is an alternative to mimicking the Rs and Ds in the fear manipulation game. At the core of the desire for liberty is the greatest antidote for fear, which is peace (some might say love). Rather than play the R/D game, why not offer an uplifting message of peace in human relations?

  184. David Colborne

    Hey Wayne – glad to see you’re continuing to post here.

    Personally, I’m a big fan of incrementalism. Would I complain if we ended all foreign aid tomorrow? No. Would I complain if we eliminated all social programs tomorrow? No. Would I complain if we immediately closed all overseas military bases and reduced the size of our domestic military to that which is absolutely necessary to protect our borders? No. Would I complain if, after paying off our debt in its entirety, we lowered taxes (if not outright eliminated them) to the lowest level required to maintain a small, sensible military and a basic federal government? Absolutely not.

    Is any of this happening tomorrow? No. To be fair, we didn’t get our burgeoning military, our overseas bases, copious foreign aid recipients, Social Security, Medicare, FHA, agricultural subsidies, and all the rest of our government overnight, either.

    Consequently, though I enjoy advocating for immediate solutions, I’m willing to accept incremental solutions, as well as those that wish to publicly push an incremental agenda. As a result, when I’m not yelling, screaming, and doubling my cell phone bill after someone votes to disaffiliate my region (I wish I was kidding about that last point), I’m generally a big fan of the approach Wayne is taking. As much fun as theory is, and as much fun as it is discussing what should be, the simple truth is we’re not going to get any closer to the political reality we wish to enjoy until we learn to work within the political reality that currently is. In other words, if you want libertarian ideas to take hold, you need a majority of the people to agree that libertarian ideas need to take hold.

    There are two ways to accomplish that:
    1. Take a philosophically sound position, refine it, and advocate it.
    2. Cherry-pick pieces of the philosophically sound position and sell them to those that are on the fence.

    Approach #1 is what I call “engineering”, while approach #2 is what I call “sales”. Sales and engineering don’t always get along so well – sales believes engineering is too nerdy and too focused on pushing features that nobody wants, and engineering doesn’t like sales because they believe they’re misrepresenting engineering’s product and frequently not pushing the brilliant parts that engineering is proud of. There’s some truth to both accusations, but real success comes from finding a balance between the two teams and getting them to work together. Truth is, both sides are working at the problem from different directions. Engineering is providing the brains, while sales is providing the emotional connection that entices customers to accept the call to action to adopt the product. Personally, I think Wayne sees himself as “sales” and most of the people here at IPR view themselves as “engineers”.

    Nothing wrong with that.

    The issue, of course, is it’s important for sales to sell the existing product with integrity, and it’s important for engineering to be responsive to the needs of the customers, as communicated by sales (i.e. the people that actually talk to the customers) while ensuring the integrity of the product. Obviously, if we were selling an office productivity suite and sales came in and said, “Hey, our customers are demanding a World of Warcraft client with it,” engineering needs to be strong enough to state, “No, that’s incompatible with the goals of an office productivity suite.” At the same time, if sales comes in and says, “Hey, our customers would like a drawing program added to make brochures”, engineering needs to be answer with something other than, “People don’t need to draw to be productive.” Simultaneously, if sales is asked if the product has a drawing program by a customer, they shouldn’t say, “Oh, it’s on the way” without clearing it with engineering first.

    How does this tie into the conversation here? Well, some people in this thread need to accept that, for whatever reason (corporate propaganda, religious bias, “brown people”, facts), an anti-Israel stance just doesn’t sell in America. Furthermore, openly supporting the Palestinian cause is no more Libertarian than supporting the Israeli cause. Repeat after me:

    IT’S NONE OF OUR BUSINESS. PERIOD!

    Seriously, do any of us live in Israel? Do any of us live in Palestine? No? Do any of us possess all of the facts? No – I don’t care how much of Haaretz or Antiwar.com or any other site you read, you don’t live there. It’s as improper for us to pretend our opinions matter or are wholly accurate on the subject of “who has moral superiority in this conflict” as it would be for me to pretend that my opinion in Reno should have any weight on a New York City zoning decision (say, the building of an Islamic-themed community center near Midtown), even if I read the New York Times and the New York Daily Post religiously, or even if I had family in Queens. This doesn’t mean I can’t have an opinion, of course; it just means I should be honest with myself and accept that my opinion is going to be based on an incomplete understanding of the facts because I’m not living, eating, drinking, and breathing New York City zoning regulations. It just isn’t part of my daily life.

    That said, Wayne, you’ve developed the rather nasty habit of sugarcoating the libertarian message so much that there’s hardly any message left. When I order brussels sprouts with Hollandaise sauce, I don’t expect a steaming plate of Hollandaise sauce with bits of brussels sprouts mixed in. I expect at least one honest-to-God whole brussels sprout to chew on. When I read an essay from a libertarian on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I don’t expect to see…

    On Thursday, Obama left no doubt that he sides with and wants to redistribute money from American taxpayers to Palestinians and radical Muslims like Hamas that target Israeli women and children…

    I can, however, live with…

    On Thursday, Obama left no doubt that he sides with and wants to redistribute money from American taxpayers to radical Muslims like Hamas that target Israeli women and children…

    Honestly, redacting those two words would’ve saved so much time and effort here. It would’ve saved you from hopping into the comment thread, it would’ve eliminated 75% of the objections here, and it would have gone a long way toward reducing the credibility of those that claim this was a racist screed loosely coupled to libertarian philosophy. The best part is it would’ve remained just as popular with your “customers” – your friends on Facebook, your Twitter followers, your web site RSS subscribers, NewsMax.com, and all the rest – and it wouldn’t have completely infuriated the “engineers” in the LP. Sure, you’re not going to please some of them no matter what you do, but you would’ve at least maintained some plausible deniability.

    Adopting the position that the US shouldn’t be aiding and assisting Hamas (or the PLO, for that matter) is a position strongly consistent with Libertarian philosophy. Adopting the position that Palestinians encourage their own children to become suicide bombers, hand out candy in celebration for the murder of an innocent Jewish baby, force women to endure public lashings for disobeying a husband, execute women for “allowing themselves” to be gang-raped, pour acid on the face of little girls who dare to want an education, throw gay men off the roofs of buildings, marry off their 5-year-old daughters to pay the bills, or imprison all women for life behind dark veils in 120 degree heat, to keep them from being seen by other men, however, is not. It’s that one extra dollop of Hollandaise sauce that turned what was a solid dish of vegetables into a soupy, disgusting mess.

    Like I said, Wayne, though I haven’t been particularly thrilled about some of your actions as of late, I think you’re on the right track with what you’re trying to do. I think we desperately need to sell the libertarian message. We need to sell the theory, show how it will improve the lives of all Americans, and show how it already meets the needs and desires of those around us, even those that don’t know they need it. We need to create demand for the Libertarian Party and its message. We can’t do that if we don’t at least meet the people halfway.

    However, please, I’m begging you – if you’re going to sell libertarianism, sell our product with integrity. Otherwise we’re going to have a lot of unhappy political customers on our hands (voters, in other words) when we start putting some of our engineering to practice.

  185. See Lee Wrights Debate!

    Wayne:

    Netanyahu said he will never go back to the 1967 lines.

    OK, there will be no peace agreement. We should stop wasting our money trying to talk the two sides into making peace with each other.

    We should tell the people refusing to make peace that eventually they will get into another serious war, with the precedents of 1956, 1967, and 1972 giving 2-1 odds that it will be another Israeli War of aggression, except this time the outcome will be that truly large numbers of people will die, following which you will be able to visit Jerusalem, the world’s largest circular glass-lined lake. Bring your lead-lined underwear. This is a bad outcome, but it is the one toward which Mr. Netanyahu and his colleagues are steadfastly marching. His best chance for escape is that first Tunisia and Egypt — 2011 style — will come to all of greater Palestine.

    We should, however, recognize Arab Palestine as a country, entitled to control its own borders for purposes of trade. There is no better solution to the Palestinian problem than a thriving free economy.And we should recognize the right of the Palestinian people to elect their own government in moderately honest elections, which they did in 2006. That was the Hamas Party that won, in case you have forgotten.

    When you are a nuclear power, as the Isrealis are, the claim that some set of borders are indefensible is lying rose fertilizer.

  186. See Lee Wrights Debate!

    “…Netanyahu’s speech made one of the great points of all time…

    “300 million Muslims in the Middle East…and only 1/2 of 1% enjoy freedom…and every one of them lives in Israel.”…”

    More lying rose fertilizer.

    Let’s see: Turkey. Lebanon. I seem to recall that we did things to the Iraqi people, and having killing most of a million of them, the rest are more-or-less free in the sense they had relatively free elections this time though not last time, and have some facsimile of freedom of the press.

    And the claim that the Islamites of Israel proper are free is somewhat dubious. For example, consider the and-Islamites ethnic cleaning campaigns in and near Jerusalem. While they may be allowed to elect representatives in the Parliament, they are de facto — it’s an apartheid process — excluded from participation in government.

  187. Robert Capozzi

    218 see: When you are a nuclear power, as the Isrealis are, the claim that some set of borders are indefensible is lying rose fertilizer.

    me: Using nukes to defend a border doesn’t make intuitive sense to me. Help us understand your meaning here.

  188. George Phillies

    Wayne: “I think perhaps this site is filled with people living in denial. Your favorite candidates Ron Paul and Gary Johnson both sound just like Wayne Root.”

    Wayne, Guantanamo Gulag is Great Gary Johnson is very definitely not an acceptable candidate so far as I am concerned.

    As I have said previously, so far as I am concerned Ron Paul is not at all a libertarian. He’s a homophobe (see his stand on gay marriage), a racist (he supports the racist States’ Rights doctrine and gave us his newsletters), an antiabortionist who would leave our daughters to die in back alleys and on pool tables, and a Christian Dominionist.

    I shall, however, also tell you that telling you that you are wrong about something does not mean that I dislike you personally.

  189. Thomas L. Knapp

    Wayne,

    You write:

    “He explained very clearly why Israel could not go back to 1967 lines. He could not defend his country with those borders.”

    That seems like a pretty strange argument.

    In 1967, Israel not only defended those borders, but conquered out past them.

    That was before Israel had a nuclear arsenal.

    That was when it had about half as many TOTAL operational combat aircraft as it has fighters ALONE now (and those fighters are modern F-16s, not old Dassault Mysteres).

    That was when it had fewer troops and less advanced ground weapons systems, and when it had virtually no missile defense to speak of (it now has the Patriot batteries and other missile defenses, and is supposed to be covered under the developing US ABM umbrella).

    Oh, it was also back when Iraq’s armed forces hadn’t been destroyed by the US, back when Iran hadn’t lost more than a million troops in an exhausting war with Saddam, back when Egypt was not yet a treatied ally, and back before Syria got busy falling apart into the next Lebanon.

    So why are the 1967 borders suddenly less defensible now than they were in 1967?

    “And he explained that in the end it isn’t up to Obama or U.S., or U.N., it is a negotiation between Israel and the Palestinians. I agree 100%.”

    So do I.

    “And there can only be a Palestinian state if Palestinians agree to the right to exist for a Jewish state.”

    That’s not up to Netanyahu — it’s up to the “Palestinians” (I object to that term — the Israeli Jews are just as much “Palestinians” as the region’s Arabs are).

    And it’s certainly not up to Barack Obama or any of his five predecessors, all of whom had and stated exactly the same policy on the 1967 borders that you’ve been having a conniption about.

  190. Wayne Root

    The point here is not that Libertarians should change views for polls, but rather review, study and understand polls, stress issues where LP is in agreement with large majority of American people, and whenever possible tailor messages with that understanding.

    And on issues where there is disagreement, also tailor the message in a way that is moderate, pragmatic, common sense and reasonable…and communicate as if you understand the differences and explain them to American people in a way that appeals to them.

    That is always my goal. But this isn’t just for politics. It’s the same thing a smart person does in all human relationships.

    Nelson Mandela did it in prison for 30 years…he found things in common with his jailers…he learned about the families and lives of his prison guards and asked about them daily…he learned the language of his jailers to show them respect…he learned everything about their favorite sport- Rugby- so he could talk to them about it.

    It took 30 years but he won them over. The white guards liked and respected Mandela. And he won his release- against all odds.

    If he had remained angry, bitter, mean spirited, vindictive towards his rulers…he would never have succeeded.

    Result…he earned not just his freedom, but became leader of the nation and ended apartheid.

    Nelson Mandela is one of my heroes. Every Libertarian should study his remarkable life. From 30 years in prison for murder to leader of a nation, and one of the great legends of world history. Remarkable.

    He was known as a communist, yet as leader of South Africa he was a friend to business owners and expanded capitalism.

    The Lp will only succeed once we study, educate and emulate the mainstream voters we need to win elections.

    Just like Mandela…not for selfish or negative or greedy reasons…but because to study them, understand them, like them, and make them like us, will lead to a better world for all of us.

  191. Steven Wilson

    Common ground is found only in politics. The two religions will always conflict one another. Politics must be replaced with humanity.

    America established Israel and treats it like a state. A state that does not obey the Republic that built it. Any state that would leave the republic, would do so for any number of reasons, but most assuredly the excuse for the move would begin with force. The republic is forcing that state to do something it doesn’t agree with.

    America has no place in telling others how to be anything, let alone telling someone how to be a human.

    We ask the two groups to be civil, but this is something we ourselves cannot do.

    The student ignores the teacher, when the teacher proves to be a __________.

  192. John Jay Myers

    George, I am getting tired of you bad mouthing Ron Paul over and over again, when obviously the guy is libertarian.

    Also, you can be a racist and still be libertarian, if you don’t believe it’s governments job to force you to be or not be racist.

    You can be against gays getting married, as long as you don’t believe it is the governments job to tell you whether you should or shouldn’t.

    Being a racist or a homo-phobe in my opinion makes you a douche… but doesn’t disqualify you as a libertarian, sorry but we are not part of the mind police yet.

    It’s just tiresome George, you should read “liberty defined” and see if you still feel the same way.

    And seriously let the “racist news letter” thing die, because it has been debunked so many times, you can’t even imagine Ron Paul ever saying anything like that, and we know who did.

  193. Robert Capozzi

    wr, this is no surprise at all. It’s kind of uninteresting to me, only because it tells us nothing about the magnitude of support, and what it is that majorities think they are supporting.

    My only takeaway from this data is that Ls who express hostility toward Israel and support for Palestinians are unlikely to curry favor with voters. Since we’ve had candidates support the right to private nukes and NAMBLA, I would not be surprised that we have candidates fitting this description.

    The better question is how can a L position our views as pro Israel, pro Palestinian, and pro peace? I’d say that’s reasonably easy, but it requires guts and creativity. Pandering is also easy, but I’d say it reflects a kind of cowardice.

    Can we be different without being eccentric and oppositional? I’d say yes.

  194. Michael H. Wilson

    It is nice that so many people support Israel, but as I said earlier that nation is based on a religious teaching and supporting it violate the separation of church and state.

  195. Steven Wilson

    If Ron Paul or Gary Johnson can get the nomination, and they win the election, we will get the Minarchist model of 1789.

    The litmus test of the LP is such garbage. You must believe in …

    You must promote Individualism, period. And if you can’t figure out what individualism means, then stay home.

    Ron Paul trusts people, not government. This is important to note.

    If the LP at the national level cannot promote individualism, then shut the doors.

    NOTA in 2012

    Lunch is over

  196. Robert Capozzi

    231 mhw, novel take. First, I’m sure you know that the separation of church and state isn’t in the Constitution. Freedom of religion could be viewed as somewhat in the separation direction, but not quite. Are you suggesting the 1A somehow doesn’t allow treaties to be written with theocracies? If so, that’s a stretch.

  197. JT

    JJM at post 229: George has demonstrated many times that he doesn’t understand that libertarianism is only a political perspective or ideology. It isn’t a comprehensive philosophical worldview that deals with personal opinions about homosexuality, evolution, racism, religion, etc. So anyone with different opinions than him on such issues is ipso facto not a libertarian.

  198. David Colborne

    @229: If you replace all references of Ron Paul with Wayne Root in your response to George, the resulting statement is… illuminating.

    Strategically, at least as far as his newsletters and general approach to libertarianism goes, I think Wayne’s got the right idea. Namely, find out what other people have in common with libertarians and focus on the aspects of libertarian philosophy that are similar to existing beliefs of the electorate. This is the same strategy used by salespeople and Latter-Day Saint missionaries around the world to spectacular effect.

    What, you think LDS missionaries start with, “We believe in Joseph Smith and funny underwear – are you with us or are you an uneducated heathen idiot?” I wonder how many converts they’d find if they did that…

    I do think, however, that there’s a certain amount of danger in getting pigeonholed with a particular segment of the political community. There’s already some blow back against Tea Partiers due to the media focusing on the more interesting members of the movement (i.e. the “crazies”), as well as people rejecting some of the more dogmatic candidates that the Tea Party movement has produced, like Sharron Angle. Consequently, though I agree that there’s some ripe ground to work in that movement, we need to be careful to remain somewhat above the fray so that, if public opinion shifts, we have room to pivot and credibly appeal to other groups.

    In truth, the Tea Party is a large subset of the Republican Party, which, in turn, is a large subset (sometimes a majority) of the voting electorate at large. It might even be the largest subset of all subsets. However, if we’re going to do anything beyond splitting the GOP in half, we’re going to need enough rhetorical room to maneuver to appeal to key segments of the Democratic Party, and “Obama is a socialist that supports baby killing Palestinians” is, at least to me, counterproductive to those aims. I also think it’s unnecessary – maybe I’m crazy, but I doubt anyone on NewsMax.com or FoxNews is going to think less of anyone who just speaks out clearly and explicitly against American support of Hamas.

  199. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    Wayne, I also appreciate you coming here to try to explain your article, which obviously upset quite a few people besides me. For the record, though, I’d like to state that my problem with this article isn’t about Israel, although, like almost all Libertarians, I understand that their business is not mine; my problem was the paragraph in which you describe Muslims in a manner which is very racist. Your words make you look like a bigot and, since you’ve appointed yourself as the Liberarians’ spokesman, that make our party look like we’re bigots. Please – stop – this – right – now. I will not tolerate anyone destroying the Libertarian brand like that.

  200. Wayne Root

    Jill,

    I’m on the radio right now talking about Israel- 4th interview of the day.

    Perhaps LPers with your views should do the same.

    And I’m in your backyeard too- Northern Cal.

    Wayne

  201. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    See, does everyone notice Wayne still doesn’t answer specific questions, or speak about the things that make him uncomfortable? Case in point: he turned this thread into a discussion of Israel, and barely addressed the accusations of racism which several of us brought up. Also, at least two of us have asked why the LP’s membership or donation numbers haven’t increased, if he’s doing such great things for the Libertarians. And, I continue to wonder if he’ll just ignore uncomfortable questions if he decides to run to be our presidential candidate, and, by some miracle, wins that honor.

  202. Tom Blanton

    I’d like to hear what the difference is between what Bush said about the 1967 borders in 2004 and what Obama has said.

    Maybe the Fantastic Mr. Root can explain the difference. If he can’t, then maybe he can explain his phony outrage over nothing.

    Whats the difference here?

    “In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli population centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion,” President Bush wrote to former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in April of 2004. “It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities.”

    Now, the language of Bush’s comment may be flipped a little, in the sense that he emphasizes that the borders will be different from the 1949-67 borders rather than emphasizing that those should be the starting point, but the overall sense is the same. The real contours of the borders will be determined between the Israelis and Palestinians with “mutually agreed changes” (in Bush’s formulation) or “mutually agreed land swaps” (in Obama’s)

    See #24 for link to source (Christian Science Monitor – not the Muslim Science Monitor)

  203. Robert Milnes

    229, JJm, I’m getting tired of badmouthing Ron Paul & George bad mouthing me.
    Doesn’t the transitive property of bad mouthing/good mouthing apply somewhere here?
    I bad mouth Ron Paul.
    I good mouth George.
    I good mouth Tom.
    George & Tom bad mouth Ron Paul.
    George & Tom bad mouth me.
    I don’t get it.

  204. Michael H. Wilson

    Robert somewhere along the line Marc Montoni has said this should not be about Israel, but that all foreign aid is wrong. I agree. We should not be focusing on Israel, however, I will continue to believe that the government is violating the first amendment when it support Israel. You may think otherwise, but I will disagree.

  205. Robert Milnes

    & JJM faulty logic.
    One can be a libertarian and a racist & homophobe, if one doesn’t believe the government can force you to believe otherwise.
    But, when the federal government doesn’t enforce privacy-e.g. abortion, state government move in the vacuum to enforce strict abortion laws. etc.
    So if one were to go further, state government shouldn’e enforce, then that becomes anarchism.
    I’ve never met an anarchist that was a racist or homophobe or mysogynist.
    Problem solved.

  206. Robert Milnes

    Also George, I’ve agreed with you about global warming. While not on meds. & this seems to be a somewhat controversial if not unpopular position among the libertarian crowd.
    What effect can I expect on my position on global warming should I try, say Thorazine, or Haldol or maybe Prozac or Cymbalta?

  207. Wayne's Bleached Hair

    Wayne: “The results are wonderful. I have over 3000 volunteers for any future political run i choose to undertake. About 8000 Facebook & Twitter fans. And 50,000 fans signed up to receive my newsletter.”

    3000 volunteers wanting to get a date with Dakota, 8000 Facebook fans (big deal, Ron Paul and Ron Paul 2012 have 173000 and 367000, respectively, and AntiWar.com has over 10K–please donate today!), and you found 50K kids who want coloring books.

    I look down the head I sit on and gotta tell the Wayne’s False Teeth, Please, SHUT HIS DAMN MOUTH because he’s making us ALL look bad.

    That is, once Wayne answers Ms. Pyeatt’s questions about where are the vast numbers of donors and members to the LP he’s promised repeatedly for so long…

  208. NewFederalist

    “…should I try, say Thorazine, or Haldol or maybe Prozac or Cymbalta?”

    If they work for you take whichever makes you feel better.

  209. Alan Pyeatt

    WAR @ 153: “Moderation and trying to appeal to others with honey instead of vinegar is an important and valuable asset when trying to win elections. ”

    Me: You might appreciate this one, Wayne: “I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue.”

    Also, using “honey instead of vinegar” might be good advice when trying to win nominations, too.

  210. Alan Pyeatt

    WAR @ 210: “And there can only be a Palestinian state if Palestinians agree to the right to exist for a Jewish state.

    Palestinians have to want freedom more than they want to hate Jews.”

    Me: Wayne, how do you know most Palestinians DON’T “want freedom more than they want to hate Jews?” Have you ever known any Palestinians? I have, and let me tell you, some of them were FAR more willing to make concessions for peace than I would have been (and some were not). Have you ever known any Palestinian JEWS? I have, and in Palestine, they were treated just like the Muslim Palestinians (or at least, that’s what they told me).

    In 1988, I was fortunate enough to ride to the Pomona, CA gun show with Dr. Ron Paul and the late John Vernon, a longtime activist and candidate here in California. The liberal “L.A. Weekly” had run an article on the conflict in Palestine, and I mentioned that the PLO probably should go ahead and recognize Israel’s right to exist, and go from there. John reminded me that NO state has any right to exist except what its own citizens give it. So, if any group of Palestinians (except those living within Israel) acknowledged any such right to exist, THAT would be “meddling” in Israel’s affairs! In other words, it’s up to the Israelis – not the Palestinians, not Americans, NOBODY else – to determine whether Israel has any right to exist. So, the other obvious question – that is, whether Israel has ever acknowledged a Palestinian state’s right to exist – becomes moot.

    What the Palestinians DO have, however, is the inherent right to life, liberty, and property. And in recognition of that, I say, God bless Rachel Corrie, no matter how many American sheeple have never heard of her, thanks to American news media.

  211. Bill Wood

    Maybe this isn’t a great thread to put this in, but here goes.
    The only single person that I can think of that actually grew the Libertarian Party by a measurable amount would be Harry Browne, and I understand there was some “funny” business behind the numbers, example anyone who donated to Harry’s Campaign was listed as a Member of the Party. Doesn’t matter if mini archist, maxi archist etc the LP still is to small to be a block of voters that the media or the major parties really worries about. We have seen in the last ten years the word libertarian go from a bad image to an okay image, but the LP is still mostly unnoticed. We see very libertarian leaning people on tv and radio, talk the libertarian message on a daily basis, but they never reference the LP. Why? I think we need to focus on why we can’t get anywhere as far as new members, I know our Candidates have been slowly getting higher vote totals over the years, but Party Membership remains very low. I think we need to work on the whys and come up with a solution to turn the Party around, apparently what we have tried, as a Political Party for over thirty years isn’t working.
    I have been talking with former LP members trying to come up with the reasons they left, very interesting results, cliff hanger time.
    One of the things that I feel we need, and I could be wrong, is Campaign training. Steve Dasbach ran a great meeting years ago and this is one of the weak spots we have as a political party. We need people to spend time and learn how to manage campaigns, how to handle the filing, advertising, money etc. or a campaign rich enough to hire a professional.
    What do you think are the reasons on why we remain small and more important what do you thisnk we can do to turn it around?

  212. Thomas L. Knapp

    “America established Israel”

    In some alternate reality, perhaps. In the real world, the people of Israel established it themselves — over the course of half a century of blood, sweat, tears, accompanied by open willingness to live in peace with their Arab neighbors, only to have to defend themselves against five invading Arab armies once they formalized themselves as a nation.

    The US should stay out of it no matter what, but any proposal that we re-write history to seize credit for the founding of Israel from those who fought and died establishing it should be rejected out of hand.

    And no, MHW, it was not founded on the basis of religion, although it was founded on the basis of ethnic identity, which can be equally problematic.

  213. Tom Blanton

    Alan, personally I think Reason and CATO are mixed bags – some good stuff, some bad stuff, and some stuff that just isn’t of interest to me. There is no question there are some fine writers at Reason. I used to subscribe to their magazine before there was an internet.

    The common denominator with CATO/Reason is Koch money.

    Some view the Koch boys as heroes. I am just naturally suspicious of rent-seekers who are among the largest donors to the GOP in history. Unlike many “libertarians”, I don’t consider Republicans to be friends of liberty. It is not so apparent to me what the Koch agenda is.

    I’m still washing the stench from my hands for voting for a Koch in 1980.

    Anyway, the Koch/CATO/Reason vibe surrounds Capozzi. That’s why I guessed (correctly) that he consumes their material.

  214. LibertarianGirl

    BW_The only single person that I can think of that actually grew the Libertarian Party by a measurable amount would be Harry Browne,

    me_ im tired of the icon worship or high profile LPers getting credit. the only reason the LP has stayed afloat and still remans at all is us unpaid , dedicated , exausted , ridiculed , VOLUNTEER ACTIVISTS.

    bw_I think we need to focus on why we can’t get anywhere as far as new members,

    me_ its not getting new members , its keeping them . most people hit the door running when they witness infighting and ridiculous posturing. they dont have time for it , ecsp. when they likely showed up hoping to join something meaningful and poised to change the world.

    also retarded philisophical purging , we will never add people by subtracting them.

    3rdly Libs are super smart and unwilling to maybe soften up their superior intelligence for the ends of getting a return visitor. its far more likely a newcomer will be told just how wrong they are and wont be heard.

    LIBERTARIANS ARE NOTORIOUS BAD LISTENERS, IN FACT THEY DONT DO IT , INSTEAD THEY ARE PLANNING A REBUTTAL AS YOUR LIPS ARE STILL MOVING.

    the newcomer is the most important person there. instead of boot camp debating , try asking about family and kids , get to know them , remember these thinngs next time you see them , ask for ideas and input even if youll never use it , it makes people feel valued and for gods sake, when you know someone is wrong , but you want them to come back ,these 4 words have never failed me “you might be right”

  215. David Colborne

    Bah. Real libertarians wouldn’t tolerate mooching, freeloading familial units, nor would they tolerate idle chatter about such people.

    (That was a joke. Laugh, damn it.)

    Seriously, LG, you’re spot on. For a group of people that talk about decentralized action all the time, we gravitate toward leader worship with the best of them, whether it’s Rand, Rothbard, Von Mises, Hayes, Browne, or even David Nolan. I’m sure they’d all be flattered by the attention, but I think they’d rather everyone focus on their own actions than trying to emulate the great. It probably says something both alarming and damning about human nature.

  216. LibertarianGirl

    “On Thursday, Obama left no doubt that he sides with and wants to redistribute money from American taxpayers to Palestinians and radical Muslims like Hamas that target Israeli women and children…that encourage their own children to become suicide bombers…that hand out candy in celebration for the murder of an innocent Jewish baby…that force women to endure public lashings for disobeying a husband…that execute women for “allowing themselves” to be gang-raped…that pour acid on the face of little girls who dare to want an education…who throw gay men off the roofs of buildings…who marry off their 5-year-old daughters to pay the bills…who imprison all women for life behind dark veils in 120 degree heat, to keep them from being seen by other men.”

    me ,

    1.Redistribute wealth to Palestines, AND ISRAEL and banks and big corps etc

    2. kills innocent women and children — US , Israel , Hamas , Al quaida and every other country , peoples and religion since the beginning of time

    3. suicide bombing children – we encourage our children to kill too , 18 is a baby, and sending our kids to die in an unjust war is the same thing . plus i think its mostly myth , it rides on the premise that somehow Muslims love their children less. I call bullshit.

    3. candy for dead babies? well i know Americans would never celebrate an innocents death…oh wait…this sounds like more babies left to die on hospital floors in Kuwait , sensationalism

    4. punishing women for getting raped , learning , etc– he’s got a point , its a good thing women have always enjoyed equality and freedom here and never had to say the word , OBEY in a marriage ceremony……hint hint , killing their children wont help Muslim women , we should fight that war with education and culture.

    5- homophobia , child molesters , abuse –those things exist everywhere and its not ok when anyone does it. we need not look across oceans to find evil doers and inhumanity , its right here and when we’ve dealt with our own then we can point fingers.

    its like this , ISRAEL , LIKE THE U.S , LIKE MOST EVERY IF NOT ALL GOVERNMENTS WANTING TO MAINTAIN CONTROL ARE FUCKING ASSHOLES…this does not make me anti-semetic it makes me the little boy saying the emperor has no clothes.

    i dont give a fuck what ghost story you belive in , what book you follow , what color you are , where you live or whether its ‘a bad idea’ to say so , but Israel , THE GOVERNMENT , needs to learn to be a better neighbor. they arent always right , they do evil things too , like all governments and the only difference between soldier- patriot-terrorist is semantics.

  217. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    Here’s an answer Wayne posted to me on another thread here on IPR:

    “This is such politically correct nonsence…and so offensive.

    You know what the definition of a racist is?

    Anyone that’s winning an argument with a leftist.

    The term is such nonsense that no one cares anymore. The word has been neutered. Leftists have used it so much, it is meaningless. “The sky is always falling.”

    Incidentely, the reason polls show Americans support Israel so strongly…in a landslide…and more than ever…is because of precisely the reasons I listed.

    Anyone with common sense can see that radical Muslims, led by Hamas and Hezbollah, are savage and commit heinous acts that no decent society would tolerate.

    Radical Islam purposely targets civilians for maximum effect…and uses their own civilians as human shields.

    Radical Islam treats women like slaves.

    No worse. Slaves don’t have to wear hot veils in 120 degree heat. Slaves are sometimes allowed to drive cars to carry supplies. But women in many Muslim countries are banned from driving.

    Any clear thinking person can see why Israel is our friend and ally and loved by most Americans.

    In Israel, no woman is banned from driving…no little girl is banned from education…no Israeli purposely targets civilians.

    Only Israel’s army…in all the world…TELEPHONES every apartment in a building they are about to shell to make sure every innocent civilian gets out.

    There is no comparison.

    The definition of racism is murdering women and children and elderly because they are Jewish.

    Naming streets and town squares after suicide bombers is racism.

    Telling the truth about our society, values, and way of life versus radical Islam is not racism. It is simply the truth.

    But when you are losing the argument badly, you have no choice but to scream “racism.”

    What a terrible thing to do.”

  218. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    By the way, he has yet to explain why his activism hasn’t led to increased members and donations to the LP.

  219. Ban Islam

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5B-vR3icyE

    Have you seen the news today? Another terrorist attack. A man walked in the railwaystation with a bomb strapped on his back. Blew himself up for the love of his god and left many white people dead. Muslim fundamentalists, what goes on in their heads?

    The railway station in Madrid and London’s Underground: An example of the way they want to bring our culture down. They took their holy war to european soil, Islam should be banned because it’s OUR land getting spoiled.

    Number one threat nowadays, a religion so vile and dumb. We won’t yield for it’s twisted ways or for the scumbags that it’s coming from… Rock against Islam!

    I get so sick of all those Mosques, those silly hats they wear, can’t stand their stupid monkey language, I hate their women’s facial hair. They’ve got a different culture, different morals and other thoughts. I don’t approve of their beliefs and I spit on their god.

    Number one threat nowadays, a religion so vile and dumb. We won’t yield to its twisted ways or for the scumbags that it’s coming from… Rock against Islam!

    Another thing I can’t understand, another thing that really bothers me: Their prophet’s name is Mohammed and he’s a pedophile, you see. He married a girl just 9 years old at the age of fifty four and this is the man that muslims hail, they’re sick and that is sure.

    Number one threat nowadays, a religion so vile and dumb. We won’t yield to its twisted ways or for the scumbags that it’s coming from…

    Number one threat nowadays, a religion so vile and dumb. We won’t yield to its twisted ways or for the scumbags that it’s coming from… Rock against Islam!

    Rock against Islam! Rock against Islam! Rock against Islam! Rock against Islam!

  220. Thomas L. Knapp

    I’m starting to wish I had seen Netanyahu’s speech. I’ll have to find a video.

    My impression, from the summaries, is something like this:

    If the US Congress had invited the leader of an unfriendly foreign power — not one the US was at war with, but one which clearly had an anti-American agenda, e.g. Tojo in 1940 — to savage 30 years of American policy and condemn the president who had recently re-affirmed that policy, and had given him 56 standing ovations while he did so in the Capitol itself …

    … I have to think that a Roosevelt (Franklin probably and Teddy certainly) would have sent in troops to clear the Capitol and quite possibly then stood the House and Senate leadership up against a wall and had them shot as examples.

    And I can’t say that I’d have been terribly unsympathetic to that decision.

  221. Tom Blanton

    We have seen in the last ten years the word libertarian go from a bad image to an okay image, but the LP is still mostly unnoticed.

    I think this statement would only apply to conservatives, but not to liberals or the general public. This isn’t really surprising since the LP has devoted nearly all outreach specifically to conservatives.

    Among many independents and people left-of-center, respect has turned to abject hatred over the past ten years. Again, not surprising considering that Glenn Beck claims to be a libertarian and corporate funders of the GOP claim to be libertarians (the Koch boys). And of course there are actual LP members/candidates like Barr, Root, and Boortz.

    If I were to cite only one strategic reason, it would be the LP’s decision to adopt much of the right-wing’s rhetoric and style in an effort to win over the disgruntled conservatives. Ala Barr, Root, Boortz, et al.

    The solution I have advocated for many years for those who seek to create a more libertarian society is to develop libertarian rhetoric that does not mimic conservative or liberal rhetoric and sets forth an actual libertarian vision and not baby-step goal outcomes.

    This is not to say that transitional or incremental steps can’t be addressed – they should be. And discussion of why freedom is the answer should be included. But dissembling prevarications and the notion that individuals are malleable rubes whose perceptions can be managed or controlled isn’t working. Thinking people have developed more sensitive bullshit meters as information is no longer confined to TV, talk radio, and newspapers.

    Parroting right-wing soundbites may work short-term for picking up some low-hanging fruit, but it doesn’t promote libertarianism. It promotes conservatism in an effort to “trick” disgruntled conservatives into thinking that libertarians are actually “true conservatives” and that they should join the LP. Then they learn more about libertarianism and reject it and insist the LP reject it also – like Wayne Root and many of the reformers have done.

    The libertarian organizations outside the LP are doing a much better job at creating libertarians than the LP, but then these new libertarians don’t embrace the LP because the LP isn’t really selling libertarianism and many of their candidates are selling conservatism, and that can be found in Republican candidates.

    Face it, if all a LP candidate is selling is a tax cut, support for the 2nd amendment, the Fair Tax, and/or a “strong national defense”, why not just vote for the GOP candidate and have a good chance of him/her winning?

    Why would someone who doesn’t vote at all, rejecting Republicans and Democrats, vote for such a candidate?

    But, if people are really serious about creating a more libertarian society, they should forget about electing LP candidates – it isn’t allowed in the current political system. They should concentrate on actually leading by persuading people to accept new ideas.

    Political hacks and demagogues that tell people what they want to hear and appeal to their emotions of outrage and hate aren’t advancing any cause other than their personal aggrandizement.

    People that want to keep certain long-standing libertarian ideas such as drug legalization or noninterventionism a secret from the general public certainly aren’t promoting libertarianism. You can’t gain the acceptance of an idea by keeping the idea a secret.

    People that compromise by beginning with something that is less than they want are poor negotiators. If anything, you begin with what you actually want. You’ll never get what you want if you don’t ask for it.

    Honest libertarian rhetoric – a strategy worth trying.

  222. Tom Blanton

    Back to the topic of this thread.

    All LP members should be especially proud of Wayne Root, and I’m not talking about the teeth.

    Apparently he not only is writing scripts for Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, he also wrote Netanyahu’s speech.

    Over the past couple of days I have heard the same material that Root, a brilliant libertarian thinker, has produced all over talk radio, and now in the halls of Congress.

    Truly an amazing achievement for this libertarian original. A big netanYAHOO for Wayne!

  223. Michael H. Wilson

    Tom Knapp writes And no, MHW, it was not founded on the basis of religion, although it was founded on the basis of ethnic identity, which can be equally problematic.

    Gonna disagree with you on that one Tom.

  224. Andy

    “LibertarianGirl // May 24, 2011 at 11:39 pm

    If wayne was really smart he’d become a mormon, they rule in Las Vegas , and they operate like a beehive….”

    Funny how the Mormons are big in Las Vegas when Las Vegas is known as Sin City.

    I actually think that Sin City is a nickname that is better suited for Washington DC as well as every state capital than it is for Las Vegas. Whatever sinning goes on in Las Vegas pales in comparison to the amount of sin that goes on in those cities.

  225. Andy

    “The only single person that I can think of that actually grew the Libertarian Party by a measurable amount would be Harry Browne,”

    Yep, and this is one of the reasons that I think a strong arguement can be made that Harry Browne is the best Presidential candidate that the LP has had.

  226. Andy

    LibertarianGirl said: “its like this , ISRAEL , LIKE THE U.S , LIKE MOST EVERY IF NOT ALL GOVERNMENTS WANTING TO MAINTAIN CONTROL ARE FUCKING ASSHOLES…this does not make me anti-semetic it makes me the little boy saying the emperor has no clothes.”

    BINGO!

  227. Andy

    “Wayne Root // May 24, 2011 at 12:52 pm

    Something for Libertarians to ponder…support for Israel has never been stronger. Massive landslde majority. But unlike other issues in U.S. politics…that support has remained consistent for decades. Only of late has there been some movement- all in favor of Israel. Just FYI…”

    So what, many Americans support a lot of things which are anti-libertarian and down right stupid.

    The only proper libertarian stance on the entire Israel situation is that the US government should stay out of it.

  228. Andy

    George Phillies said: “He’s a homophobe (see his stand on gay marriage),”

    Ron has said that the government shouldn’t be in the marriage license business and that gays should be able to get married.

  229. Andy

    Adrian Galysh said: “Also, are Ron Paul and Rand Paul Republicans? sure, technically speaking, but they are obviously libertarians… At the end of the day, I don’t care what party you belong to, as long as you share the same principles that I do.”

    BINGO!

    “By the way, some Tea Party organizations are very supportive of Ron Paul, the Campaign for Liberty, AND the Libertarian party. However, many are not, and they will vote Republican – as in Newt Gingrich, Herman Cain, or Rick Santorum – mostly because they prefer them to a ‘non viable, will never win an election’ third party candidate.”

    Unfortuantely the Tea Party has been co-opted by the mainstream of the Republican Party and therefore has become pretty much useless.

  230. Andy

    “If the LP sounded just like Wayne Root, we’d actually be appealing to mainstream voters and have an opportunity to win a few elections.”

    I don’t see any evidence to back this up.

    I don’t think that mainstream voters are the key to libertarian victory anyway, because the current mainstream is not libertarian, and most of these people will never be persuaded to become libertarians no matter what we do. I think that the key to libertarian victory is with getting the support of independents and non-voters. Independents are not married to either major party and non-voters are the silent majority. If the Libertarian Party is ever to be successful we need to rally all of the small “l” libertarians out there – many of whom don’t even know that they are libertarians and many of whom are not registered to vote – to our cause. Mainstream Democrats and mainstream Republicans are the least likely to support us and most of them are a lost cause. They are either control freaks or people who like being lead around by control freaks. These are people who will never be libertarians so the heck with them.

  231. Andy

    “You are all in a tiny tiny minority with virtually no support. You are in fact extremely radical, extreme, and out of touch if you don’t believe there is an attack on America from radical Islam.”

    This biggest threat to America is not radical Islam. It’s not even close to being the biggest threat to America. The biggest threat to America is big government loving Democrats and Republicans.

    The average Democrat or Republican is a far greater threat to my freedom than any Muslim is.

  232. Andy

    “Your views are outside the mainstream and will not be accepted.”

    The job of Libertarians should not be to conform to what the big government loving mainstream believes, but rather to create a new mainstream that is actually libertarian.

    How do we do this? By tapping into America’s silent majority, the independents and non-voters. If the Libertarian Party could ever rally all of the naturally libertarian leaning people out there who are independents and non-voters to our side, we could become a real force.

    This will never happen by catering to “mainstream voters” who are not libertarian and who will never be libertarian.

    Mainstream voters are authority worshippers. The Libertarian Party is an anti-authoritarian party. This is an irreconcilable difference.

    It’s time to create a new mainstream!

  233. LibertarianGirl

    the mainstream never accomplished anything

    heres to the crazy ones , the misfits , the troublemakers.
    the ones who see things differetly
    we’re not fond of rules and have no respect for the status quo
    you can quote us , disagree with us , disbelive us , glorify or villify us
    about the only thing you cant do is ignore us
    because we change things
    we rebel , we invent , we imagine we heal, we explore , create and inspire, we push the human race forward
    maybe we have to be crazy , because the ones who are crazy enuf to belive they can change the world are the ones who do…”

    FIRST THEY IGNORE YOU , THEN THEY RIDICULE YOU , THEN THEY FIGHT YOU , THEN YOU WIN—Ghandi

  234. Andy

    Great post at #284, LibertarianGirl!

    “heres to the crazy ones , the misfits , the troublemakers.
    the ones who see things differetly
    we’re not fond of rules and have no respect for the status quo
    you can quote us , disagree with us , disbelive us , glorify or villify us
    about the only thing you cant do is ignore us
    because we change things
    we rebel , we invent , we imagine we heal, we explore , create and inspire, we push the human race forward
    maybe we have to be crazy , because the ones who are crazy enuf to belive they can change the world are the ones who do…”

    Are these your own words or did you get this from someone else?

    Whatever the case may be, good stuff.

  235. LibertarianGirl

    im a registered republican now , for a time at least. I gotta give it a try to work my precinct and make it as a delegate to the convention where in a perfect world RP will be chosen by the delegates.

    I saw him speak and he gave me that epiphany , that “change the world” feeling the LP gave me when i got here. I was hesitant to change , party loyalty, but then i realized i didnt become a Libertarian to stay true to party loyalty, i joined to change the world.

    the most amazing thing was the cadence and rythm in his talk , it appeared not rehearsed or delicately presented to gain favor , it was just some guy , trying to get nothing and impress noone , speaking the truth.
    when you speak the truth , it rolls off your tongue like mighty river and needs no editing.

    The truth simply resonates on a deeper level than bullshit …t

    But rest assured , I am still vndictive and bitter and will be changing back in time to be a delegate to the LPN and Nat. Conv.’s

  236. Andy

    “LibertarianGirl // May 25, 2011 at 4:54 am

    im a registered republican now ,”

    So does this mean that you’ll be changing your handle from LibertarianGirl to RepublicanGirl? LOL! I think I already know the anwser to this one.:)

  237. Robert Capozzi

    261 tb: Anyway, the Koch/CATO/Reason vibe surrounds Capozzi. That’s why I guessed (correctly) that he consumes their material.

    me: Yes, Brother, your ability to read vibes and auras is impressive. I have met both Charles and David on several occasions. I have played for the Cato softball team. I have met Nick and Matt.

    I also mentioned Mackey. He’s probably the closest to my views of any L, more than Cato and Reason.

    I also mentioned LRC. I have met Lew. This strain of L-ism often disappoints me, but I give it its due.

    I have met Root. I admire his energy, but I probably disagree with him slightly less than I disagree with Lew.

    I don’t believe I’ve ever had the pleasure of meeting you. I am still hopeful, however, that you will show me the One Correct Deontologically Moral Way, the one and only take that all True Believing Ls must accept. All imposters need not apply! ;-)

  238. Robert Capozzi

    283 Andy: This will never happen by catering to “mainstream voters” who are not libertarian and who will never be libertarian.

    me: I respect that that’s your premise. My premise can be summed up by The Young Rascals tune People Got to be Free:

    All the world over, so easy to see
    People everywhere just wanna be free
    Listen, please listen, that’s the way it should be
    Peace in the valley, people got to be free
    You should see, what a lovely, lovely world this would be
    If everyone learned to live together
    It seems to me such an easy, easy thing this would be
    Why can’t you and me learn to love one another

    I’d also suggest that “anti-authoritarians” recognize that peace and freedom are won incrementally, just as they were lost. Hold the banner too high, and anti-authoritarian > nihilism. Contra-indicated, IMO.

  239. Andy

    “I also mentioned Mackey. He’s probably the closest to my views of any L, more than Cato and Reason.”

    Oh, you mean the same John Mackey who thinks it’s OK to not allow people who are gathering signatures on libertarian petitions (including petitions to put Libertarian Party candidates on the ballot) at Whole Foods? You mean the same John Mackey who when it was pointed out to him that there are Whole Foods stores which are in shopping centers where the land was seized through eminent domain and where tax payers money was used to build the shopping center, still thinks it’s OK to kick people gathering signatures on libertarian petitions out? You mean the Nerf “libertarian” John Mackey who wouldn’t lift a finger to help the Libertarian Party with ballot access, even though it wasn’t going to cost him a penny? You mean the same John Mackey who only “allowed” petitioning to take place at Whole Foods in states where there were court rulings that were being enforced that said that anywhere the public has access to is fair game for petition signature gathering, but then hides behind the law in other states where these court rulings are being ignored? You mean the same John Mackey who could care less if Libertarian/libertarian candidates or causes make it on the ballot or not? You mean the same John Mackey whose policy on petitioning is actually WORSE than some other stores where the heads of them do not even claim to be libertarians (like K-Mart and Giant grocery stores)? You mean the same John Mackey who’d prefer to see the Libertarian Party fail to gather enough signatures to make it on the ballot rather than say it’s OK to gather petition signatures at Whole Foods? You mean the same John Mackey who talks the talk but who doesn’t walk the walk when it comes to free speech?

  240. Andy

    “The Young Rascals tune People Got to be Free:”

    A lot of people don’t want to be free. The concept of freedom actually scares them. They don’t want to be free, and they won’t want to be free no matter how much you water down the concept of freedom.

    Other people want “freedom,” but they only want it for themselves and their cronies who are like them, which means that there are other people whom they do not want to be free, which means that they don’t really believe in freedom.

    I’d estimate that approximately 1/3 of the popuation is made up of control freaks and people who like being lead around by control freaks. These people absolutely do not want freedom and they will never want it no matter how you present it to them.

    The best thing us Libertarians could do with these people is either eject them from our society or eject ourselves from their society. These are people who will fight us every step of the way and if we ever achieve a libertarian society they will work to destroy it. We have irreconcilable differences with these people and they are not going to change and we are not going to change and it is naive to believe otherwise.

    Some people are just flat out unreachable with the libertarian message.

  241. Robert Capozzi

    Andy, think of politics as having gravitational pull. Pluto has gravitational pull. So does the Moon. The Moon might be smaller than Pluto (let’s say it is), but being closer to Earth, the Moon’s pull is greater than Pluto’s pull.

    Where would you rather be IF you want to be influential?

  242. Robert Capozzi

    292 Andy: I’d estimate that approximately 1/3 of the popuation is made up of control freaks and people who like being lead around by control freaks.

    me: I hear that, I really do. Go deeper. Why are “control freaks” and “sheep” that way? I’d say they are fearful, in a nutshell. Threaten the fearful and what happens? They become MORE fearful.

    Underneath all the fear, however, is their essence. Let’s appeal to their true humanity by uplifting them, and you might be pleasantly surprised. While I have many critiques of Reagan, that’s what he did, and why I submit he achieved some electoral success, even though his views were somewhat on the edge on some things. (Don’t read this as an endorsement of Reagan’s policies, but as an observation of his tactics.)

    Shining city on a hill or organize to smash the state. Which has more pull?

  243. Robert Capozzi

    291 Andy, yes, that John Mackey. He’s running a business. Do you have a problem with that?

    It appears you do.

  244. Tom Blanton

    I’d also suggest that “anti-authoritarians” recognize that peace and freedom are won incrementally, just as they were lost.

    I’d suggest that this is not necessarily true. Often it comes quite suddenly. I would also remind people that campaigns for freedom and peace have been going on for decades in America.

    Sometimes ideas just reach a tipping point and the old paradigms change. That is why freedom of speech is important – to convey ideas. There are too many people who want ideas to be put away in a box, afraid that people might reject them. Fear raises its ugly head as one person fears making someone else fearful.

    We are getting to the point in America where the known may actually be more scary than the unknown. So, while people fear the unknown, they also fear tyranny, poverty and war.

    It would be ashamed if people became so desperate to try something new, understanding the old paradigm isn’t working, that good solutions are unknown because those ideas were hidden from them.

  245. Tom Blanton

    Capozzi, one day I went up to a hot dog stand on the street and I tole the guy to make me one with everything.

    Suddenly the sky opened up revealing a 900 foot golden Buddah. A cosmic transformation took place, not to be confused with a cosmetic transmutation, and I developed a third eye within my mind that allows me to see all and know all.

    This is how I really knew you trend neolibertarian and are attracted to Koch funded libertarianism.

    I also see that your mom was some sort of conservative/libertarian and influenced your political thinking.

    The only true libertarian way is the libertarian way, separate from conservatism and liberalism just as blue is separate from red and yellow. Just as mixing blue with yellow produces green, mixing libertarianism with something else will not yield a larger amount of libertarianism.

    Sidewalk revelations with mustard, onions and chili.

  246. Root's Hero Says Israel Practices Apartheid

    Root @ 127: Nelson Mandela is one of my heroes.

    Root should read what Mandela said about Israel: http://www.progressiveaustin.org/mandelap.htm

    Here’s an excerpt from the above, in which Mandela says:

    The Palestinian state cannot be the by-product of the Jewish state, just in order to keep the Jewish purity of Israel.

    Israel’s racial discrimination is daily life of most Palestinians. Since Israel is a Jewish state, Israeli Jews are able to accrue special rights which non-Jews cannot do. Palestinian Arabs have no place in a “Jewish” state.

    Apartheid is a crime against humanity. Israel has deprived millions of Palestinians of their liberty and property. It has perpetuated a system of gross racial discrimination and inequality. It has systematically incarcerated and tortured thousands of Palestinians, contrary to the rules of international law. It has, in particular, waged a war against a civilian population, in particular children.

    The responses made by South Africa to human rights abuses emanating from the removal policies and apartheid policies respectively, shed light on what Israeli society must necessarily go through before one can speak of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East and an end to its apartheid policies.

  247. Thomas L. Knapp

    Andy @ 279,

    “Ron has said that the government shouldn’t be in the marriage license business and that gays should be able to get married.”

    Yes, he’s said that out of one side of his mouth.

    Out of the other side, he has sponsored legislation (the “Marriage Protection Act”) to unconstitutionally nullify the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause specifically for the purpose of enabling states to not only stay in the marriage license business, but to do so under an apartheid scheme. And he’s bragged about it in his campaign fundraising letters.

    That’s the thing about Ron Paul — he’s a consummate politician. He tells everyone what he thinks they want to hear.

    I’m not sure why he thought I wanted to hear what he had to say in his first major 2008 fundraising letter — that he was the “true conservative” candidate who stood for keeping the gays from getting married, keeping the furriners out of ‘merica, and keeping the women barefoot and pregnant — but apparently that IS what he thought I wanted to hear or he wouldn’t have sent me that letter.

    I prefer libertarians who are libertarians even when there aren’t other libertarians in the room with their checkbooks in their hands. That’s not Ron Paul. As soon as the libertarians leave the room, he’s a conservative, and as soon as the conservatives leave the room he goes back to rolling those pork barrels off Capital Hill toward Texas.

  248. Steven Wilson

    The reason our founding fathers mentioned nosey parker was the problem had existed with the british. Not everyone wanted to be british. Therefore, if not british, then what?

    We needed an identity that would resonate with all people here. John Adams spoke of a spirit of America. So what is the spirit of Israel?

    They are a state of the US, but the fire in the belly comes from within the people, not the escort. Israel must define itself.

    History has shown that this is accomplished by the enemies you defeat and the friends you make.

    What is the objective of our foreign policy?

    To make the world American. But now, nobody knows what that means. The spirit John Adams spoke, if it ever referenced freedom, now marks control.

    Nobody buys it anymore.

  249. whatever

    @270, you’d be very wrong. On December 26 1941 the pro-war chief parliamentarian of America’s oldest enemy spoke to the US Congress to thunderous applause. This guy was a good pal of FDR. Less than thirty years earlier this very same superpower had conned hundreds of thousands of Americans into fighting and even dying for its twisted supremacist illusions. History repeats.

  250. Alan Pyeatt

    Tom Blanton @ 273: “All LP members should be especially proud of Wayne Root, and I’m not talking about the teeth.

    Apparently he not only is writing scripts for Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, he also wrote Netanyahu’s speech.”

    Here’s another possibility: Maybe someone else is writing speeches for ALL of them: Root, Beck, Hannity, AND Netanyahu.

    That’s a bit flippant, but the ramifications are important enough to justify contemplating this theme, and all its possible variations .

  251. paulie

    New policy: reading comments that address me by name, except if the author is Milnes, in which case I don’t read them.

    AP

    Paulie @ 47 says, “The Palestinian/Indian comparison only goes so far.” That’s very true. In fact, because of differences in location, culture, and time of contact, even the Indians in this country experienced European and Euro-American hegemony in very different ways. So the the comparison should not be taken too far, and no, Palestinians are not Indians as stated @ 45. However, there ARE parallels in the process. In fact, Adolph Hitler noted the effectiveness of America’s territorial expansion compared to the British empire in “Mein Kampf,” and intentionally followed the American pattern. So, if one group of Europeans can learn from the history of North America, it would be no surprise if another group of European expansionists found methods that they could use, too. I’m not saying this is what happened, only that there are parallels in policy.

    While the founders of Zionism were European Jews, as I mentioned previously, Jews from the Middle East and North Africa made up a large portion of those that moved to Israel. Others had been there for centuries. The ones that had been in Europe, never really fit in, were often killed or threatened, beaten and tortured into giving up their ethnic/religious identities, expelled from one country after another, and finally killed by the millions. There are very few Jews in Europe anymore, and not because they all moved to Israel. There are few Jews in the Muslim world anymore, either. I’ve seen one estimate that if Jewish population growth was the same as other nations (and remember, there was no effective birth control before a few decades ago), there would be around 200 million Jews now, rather than 15 million. That includes many who were killed (not just in the last century) as many who were converted by force and coercion.

    By comparison, the number of Palestinian Arabs has grown. A few incidents have occurred on both sides where dozens or in some cases hundreds of people have been killed, over the course of a century or more. This is far different than the case of American Indians, millions of whom were killed, enslaved, etc., over the last few centuries. So again, I don’t see the comparison of American Indians and Palestinians as valid. Indeed, the history of Jews in Christian and Muslim nations is a lot more like the history of American Indians than is the history of Palestinian Arabs.

    I do believe your point about continuing discrimination against American Indians is quite valid. I did not make it in my last comment (to….JT?) due only to the fact that I was in a hurry, and my comment was already longer than I originally intended. I also did not point out that US immigration policy still has elements of racism, as Lee Wrights reminds us at http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2011/05/lee-wrights-illegal-immigrants-are-nullifying-a-bad-law/

    I do think that there is at least one element where Palestinian and American Indian situations can be compared. The US is in violation of numerous treaties with the Indian nations; millions of Americans today own homes, businesses, farms and land on what those treaties consider Indian lands. Suppose that those treaties were suddenly enforced, what would happen to those Americans (presumably including some Indians who are not living on the land belonging to their tribe, but to another)? A similar problem would face Israel if Palestinian right of return to the land they abandoned during the 1948 war was enforced.

    However, Israel would face a greater problem, as it will sooner or later anyway, in that Palestinian Arabs would make up a majority of the population (not even counting the “occupied territories,” just Israel proper) and Israel can not continue to have majority voting and a Jewish-dominated state – it will have to choose one or the other. This would have already happened if not for the exodus of Jews from the ex-USSR after 1990, and now the only remaining large population base of Jews outside Israel is in the US.

  252. Andy

    “Out of the other side, he has sponsored legislation (the ‘Marriage Protection Act’) to unconstitutionally nullify the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause specifically for the purpose of enabling states to not only stay in the marriage license business, but to do so under an apartheid scheme. And he’s bragged about it in his campaign fundraising letters.”

    Marriage is not a federal issue, and Ron Paul is correct about this. Also, there’s no such thing as a valid marriage license because the state has no authority to be involved in the issue in the first place.

    Ron has said repeatedly that the federal government should not be involved in the issue. He’s pointing out that under the 10th amendment that it is an issue that should be left to the states or the people.

    Do I think that states should pass laws against gay marriage? No, but I also do not believe that any state government should be in the business of licensing marriage in the first place.

  253. Tom Blanton

    Maybe someone else is writing speeches for ALL of them: Root, Beck, Hannity, AND Netanyahu.

    My best guess is that, in this particular case, Likud operatives and/or AIPAC received an advance copy of Obama’s talk, focused in on the 1967 border language (omitting the land swap adjustment language), created talking points to present to right-wingers for their daily outrage fix, forwarded the talking point to the RNC which then put the material into the GOP talking point pipeline, the first release by an approved shill is then posted on Drudge where the talk radio shills, TV pundits, and columnists pick up the meme and spread it.

    I imagine Root is not in on the propaganda stream directly from the RNC, but rather picks up the meme from Drudge or other purveyors of dis/misinformation.

    I don’t mean to imply the origination of GOP talking points is always AIPAC, it is more often than not from some lobbying group/think tank or from RNC strategists.

    The DNC certainly has a similar operation. I think everyone who pays close attention to political news notices that each faction of the Republicrat elite has nearly daily talking points and reactions to events where the shills have the same simultaneous reaction and use the same talking points – if not the identical language.

    When the propaganda is successful, as this border foolishness has been, both factions will adopt it. Harry Reid is already distancing himself and Congress from Obama’s alleged crime against Israel by pretending that the land swap adjustment language was never spoken.

    All of the TV and radio news and punditry is pretending the same thing. So, once again we have an lie introduced to the public and it is accepted as truth. And once again, it appears Likud/AIPAC is the source.

    Those putting this lie out know there is no difference between Bush’s plan and Obama’s plan, yet they continue with the lie. To point it out is to be anti-semitic, racist, or a conspiracy theorist to the most rapid liars and merely causing trouble over a sensitive situation to the moderate pragmatists.

    A lie is a lie. The proof is there. The liars continue lying. Yet to mention it is somehow a bad thing.

    For those that just can’t believe that the saintly Netanyahu should win an Oscar over his feigned outrage and the big lie that Obama’s position is some crazy new idea need to watch Bush talk about going back to 1949 borders in 2008 – where was Eric Cantor and all the other Republican Zionists then?

    Watch:

  254. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    Another Root thread from a couple weeks ago almost got to 400 posts, but I think a thread from 2009 went over 400 (I think a thread concerning a CA Ex Com brouhaha). I am a bit curious, myself.

  255. Tom Blanton

    Good question, NewFederalist. I don’t know, but I hope it keeps going until people realize what Wayne Root is all about.

    In the 1 minute and 27 seconds it takes to watch the video linked above, anyone with an IQ over 60 can SEE and HEAR the truth of what Obama said and what Bush said.

    Are we to believe that after articles in the Atlanta Journal Constitution, the Christian Science Monitor, and Atlantic magazine, as well as many other sources exposing the Zionist/Republican lie and fake outrage, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, CNN, ABC, and FOX have all missed this?

    What else have they not been telling us?

    What else have the Zionists lied about?

    Keep in mind that we are constantly told by the conservatives that the mainstream “drive-by” media supports Obama and victimizes conservatives. Except for FOX, which is fair and balanced, all the others are radical leftists on a mission to destroy conservatives.

    Did they all figure out that Obama is really a neocon?

    Why are they going along with the meme that Obama has thrown Israel under the bus or, as Root claims, told Israel to drop dead?

    What do all the pro-Israel people have to say about Netanyahu’s lying? Ignore it and support Israel, right or wrong?

    It’s easy to say its none of our business and America shouldn’t be involved, but America is involved. Netanyahu, a pathological liar, is given a platform to speak before Congress and they gave him 12 standing ovations. They will send Israel at least $3 billion (that is over $400 for each and every Israeli citizen), they will send Israel America’s advanced weaponry, Obama will use America’s clout to back Israel in the UN, and if Israel decides to attack Lebanon, Syria, Gaza or Iran, America will be there to supply weapons, intelligence, and possibly military services – all with no treaty!

    All of that is truly outrageous. The lies and phony outrage just add insult to injury.

    So was Wayne Root duped into believing the latest lie or is he a liar also?

  256. JT

    Andy: “Ron has said repeatedly that the federal government should not be involved in the issue. He’s pointing out that under the 10th amendment that it is an issue that should be left to the states or the people.”

    Yes, that was the point of the Marriage Protection Act. He has also spoken out against a proposed federal Marriage Amendment to the Constitution.

    Knapp: “…keeping the furriners out of ‘merica,…”

    Is that what the letter said? That’s odd if Paul has voted in favor of more visas for foreign workers. It’s not fair to say he’s against people immigrating to America per se, even if one disagrees with his overall position.

    Knapp: “…keeping the women barefoot and pregnant…”

    Is that a reference to his view of abortion? What a strange characterization.

  257. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    TB @ 313: I was going to shout “Amen!”, but thought better of it. However, what you’ve written is very concise, and I would love for Root, or another Israel supporter to comment on it.

  258. David Colborne

    History doesn’t repeat, but it does rhyme

    The newsletters’ obsession with blacks and gays was of a piece with a conscious political strategy adopted at that same time by Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard. After breaking with the Libertarian Party following the 1988 presidential election, Rockwell and Rothbard formed a schismatic “paleolibertarian” movement, which rejected what they saw as the social libertinism and leftist tendencies of mainstream libertarians. In 1990, they launched the Rothbard-Rockwell Report, where they crafted a plan they hoped would midwife a broad new “paleo” coalition.

    Rockwell explained the thrust of the idea in a 1990 Liberty essay entitled “The Case for Paleo-Libertarianism.” To Rockwell, the LP was a “party of the stoned,” a halfway house for libertines that had to be “de-loused.” To grow, the movement had to embrace older conservative values. “State-enforced segregation,” Rockwell wrote, “was wrong, but so is State-enforced integration. State-enforced segregation was not wrong because separateness is wrong, however. Wishing to associate with members of one’s own race, nationality, religion, class, sex, or even political party is a natural and normal human impulse.”

    Sound familiar? The idea of fusing libertarians with conservatives into a more “viable” libertarianism isn’t new. Just as it wasn’t particularly successful when it was last attempted 20 years ago, and just as it eventually led to headaches for Ron Paul’s campaign and political career later in life, it’ll backfire on anyone else that tries it. Whether you like it or not, you can’t play with fire and expect not to get burned.

  259. JT

    Blanton, what’s with using the term “Zionists” over and over in your attacks? It’s one thing to blast Likud, AIPAC, and their supporters, but now you’re blasting anyone who even thinks a Jewish homeland should exist there?

  260. Robert Capozzi

    317 dc, while I don’t advocate fusionism as an optimal path, paleoLism and Root-style fusionism is different. Paleos played footsie with domestic haters. Root gets too close IMO to Islamophobes. Root-style fusionism seems somewhat less prone to JBS-tinged negativity that seems the preferred tone of the paleos.

  261. David Colborne

    @319: I agree – as troublesome as parts of this particular article are, it doesn’t hold a candle to the overt racism in some of Lew Rockwell’s earlier work. This article could be salvaged by deleting two words. Some of the “let’s play footsie with David Duke and Pat Buchanan” paleolib articles of the late ’80s and early ’90s could only be salvaged through liberal use of a paper shredder, gasoline, a match, and a favorable wind.

    Still, I find it interesting how evergreen the idea of bringing the LP closer to the conservative movement is.

  262. Thomas L. Knapp

    JT @ 315,

    “He has also spoken out against a proposed federal Marriage Amendment to the Constitution.”

    At least a federal marriage apartheid amendment would be an HONEST advocacy.

    Instead, “constitutionalist” Paul proposes legislation to magically nullify the Constitution without the required 2/3 vote of both house of Congress and ratification by 3/4 of the states.

    “It’s not fair to say he’s against people immigrating to America per se”

    I agree. He’s just against it when he’s trying to appeal to the tub-thumpers. When he’s making excuses to libertarians for his position, he does allow as to how he’s fine with immigration after every other problem is solved first.

    “Is that a reference to his view of abortion? What a strange characterization.”

    It was a strange letter. I normally leave abortion out of my candidate analyses as much as possible, and am respectful of both pro-life and pro-choice positions that are rooted in libertarian principle. I don’t remember the exact language of the letter, but I do remember at the time being impressed by how shamelessly it pandered to the “every sperm is sacred because Jebus says so” crowd.

    Apart from a VERY brief mention of foreign policy, that first fundraising letter went out of its way to be as far from libertarian as possible.

  263. Robert Capozzi

    320 dc: I find it interesting how evergreen the idea of bringing the LP closer to the conservative movement is.

    me: Rockwell, MNR, and PR bolted the LP; they didn’t try to bring it closer. Fusionism has mostly been an LM thing, as I see it. Certainly the LP has had its fusionists over the years, but for the most part I’d say it’s mostly been pursuing a Pluto Strategy. Centrist/moderate Ls have been trying for a long time to at least get us to the Moon, but the bylaws and SOP traps set at the outset have made that functionally impossible, at least to date.

  264. Steven Wilson

    I have never understood why so many so called leaders of the LP have been concerned with growing the party, donations, membership rolls, and vote totals.

    Individualism is organic and doesn’t need the fertilizer. Big tent craptown and central planning always never works almost.

    Don’t count chips at the table and don’t reference freedom to something else. Growth is just gibberish if it has nothing to do with the individual.

    Vegas baby. Big tent craptown.

  265. Robert Capozzi

    308 tb: My best guess is that, in this particular case, Likud operatives and/or AIPAC received an advance copy of Obama’s talk….And once again, it appears Likud/AIPAC is the source.

    me: You may have broken on through to the other side, Brother B, but I’m curious…is it your “best guess” or does it “appear”? Your analysis feels a bit Alex Jones to me, shifting your basis of analysis to suit your conjecture. Why engage in such speculation to begin with? What’s it get you?

  266. Reptilian

    I think it was written by shape shifting reptilians from outer space. My eighth sense tells me it is so.

  267. Tom Blanton

    Blanton, what’s with using the term “Zionists” over and over in your attacks? It’s one thing to blast Likud, AIPAC, and their supporters, but now you’re blasting anyone who even thinks a Jewish homeland should exist there?

    Fair criticism, JT. Perhaps I should have used the term “Zionist extremists” instead.

    The problem is that too few Zionists denounce the lies of Netanyahu and other right-wing extremists of his ilk – especially American Zionists. Netanyahu’s recent performances in America have been an insult to all Americans.

    By implicitly, if not explicitly, supporting Likud policies, Zionists aren’t doing themselves any favors. Israel is being seen as a pariah state by more and more people around the world and besides America, they really have few allies left in the world.

    It is no secret that Netanyahu does not want a two-state solution and he may be more moderate than others in his coalition like Lieberman. Their statements for domestic consumption in Israel are worse than the lies they peddle in America. Decent Jewish people should speak out against Zionist extremism, the notion of a “Greater Israel” from the from the Nile to the Euphrates, ethnic cleansing, and the endless lies.

    That is not to say that there are no moderate Zionists that do speak out, but unfortunately they are more readily found in Israel than America. I’m afraid if the Zionist extremists continue to run the show, there is going to be a world of hurt in Israel and the neighboring nations because Netanyahu and his gang will stop at nothing to get what they want, even if they have to start another war to reshuffle the cards or kick the can a little further down the road.

    The patience of the Arabs, the Muslims, and the rest of the world is wearing a little thin with Israel. At this point, after Netanyahu’s visit, I would tell him that he’s made his bed, go sleep in it – you’re on your own.

  268. Tom Blanton

    Why engage in such speculation to begin with? What’s it get you?

    It doesn’t get me anything. Why does my speculating bother you? Don’t people often speculate about strange and mysterious things in the course of conversation. Maybe you think you must “get something” whenever you speculate, as you so often do, but I’m talking just for the hell of it. Oh, and to call attention to the lies of various scumbags.

    How do you explain identical simultaneous reactions and talking points that burst forth from the right wing propaganda machine on nearly a daily basis?

    Do you attribute this phenomenon to coincidence?

    In this particular case, do you think the reactions/talking points came from lobbyists representing automobile lobbyists or lobbyists for the Realtors? It’s possible that the RNC conjured the whole thing up on their own. But the logical origination would be the Israel lobby and they would have been likely to have received an advance copy of Obama’s speech since it was actually designed to appease them.

    You apparently are not aware that presidential speeches are prepared in advance and often distributed (sometimes put up on the White House website) before the speech is even given.

    Of course it very well may be that the respective pundits/politicos for both Republicans and Democrats all have identical reactions simultaneously resulting in identical talking points nearly every day, year after year, on every conceivable subject imaginable. That’s it – just merely a coincidence.

    Netanyahu, Eric Cantor, Huckabee, Romney, Limbaugh, Hannity, and the rest of the GOP freaks all simultaneously reacted to Obama’s speech with outrage, while all foreign policy analysts from all over the political spectrum simultaneously shrugged their soldiers and said it’s the same old shit presidents have been saying for 20 years.

    But, in this case, all the outraged Republicans and Zionist Extremists based their opinions and their outrage on what Obama did not say and they all just happened to have come up with the same lie about what he did not say – all at the same time.

    That’s one hell of a coincidence theory. Is that what you’re betting happened, Capozzi?

  269. BTW Did anyone realize

    That ISRAEL was given to the Jewish people by the Almighty himself before the war.

  270. Sebastian Knowlton

    @BTWDAR 329 – he showed up on Earth and brokered the land deal straight to them? wow. I never knew that God had a real estate license.

  271. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    Somehow, we need to figure out some way to hit a “Like” button, like we do in Facebook.

    Sebastian, I “like” what you said!

  272. Robert Capozzi

    327 tb: It doesn’t get me anything. Why does my speculating bother you?

    Me: I’m just sharing ideas. I’m certainly not “bothered.” I was trying to understand your perspective, and whether your conspiracy theory was a best guess, an appearance, or your just wondering about the rapidity and consistency of the pushback on BHO’s speech. It is possible that AIPAC has some elements SO managed that their rapid-response team puts the talking points out and others repeat it. Or it could be that the anti-Obama/extreme “Zionists” community is like minded on the issue of Israel’s borders that their reactions had a lot of similarities.

    To me, it doesn’t matter. I think Obama should not be making such pronouncements, even if they are reasonable and largely in line with Bush policy. I don’t think Bush should have had such policies, either. Israel’s borders and the ME generally are a condundrum, and US meddling makes the situation worse, near as I can tell. The US is a bull in that china shop. The “bull” may or may not be completely virtuous in its intent; it may be conflicted; it may be a purposely be wreaking havoc; it may be profoundly confused. I don’t know and I can’t know, and you I suspect can’t know, either.

    To the extent a third international party should be mediating, it’s my opinion it should NOT be the US. The US is not neutral in the matter. The US has a functioning alliance with Israel. Buying off both sides is clearly not working.

    Your “you’re on your own” has some appeal to me, but I consider that Pluto Strategy. Moon Strategy might be to state the US is an ally of Israel, but we favor peace in the ME. We favor self determination for all peoples. We recognize that US attempts to broker a deal to solve this problem is not working, and bankrupting the US. We are now on a path of tactful extrication, for we believe that precipitous extrication is also likely to be highly destabilizing. I’m open to other Moon strategies, though.

    Ls getting into the weeds and parsing who is “lying” more doesn’t do the cause of liberty any good that I can see. Everyone lies sometimes, it’s only a matter of degree. Everyone misrepresents, too. Not that it matters, but I try to align with truth (as I see it) consistently, but I’m not perfect.

    Tb: You apparently are not aware that presidential speeches are prepared in advance and often distributed (sometimes put up on the White House website) before the speech is even given.

    Me: Why do you conclude what I am or am not aware of? What’s THAT get you? In this case, I’m quite aware of this phenomenon.

    Tb: Netanyahu, Eric Cantor, Huckabee, Romney, Limbaugh, Hannity, and the rest of the GOP freaks all simultaneously reacted to Obama’s speech with outrage, while all foreign policy analysts from all over the political spectrum simultaneously shrugged their soldiers and said it’s the same old shit presidents have been saying for 20 years.

    Me: You know, I am not tracking this story as closely as you, but this seems way overstated. Netanyahu spoke real time. Others echoed his sentiments. This is surprising to you in some way? This points to a conspiracy? Are you sure you are not reading a lot of Alex Jones’s stuff?

  273. Tom Blanton

    Or it could be that the anti-Obama/extreme “Zionists” community is like minded on the issue of Israel’s borders that their reactions had a lot of similarities.

    You don’t seem to get it, Capozzi.

    The mutually agreed upon land swap/adjusted borders starting with the 1967 borders has been in the mix for 20 damn years. Obama clearly said this. He did not say Israel must return to the 1967 borders. The feigned outrage and the whole “Israel drop dead” rhetoric is based on what Obama clearly did not say.

    Are we to believe that ALL of the drama queens that had simultaneous reactions just happened to not hear what Obama said and ALL of them continue to be unable to hear what he said, even when it has been written down for them to read?

    I’m not saying there was any conspiracy. That’s what you are saying. I’m saying you are witnessing the routine dissemination of political propaganda in the fashion that is generally employed.

    This current lie is just one more lie to add of the pile of lies regarding Israel. The lying needs to stop and exposing the lies is all that can be done.

    So, once again Capozzi, you seek to defend or minimize the lies, distortions, and disinformation put out by those you support while attacking or marginalizing those who tell the truth. It seems to be a pattern for you. What do get out of this?

    Israel’s borders and the ME generally are a condundrum, and US meddling makes the situation worse, near as I can tell.

    While we may agree that America should not be involved in the affairs of Israel, I’m not pretending that America is forcing its agenda on Israel – Israel drags America into its fights and applies political pressure through AIPAC and others on politicians that don’t submit to their demands.

    Moon Strategy might be to state the US is an ally of Israel, but we favor peace in the ME. We favor self determination for all peoples. We recognize that US attempts to broker a deal to solve this problem is not working, and bankrupting the US. We are now on a path of tactful extrication, for we believe that precipitous extrication is also likely to be highly destabilizing. I’m open to other Moon strategies, though.

    We are not dealing with strategies and the way you would like to deal with the issue. We are dealing with very harsh realities as they really exist. American policy should not be shaped on Netanyahu’s lies. So while you may not see how identifying lies is helpful to the cause of liberty, identifying lies is the only tool to prevent basing actions on lies.

    If all of the lies leading to the wars we are currently in had been effectively exposed one by one, perhaps a lot of lives could have been saved and the American economy wouldn’t be in shatters.

    All I can say is screw your strategies and your disregard for the truth, Capozzi. I find your moderate absolutism appalling. Your position seems to be that once a majority of rubes have accepted a lie, then all libertarians should shut up, for strategic reasons. This is not activism, nor is it leadership. It is the de facto acceptance of the status quo.

    It seems you’ve been reading a lot of Likud Party material?

  274. Robert Capozzi

    Tb, ADR, but it’s you who’s not getting my point. I assume pols lie. I don’t find your forensic approach to itemizing “Zionist extremists” lies useful, just as I don’t find deep explorations of Palestinian pols lies useful. You may get a charge out of mucking around in that thicket of deceit. I don’t.

  275. Tom Blanton

    Capozzi, I do get your point. It is the same point that you repeat over and over.

    If you don’t find pointing out lies that shape political opinion resulting in bad policy useful, then I suggest that you abstain from it.

    If you don’t find that pointing out the false outrage and ignorant remarks of a high-profile member and official of the LP useful, then don’t engage in it.

    I take it that you do find implicitly condoning these things by remaining silent to be useful. Then by all means remain silent.

    The lies, distortions, half-truths, misinformation and disinformation put out by Zionist extremists was not a trivial factor in building public consensus for the war on terror which has resulted in an enormous loss of liberty. America has been transformed into a nascent police state and surveillance state. Lives have been lost and ruined in battle. The national debt is staggering. Islamophobia is rampant. The propaganda needs to stop and people need to stop buying into these lies. To pretend that remaining silent somehow furthers the cause of liberty in light of all that has happened makes no sense to me.

    I suppose if one seeks to recruit Islamophobes and Zionist extremists into the LP, then to call out the lies of Netanyau is not at all useful. If one supports Wayne Root regardless of what he says and does, then pointing out his fake outrage based on a lie, among other things, is also not useful.

    My advice to you, Capozzi, is to do the things you find useful and don’t do anything that you don’t find useful. Do not engage in sub-optimal behavior and if something is contra-indicated, don’t do it.

    You may get a charge out of mucking around in that thicket of deceit. I don’t.

    Maybe it is you mucking around in the thicket of deceit, Capozzi. You seem to relish deceit and dishonesty. Keeping information away from people is the cornerstone of your clever strategies to manage the perceptions of the general public to gain approval and acceptance.

    I assume pols lie.

    I’m sure you do. It wouldn’t surprise me if you admired the more successful ones.

  276. Robert Capozzi

    339 tb: I do get your point.

    me: Apparently not, since you say:

    tb: I take it that you do find implicitly condoning these things by remaining silent to be useful.

    me: So….let me try again. I don’t need to catalog each and every misstatement by Israeli or Palestinian officials, though I know there are many. I advocate a change in ME policy. What I don’t find productive is sticking the noses (metaphorically) of each and every party to the conflict in their own shit. Their shit is their shit, not mine. I prefer to take the high road. But I don’t “condone” the behavior of the ME nations, nor US policy there. Not at all.

    I get the sense sometimes that if someone doesn’t 100% agree with you that somehow they are the enemy. That’s gotta be a tough go…hope I’m incorrect.

    tb: I’m sure you do [assume pols lie]. It wouldn’t surprise me if you admired the more successful ones.

    me: Well, yes and no. On one level, I admire everyone, including pols. I don’t see the point in walking around with hate in my heart. Pols lie; you lie; I lie. Hating people for being imperfect doesn’t seem like a good way to go; you may well have a serviceable theory about why it is so.

    On another, there are very few pols I’d vote for or support. And they’ve not been very successful. So, I guess you should be surprised, then! ;-)

  277. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob @234,

    You write:

    “Netanyahu spoke real time. Others echoed his sentiments. This is surprising to you in some way? This points to a conspiracy? Are you sure you are not reading a lot of Alex Jones’s stuff?”

    I’m not sure if I’d go so far as to call it a “conspiracy,” but let’s think about how things actually work in politics today.

    It is a FACT that much of today’s public political discourse is made more uniform by the issuance of “talking points” by various organizations, lobbies, etc.

    That’s not unique to the Israel lobby by any means.

    The Republican and Democratic National Committees put out “talking points” memos for pundits, journalists, etc. to refer to.

    Any number of policy institutes, think tanks, etc., do so as well. Hell, even us anarchists do it!

    It is sometimes possible, by looking at public communications, to discern that one pundit’s communications are likely influenced by the same set of “talking points” as certain other sources of public communications.

    In the current instance, for example, do you really believe that every Republican congresscritter and every establishment “conservative” pundit on Earth just happened to wake up the other morning not only thinking about the exact same topic, but thinking in the exact same phraseologies on that topic?

    And that those exact same phraseologies just happened to be the ones that popped up in Netanyahyu’s speech and in the op-ed pieces and congressional press releases immediately preceding and following that speech?

    That seems to me to be taking the whole Zeitgeist/collective unconscious thing a little far.

    Of course, we’re talking about one person here, and I suppose it’s possible that Wayne Allyn Root wakes up every morning, reasons the latest issue out from libertarian premises, and just happens to come to exactly the same conclusions, and to phrase them in exactly the same words, as the conservative “talking points” memos do, rather than just reading and slavishly aping those memos.

    Or, I suppose it’s possible that Wayne Allyn Root is some kind of mutant with an antenna in his brain what automagically taps into the “conservative” zeitgeist and translates it into “Libertarian” rhetoric.

    Hell, I suppose it’s even possible that Wayne Allyn Root himself is actually the source of all those “talking points,” wiring them out from a bunker beneath his home in Henderson each morning to an eagerly waiting list of pundits, politicians and think tanks, who then copy him.

    But Occam’s Razor says that the more likely answer to the whole thing is that Wayne Allyn Root reads and absorbs the very same sources he appears in and that his output is in fact affected by that.

  278. Robert Capozzi

    341 tk, yes, I’m aware that organizations put out talking points type missives. Some use them, some don’t.

  279. Tom Blanton

    Hating people for being imperfect doesn’t seem like a good way to go..

    So, now I am a hater as well as an Alex Jones conspiracy theorist.

    I prefer to take the high road.

    I know you do. The highest road of all. Whereas I take the lowest road possible. The rest of us mere mortals can only dream to ascend to the highest plateau of human existence that you have reached, Capozzi.

    I will try from now on to never point out the lies of another, since I am a liar. But, with my heart filled with seething hatred for all other humans, it will be difficult to rise to your standards, Capozzi.

    Instead, I will try to admire the liar. That is the way of the Great and Wonderful Capozzi. May we all rise to his level of Merciful Love and walk across the Water of Tranquility to the Utopian, but moderate, Existence.

    Thank you for enlightening me once again Capozzi. Love the liar, criticize, marginalize and pigeon hole the truth teller. Got it.

  280. JT

    Blanton: “While we may agree that America should not be involved in the affairs of Israel, I’m not pretending that America is forcing its agenda on Israel – Israel drags America into its fights and applies political pressure through AIPAC and others on politicians that don’t submit to their demands.”

    So you don’t believe at all that U.S. politicians back Israel because most Americans (Jews and Christians alike) support Israel? And no, I don’t think most Americans support Israel because of any propaganda by Likud or AIPAC. I think they support Israel because it’s a democratic country that does offer basic human rights protections for its own citizens.

    When public opinion is heavily tilted to one side, I don’t think politicians need to be “dragged” into it by an outside force.

  281. Tom Blanton

    JT, I have no idea what informs your opinion, what your education is, your age, life experience, etc., but it seems as if you just can’t even comprehend how anyone could possibly believe anything other than what you believe to be true.

    I’m sure you take great offense when I say you seem to be rather uninformed when it comes to understanding why I might even believe what I do in regards to Israel. But, in regards to the topic you have raised, I just happened to have read an article by Uri Avnery just a few minutes ago.

    I’ll bet you’ve never heard of him, but he fairly well known in Israel, where he lives. He is Jewish, around 80 years old, a former Member of the Knesset, and a long time peace activist. He is a fairly prolific writer.

    I hope you will read this article about his take on Netanyahu’s speech before Congress. It never hurts to examine an alternative viewpoint and you might find this article very interesting – even if it is remarkably similar to my take on the Netanyahu speech which you seem to regard as being in the realm of holocaust denial.

    http://www.counterpunch.com/avnery05262011.html

  282. Michael H. Wilson

    One of the problems I have with Netanyahu is in the way he conducted himself the other day in front of the press when speaking to Obama. I will bet money he thought he could get away with being rude because of Obama’s skin color. He was playing to the right wing crowd that hates Obama and for many that has to do with a black man sitting in the Oval office. They just love to hear a white man put the black man in his place.

  283. Andy

    JT said: “That’s odd if Paul has voted in favor of more visas for foreign workers. It’s not fair to say he’s against people immigrating to America per se, even if one disagrees with his overall position.”

    Yes this is true. Ron Paul has voted for increasing visas for foreign workers. Ron has also voted against the border fence and he voted against putting the military on the border.

    I’ve pointed this out to Tom Knapp on multiple occassions, yet Knapp still tries to make Ron Paul out to be some kind of anti-immigration zealot. This is a flat out distortion. The hardcore anti-immigtation people actually don’t even really like Ron Paul. I’ve run into quite a few of these people and they’ve told me that they think that Ron Paul is “too liberal” on immigration. These people tend to be supporters of Tom Tancredo or Duncan Hunter (to a lesser extent). I’ve pointed this out to Tom Knapp before but he ignores it and continues to make Ron Paul out to be an anti-immigration zealot. Tom obviously doesn’t like to let the truth get in the way of a good smear.

  284. Andy

    “I think they support Israel because it’s a democratic country that does offer basic human rights protections for its own citizens.”

    I think that they support it because they believe that their bible tells them to do so.

  285. Tom Blanton

    I think you are probably right about that, Michael. That scene where they are sitting down together was just amazing. If I was Obama, I would have ripped Netanyahu a brand new asshole and used the truth for damage control.

    Netanyahu just adds insult to injury.

  286. Thomas L. Knapp

    JT @ 347,

    “So you don’t believe at all that U.S. politicians back Israel because most Americans (Jews and Christians alike) support Israel?”

    It seems a little more complex than that to me.

    In a sane political environment, I suspect that most US politicians would be mildly supportive of Israel if asked about it, for exactly the reason you state …

    … but mostly non-committal about it, because frankly it’s just the kind of issue that should be a big deal.

    The population of Guatemala is about twice that of Israel, and it’s located fairly close to the US, but you don’t see most Americans stating, or most US congresscritters making it a point to announce from the stump at every opportunity, that they are “pro-Guatemala.”

    Israel has a large, active and diffuse lobby in the US, constantly seeking both public support and fervent verbal and legislative demonstrations of commitment from politicians.

    A lot of people pick on AIPAC, which is a very visible piece of that lobby, but by no means the only PR group at work.

    I get frequent email messages, and occasionally robocalls, from “Christians United For Israel,” operated by fundamentalist evangelist John Hagee. Those messages and phone calls are intended to make me vocal in my support for Israel and to get me to put pressure on “my” political “representatives” to be even more vocal and demonstrative in that respect.

    When billions of dollars per year and a near-absolute guarantee of military support are at stake, the money gets spread around to keep the checks coming, and that money has a big political effect.

    In the case of Israel, that money has had the effect of producing a very Stalinist political atmosphere. Congresscritters are afraid to be the first to sit down after a Netanyahu applause line, lest they not be thought “pro-Israel” enough back in their thoroughly propagandized districts, and their post-Netanyahu-speech press releases had a flavor similar to Bukharin’s plaudits/protestations of loyalty over the last few years before Uncle Joe finally had him taken to the basement of the Lubyanka and shot in the back of the head.

  287. Robert Capozzi

    353 tk, yes, there does seem to be a disproportional focus on Israel when foreign policy comes up. When Rand Paul called for ending foreign aid, I seem to recall his being immediately asked, “Including Israel?”

    In part, that’s because I suspect Israel is (effectively) an ally in the midst of much war and terrorism. It’s also garnered support from various sources for various reasons.

    Israel is a third rail. Third rails can be addressed in unorthodox ways, but doing so in ways that don’t trigger massive attack from the Israel constituency seems wise.

    Changing the US relation as non-explicit-ally and regional power broker to outright ally but non-mediator/power broker might work politically. Taking that stance could serve to put the US on a glide path toward non-intervention.

  288. Israel's Ingratitude

    Capozzi: I suspect Israel is (effectively) an ally in the midst of much war and terrorism.

    How is Israel even “effectively” an ally?

    As someone else posted, America’s relationship with Israel can be characterized as: America gives, Israel takes.

    I see no alliance (i.e., a mutually beneficial relationship), but rather, an ungrateful welfare client.

    For all the inordinate largess that it’s been given by the U.S., Israel never shows any humble gratitude.

    Israel only shrilly states what a wonderful ally it is to the U.S., before biting the hand that feeds it (i.e., showing outrage that the U.S. should even suggest a contrary opinion on mideast policy.)

  289. Robert Capozzi

    351 andy: I think that they support it because they believe that their bible tells them to do so.

    me: Where?

  290. Robert Capozzi

    355 II: As someone else posted, America’s relationship with Israel can be characterized as: America gives, Israel takes. I see no alliance (i.e., a mutually beneficial relationship), but rather, an ungrateful welfare client.

    me: I think most US allies could be characterized that way. The word “protectorates” comes to mind. Presumably the US could be viewed as “benefiting” from trade with our allies. It is in US interests to have relatively free trading partners.

    This doesn’t mean that I think the US should be doing most/all of this protecting. Most of it is counterproductive; ultimately, virtually all or even all of it is counterproductive, IMO.

  291. Robert Capozzi

    355 II: Israel never shows any humble gratitude.

    me: I doubt this is so. Never? Really? Still, I really don’t care whether another nation could be characterized as an “ingrate” or not. I prefer to see a day when “gratitude” is unnecessary, since I prefer to see a day when US policy is friend to all, foe to none, trade with all, protect none, except, perhaps, as part of an international peacekeeping institution.

  292. Tom Blanton

    Third rails can be addressed in unorthodox ways, but doing so in ways that don’t trigger massive attack from the Israel constituency seems wise.

    Right.

    Netanyahu demanded that any new peace process would have to pick up from where it was left at under Bush before coming to America recently.

    Obama did exactly that. He also pledged to oppose any UN recognition of a Palestinian state. In addition he reiterated the pledge to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. In addition, Obama didn’t even suggest that there be a settlement freeze.

    Obama was rewarded with his fealty with what? A massive attack from the Israel constituency.

    I know there are many people posting at IPR that don’t like to read, but here’s another article, straight from Israel that American Netanyahu apologists might find enlightening:

    http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/obama-granted-netanyahu-a-major-diplomatic-victory-1.362866

    The article by Uri Avnery posted at #348 may also provide some insight, if you’re interested in having a deeper insight into these issues involving America’s de facto 51st state.

  293. Robert Capozzi

    Tb, as Ls, why should we care if BHO’s “fealty” has been dissed? Personally, I like when the kids spat. It opens up the possibility for people to consider another way…

  294. JT

    Blanton: “JT, I have no idea what informs your opinion, what your education is, your age, life experience, etc., but it seems as if you just can’t even comprehend how anyone could possibly believe anything other than what you believe to be true.”

    I don’t understand why you’d think this. I’m a libertarian, so obviously there are a great many people who don’t believe what I believe to be true.

    In my view, it’s you who can’t comprehend that in this case. You seem to think the only plausible way that anyone could back Israel is if they’ve been infected with pro-Israel propaganda originated by the Israeli government and the pro-Israel lobby.

    You can’t conceive of how a great many people who pay no attention to what Likud and AIPAC say still recognize simple facts about the Israeli legal system (as pertains to its own citizens) compared to that of other Middle Eastern countries, as well as how the state provides a a small homeland for Jews, who have overcome historically widespread persecution and discrimination to rank among the most highly educated and productive ethnic groups in the world. These things evoke sympathy and support from them.

    Blanton: “I hope you will read this article about his take on Netanyahu’s speech before Congress. It never hurts to examine an alternative viewpoint and you might find this article very interesting – even if it is remarkably similar to my take on the Netanyahu speech which you seem to regard as being in the realm of holocaust denial.”

    I never said anything about the Netanyahu speech or your take on it, so I don’t know how you could say I seem to regard it in any way whatsoever.

    I read the article though. Very briefly, the writer sharply criticized members of Congress who constantly jumped up and applauded Netanyahu during his speech, which the writer said included lies, and the writer said that the Israeli government is actually closed to the establishment of a Palestinian state under any circumstances, which is necessary for peace.

    Okay? What does that have to do with what I said about why I think most Americans back Israel and U.S. politicians don’t need to be dragged into providing her with any aid?

    Knapp: “The population of Guatemala is about twice that of Israel, and it’s located fairly close to the US, but you don’t see most Americans stating, or most US congresscritters making it a point to announce from the stump at every opportunity, that they are “pro-Guatemala.””

    Guatemala doesn’t fit the bill at to what I said above, so most Americans don’t have the same view of that nation that causes them to strongly support it.

    Knapp: “Israel has a large, active and diffuse lobby in the US, constantly seeking both public support and fervent verbal and legislative demonstrations of commitment from politicians.”

    Oh, I’m not denying that. I’m saying that if not for that strong lobby, I still think U.S. politicians would still offer some aid to Israel to curry favor with most Americans who do think it’s important to back Israel for the reasons I said above.

  295. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob @ 354,

    The Israeli lobby spends a lot of money and puts a lot of its efforts into spreading the “Israeli is an ally” meme, but the evidence for it falls somewhere between “slim” and “none.”

    I can make a good case that the Israeli government is less friendly to the US than the pre-war Taliban government of Afghanistan was. At least the Taliban indicated a willingness to extradite Osama bin Laden on the basis of evidence (instead of evidence, it got an invasion). The Israeli government has refused to extradite accused (with abundant evidence) child molester Avrohom Mondrowitz to the US for TWENTY-SIX YEARS now.

    @356

    Christian dispensationalists believe they find support throughout the Bible, but particularly in Daniel and Revelation, for the notion that a re-establishment of Israel in modern times is part of prophecy relating to the end times.

    Obviously any biblical interpretation is open to … well, interpretation! … and I’m not up to speed on the details any more, but I don’t think the claim that many Americans support Israel because they think the Bible tells them to is in any way controversial.

  296. Robert Capozzi

    Tk, I guess a case could be made based on any number of exceptions. Those 2 situations both sound highly exceptional to me, and therefore not the basis of a “good” case.

  297. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob,

    The Israeli case isn’t “exceptional” at all. It’s a case I picked at random, and it’s the norm.

    Under most circumstances, it is illegal in Israel to extradite Israeli citizens, for the perfectly logical reason that there’s legitimate fear that a Jew won’t get a fair trial in many countries (remember, Zionism was founded in the aftermath of the Dreyfus affair, which was about precisely that).

    Israel is also very free with its citizenship if the applicant is Jewish, for similar historical reasons.

    The bottom line is that if you’re an American accused of a crime and you happen to be Jewish, then chances are very good that if you can GET to Israel you’ll be allowed to STAY in Israel, US extradition requests be damned.

  298. Robert Capozzi

    tk, my point is that I don’t see Israel’s extradition polities be a non-starter for US alliance with them. I don’t see it rising to that level. Others may. Some nations have alliances with the US despite the US have a death penalty, for ex., and the ally doesn’t. Israel’s extradition policies and US capital punishment practice both don’t work for me, for ex., but I’m dealing with them.

  299. Tom Blanton

    In my view, it’s you who can’t comprehend that in this case. You seem to think the only plausible way that anyone could back Israel is if they’ve been infected with pro-Israel propaganda originated by the Israeli government and the pro-Israel lobby.

    You can’t conceive of how a great many people who pay no attention to what Likud and AIPAC say still recognize simple facts about the Israeli legal system (as pertains to its own citizens) compared to that of other Middle Eastern countries…

    It’s not so much about the lies and distortions from the Likudniks and AIPAC, it is the actual actions and behavior of Israel over a long period of time. It is because of the steady diet of pro-Israel propaganda spoon fed to Americans that obscures, minimizes, rationalizes, and/or excuses the things Israel does as a nation led by ultra right wing Zionist extremists. Any nation that would have Avignor Lieberman as their foreign minister should be ostracized from the world community. It would be like America having David Duke as Secretary of State, except Duke isn’t about to be indicted for fraud, money laundering, and witness tampering.

    I think that if Americans had a clear picture of what has transpired regarding Israel, their support would not continue. That is already happening here. A number of Christian organizations have promoted disinvestment from Israel.

    Ignoring the geopolitical problems being created by Likud and their ilk is not “supporting Israel” in any true sense. It is like handing a suicidal friend a loaded pistol.

  300. Darryl W. Perry

    I think WAR should consider reading some statements/essays from “Neturei Karta (Orthodox Jews United Against Zionism)” & “True Torah Jews Against Zionism” and/or other Jewish groups that oppose the actions of “Israel” and the “Israeli government.”

  301. Robert Capozzi

    tb, let’s assume you’re right. That the Likud = Duke. As a single issue, for Ls to get behind an unmasking of Likud as a major L issue — a signature initiative — still seems like bad politics for the LP and LM to me.

    I’d say the same thing about the capital punishment issue, one that I personally strongly support the abolition of. Why? It’s a pushing-on-a-string issue.

    dwp, I’m pretty sure there there have been Jews against the establishment of Israel and Zionism for decades. Many Hasidic Jews have long held that view, for ex. Being “anti-Zionist” and calling out Likud seem like very different things to me.

  302. Tom Blanton

    Cappozi – get it right. I never said “Likud = Duke”. You made that up, not me. I basically said that Lieberman is worse than Duke. Obviously, you haven’t spent even a moment away from typing your nonsense to look into Lieberman

    I also never said anything about “the unmasking of Likud” or suggested it should be a “major L issue”. This is more of your bullshit.

    It is my opinion that the pro-Likud Netanyahu-Libertarians are far worse for the LP than just the ordinary right-wing Reagan-Libertarians.

    I might also remind you that it was the racist lies and distortions of Wayne Root based on his newfound Netanyahu-Libertarianism that created this issue. I can’t recall ever speaking to it before on IPR or any other forum.

    You may choose to overlook Root’s fake outrage and hateful and unfounded comments. I have chosen to make an issue out of his comments.

    If that makes me the bad guy, in your “humble opinion”, I could care less. I have no respect for the opinions of those who lie in the defense of other liars.

    I find it so very bizarre that you think Tom Blanton’s view of the Likud, Netanyahu, and Wayne Root’s diatribe are harmful to the LP or the libertarian movement, but it is fine for Wayne Root to repeatedly publish racist rants filled with lies.

    Perhaps you need to be reminded that I do not have the millions of followers that Root claims, I am never on TV or radio, I am not a published columnist, and am not an official in the LP. I don’t even have a facebook page.

    You’re way off base, Capozzi. You are out of your mind.

  303. Robert Capozzi

    370 tb: It is my opinion that the pro-Likud Netanyahu-Libertarians are far worse for the LP than just the ordinary right-wing Reagan-Libertarians.

    me: It seems you’re making the case that there is a conscious pro-Likud L wing, yet so far all I’ve seen is your accusation that such a thing exists. Near as I can tell, your evidence is that some of the rhetoric that 2 Ls have used rhetoric similar to Likud arguments. That doesn’t seem to indicate a full-blown wing of the LP or LM. It’s a single issue. One encounters a fair amount of Ls who have some admiration for Reagan; I have a bit myself.

    So, you’d probably need to make a more comprehensive case that there IS a Likud wing and why it’s worse than a Reagan-L wing to be persuasive to others. You’d also probably need to show how L supporters of Israel are actually Likud Ls…they might just overlook some of Likud’s excesses, as their support for Israel may require them to turn a blind eye to the overreaches by the current administration there.

    Then, just saying “they are worse” requires some basis for comparison IF you want to make a case.

  304. Tom Blanton

    It is my opinion that the pro-Likud Netanyahu-Libertarians are far worse for the LP than just the ordinary right-wing Reagan-Libertarians.

    “It is my opinion” are the operative words, Capozzi. Simply reading the rhetoric of Root, and of Robert Ringer on another thread, along with the comments by some “libertarians” provides me with enough information to form my opinion.

    I did not invent the term “Reagan-Libertarian”, however I did come up with the term “Netanyahu-Libertarian” to describe those who defend, excuse, or ignore the rhetoric of militant Zionism.

    You disagree. I don’t care. If you want to make the case that I am wrong, go ahead. Or attack me on a personal level like you normally do. Associate me with evil people (Tim McVeigh is always good) and pull a pejorative label (absolutist is getting stale) out of your grab bag and affix it to me. Misquote me and redefine a few words as to ignore their ordinary meanings. Falsely attribute positions I don’t hold to me and then extrapolate them to some absurd conclusion.

    In my opinion, your opinions are worthless and you are reality challenged, to put it charitably. I don’t need to make a case for that opinion as I think you’ve already made the case repeatedly, in my opinion.

    Defending obvious racism and lies then attacking someone criticizing it while claiming to “take the high road” puts you into a special category of people who I have no respect for. I’m sure you take yourself quite seriously, but I don’t.

  305. Robert Capozzi

    372 tb: You disagree. I don’t care.

    me: Actually, I don’t have a position. We NOW know that you think Root and Ringer are the 2 Likud Ls. They might be. Based on these recent essays, I see your point, but I’ve yet to see an outright trend.

  306. Thomas L. Knapp

    “I’d say the same thing about the capital punishment issue, one that I personally strongly support the abolition of. Why? It’s a pushing-on-a-string issue.”

    How many states will have to repeal capital punishment like Illinois just did before you decide that it’s “ripe,” i.e. it’s time to try to run to the front of the parade and lead on it now that it’s “safe” to do so and everyone’s already on your side?

  307. Tom Blanton

    Good question, Mr. Knapp.

    A related death penalty issue is the President’s new-found authority to make an extrajudicial and unreviewable determination to have anyone, including an American citizen, assassinated anywhere in the world based on the assertion that the person is a threat to America.

    Meanwhile, Root is making up shit so that he can pretend to be outraged by something Obama hasn’t said.

    I guess death by government is just not a neolibertarian concern – at least not when there are issues like tax cuts for the rich or support for militant Zionism to be concerned about.

  308. Tom Blanton

    I’ve yet to see an outright trend.

    The “Ground-Zero Mosque”, the pro-Mubarak stance, and now the parroting of Netanyahu’s lies.

    It’s quite trendy to be a Netanyahu-Libertarian these days.

  309. Robert Capozzi

    374, 5 TK and TB, peace does eventually win the day. Abolition of the death penalty is ripening in some states. Whether it’s ripe nationally is another issue.

    The point of ripeness is there are some issues that one can hold politically but not lead with. If you guys both hold there’s a “right” to pack machine guns in subways, you might want to downplay or even remain silent on the issue were you to run for office or even try to be persuasive in the public square. OR you might start a single-issue campaign for universal machine-gun-toting rights, playing for another day.

  310. Robert Capozzi

    376 tb, OK. Yes, I too disagreed with Root’s take on Ground Zero and Mubarak. Were these Likud positions, too?

    Root is one guy. Is he a faction of one — the Likud L faction — or is this an actual trend?

  311. Robert Capozzi

    375 tb: I guess death by government is just not a neolibertarian concern – at least not when there are issues like tax cuts for the rich or support for militant Zionism to be concerned about.

    me: Wait a second…I thought you were labeling ME a neoL. I am concerned with “death by government,” and I certainly don’t consider myself a “militant Zionist.” Tax cuts for the “rich” I support, but then I support cutting all taxes, certainly overall.

    If you’re going to throw such labels around, at least have the decency to define what you mean. Please!

  312. Tom Blanton

    I’ve been considering addressing the right of individuals to build nukes in their basements the next time I’m on national TV, but I wouldn’t touch the death penalty issue with a 10-foot pole – it is entirely too controversial and to address it at this time would be contra-indicated.

    If you’re going to throw such labels around, at least have the decency to define what you mean.

    Why ask from me behavior that you don’t ask of yourself, or more precisely, your self. The customary tossing about of labels that arises from the repeated practice of categorizing others is a habit I have acquired from you, Brother Capozzi.

    But labels only exist in one’s own mind and are entirely subjective based on ever shifting perceptions. As with the momentary snapshots in time that form our perceptions, the definitions of words may change from moment to moment. I like to ask my mind, “Does the definition fit the word or does the word fit the definition?”

    During the continuum of the experience that one may define as life, the situation is not static, reality changes and popular memes appear and then vanish. What is a trend today may be an anachronism tomorrow. Ergo, the definition of neolibertarian changes constantly. Those who were neolibertarians yesterday may be Netanyahu-Libertarians today, only to shift paradigms tomorrow to become neo-Obama-Libertarians.

    Let us not become attached to labels and definitions, but rather keep an open mind, as I do, so that we may be like chameleons, changing to match the changing backdrop of life. This is the way of the Grand Master in the Parade of the Charade.

    Enjoy the radiant sun on this Tombstone Day.

  313. Robert Capozzi

    Tb, you learn well, Grasshopper. ;-) At this point in the space/time continuum, my shifting perception tells me abolition of K punishment is less frightening than machine-guns in the tube or nukes in the workshed.

  314. Michael Cavlan RN

    Just out of curosity.

    Are there any “lefties” anarchists etc who are considring leaving the Libertarian Party due to Wayne Root and his right wing, neo-con supporters?

    Dear God. Waynne is a nut job and is so obviously using you folks IMHO.

    Please do not let him destroy the LP.

  315. George Phillies

    @383

    If the Libertarian Presidential candidate, no matter who it is, starts ranting Islamophobic drivel, there will be very radical consequences. However, our party platform has condemned bigotry

    3.5 Rights and Discrimination

    We condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant. Government should not deny or abridge any individual’s rights based on sex, wealth, race, color, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political preference or sexual orientation. Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs.

    One would hope that the National Committee would have the minimal good sense to remove the candidate that uttered it.

    As is well known, party membership has been falling for month after month, and my entirely reliable sources indicate that high elements of our national party leadership specifically blame LNC members who smear our party name by association with the likes of Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Savage, and the like.

    George Phillies

    Hopefully the block quote will work. I would really have liked a preview button on this post, or at least a visible list of valid html tags.

  316. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    MC @ 383: I know many Libertarians who will leave the party if, by some miracle, Mr. Root becomes our candidate in 2012, myself included. This is why I’m so vocal about his egocentric, non-Libertarian, and sometimes even racist posts.

    Many of my friends will also leave. This isn’t a threat or ultimatum; if that’s really the person the party thinks represents me, then I won’t belong anymore.

  317. Robert Capozzi

    I guess the right anarchists walking out over “libertinism” creates a certain balance, then.

  318. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    RC @ 388: “I guess the right anarchists walking out over “libertinism” creates a certain balance, then.”

    Whatever.

  319. Steven Wilson

    I am not trying to speak of game theory after the weekend I just had, but what Root is doing is working very well for him.

    Root needs several parts of the LP to leave quietly within the next year or so, as he has a strategy for 2016.

    Root is going to promote the LP as the real conservative party when he runs for President, which he has been doing since he “left” the elephant in 2007.

    Root is a big tent craptown guy. The crap is to get rid of the extreme element of the LP. He does not want any language used about the black flag or the Minarchist mechanism. So, instead of using a filter, he is simply getting rid of the people who speak that way. His smell is getting so bad, you will leave on your own. Afterwards, he will take no cause to effect for your departure. The defense will be something like, “those people couldn’t handle the success of my message, the real conservative party is showing itself, and I am showing them how to be Americans.”

    He has mentioned several times about how that kind of language scares people off. Root knows he needs people, the Right people, so those people can follow him.

    In chili dogs and relish, or rather, what used to be liberty

    Fart

  320. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    Root definitely considers me a “leftist” (although I was a lifelong Republican until I fled the GOP in horror during Dubya’s first term), and I’m sure he’d like for me to leave. I’m not a shy, retiring flower, though. I’m going to fight for the party this upcoming year. If I lose, and he wins–well, I’ve made some good contacts in the Liberty movement and I’ll take my antiwar and civil liberties fights somewhere else.

  321. Steven Wilson

    The Lp has the ballot access and he has the media contacts. He got Vegas at the time to mold the Party.

    Mark Hinkle is too weak and not bright enough to hold it together. He doesn’t have the skill to adapt to the new Root Libertarians that he is getting from the RP.

    This is how individualism dies. Face to face. In Vegas with no underwear. Central Planning with a smile.

  322. Darryl W. Perry

    I just had a thought… not sure how Nevada chose delegates before the counties were disaffiliated… could this disaffiliation of counties have some consequence on Root being able to ensure the Nevada delegates are “his” before the 2012 National Convention?

  323. Robert Milnes

    Use The Original Nolan Resolution to purge non-libertarians from LP party positions and candidacies.
    He said again.
    Nobody listens to him.
    Nevermind.

  324. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    Oh, Darrel, I certainly think that’s a possiblity. I also think they were trying to take away Jim Duensing’s position so he couldn’t embarrass them when he started talking about the Truth. It’s hard to think such an obvious power grab didn’t have anything to do with Root.

  325. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    In this case I agree with you, RM. If Root isn’t at least “talked to” or disciplined by the LNC after this racist rant, then they’re in worse shape than I’ve been thinking they
    are.

  326. Tom Blanton

    Root is an idiot. The fact is that “true conservatives” will always vote for the GOP candidate because they fear and loathe the Democrat candidate more than they believe in the ideology they profess to believe in.

    They may join the LP and rally behind Root’s nonsense, but on election day they will vote GOP to ensure the evil Democrats don’t win. As if there was really any difference.

    Meanwhile, Root says he is praying that Chris Christie runs in 2012.

  327. Drive Away the Root Rightists

    One solution is for radicals to be loud and extreme in the media. Embarrass the “conservatives” in the LP so they’ll leave. Or never join in the first place.

    Radicals don’t need “official” authority to represent the LP to the media. Just call yourself a Libertarian leader (many radicals have LP titles of one kind or another), and state your extreme radical views.

    If you’re colorful enough (like Starchild) the media may well cover your “libertarian” position, despite your lack of “official” LP authorization. Why not? Colorful people make good television

    Put Root and Starr on the defensive. Force them to spend all their time doing “damage control” over the latest radical Libertarian’s public statement.

    If hundreds of radicals do this across the country, conservatives will sneer even more so at the LP as a bunch of “libertines” and “stoners.”

    Fox News audiences might even grow disgusted at Root for associating with such a bunch of loonies.

  328. Milnes Is Wrong About Purges

    Stop fantasizing about a purge, Milnes.

    Neither side has the POWER to purge the other, even if they wanted to.

    If you were to recognize the REALITY of that, you could turn your attention to other, more REALISTIC solutions.

  329. Robert Capozzi

    389 jp: Whatever.

    me: True. It seems that someone will get incensed about something and then do whatever mitigates the pain. Anger triggers all sorts of things, usu. apparently negative things. The libertines triggered Rockwell. The current Likudism seems to trigger the left anarchists.

    Compassion seems to be the only appropriate response to their pain.

  330. Tom Blanton

    One solution is for radicals to be loud and extreme in the media. Embarrass the “conservatives” in the LP so they’ll leave. Or never join in the first place.

    Radicals don’t need “official” authority to represent the LP to the media. Just call yourself a Libertarian leader (many radicals have LP titles of one kind or another), and state your extreme radical views.

    Damn right, Drive-By @ #399!

    Why would anyone join a plitikal party in cause they agrees with some damn platfoorm?

    And then go round spoutin off all that extreemist junk in the platfoorm?

    Republikins wins lekshuns all the time so it only make since to talk like Republikins and forgit about all that radakill extreem liberul crap.

    Sorry, I forget to use all big lettters.

  331. Tom Blanton

    The current Likudism seems to trigger the left anarchists.

    Damn right, Capoozi! What is it about shutting up about bigotry and deception when it comes to our special friends that they hate?

    What part of special relationship is it they don’t get?

    Last time I checked, Jesus was a Jew, so how come all these anarchists deny the holocaust by jumping all over Netanyahu?

  332. LibertarianGirl

    i have insider info that says the NV purge was more about Duensing and Burns than any excom member will ever admit publicly , but the OBVIOUSLY dont knoe Duensing , this will only make him redouble his efforts not go away , so the jokes on them.

  333. Robert Capozzi

    404 tb: What is it about shutting up about bigotry and deception when it comes to our special friends that they hate?

    me: Shutting up? I’ve not suggested that, nor do I. Nor have I. I DO suggest not savaging those one disagrees with.

  334. Robert Capozzi

    398 drive: One solution is for radicals to be loud and extreme in the media.

    me: Yes, this is a play in the “radical” playbook that HAS worked. The only difference is that now there are a lot more lower-case Ls than in times past. And we’ve heard the extreme positions stridently taken many times before, so we’re ready for the next instance of private nuke advocating L going off the rails.

  335. Thomas L. Knapp

    “The only difference is that now there are a lot more lower-case Ls than in times past.”

    Good to hear.

    “so we’re ready for the next instance of private nuke advocating L going off the rails”

    Who’s we? And why are you so worried that a libertarian will escape the boxcar before it gets to the camp?

  336. Tom Blanton

    Even if a private person or group could overcome the financial and technical hurdles of manufacturing a nuclear weapon, so what?

    Is the problem that only one person or even a handful is now on equal footing with a nation state?

    How can one nuke in the hands of one person be worse than hundreds of nukes in the hands of a government with a history of invading other nations that pose no threat?

    I’m not sure why any rational person would want to have a nuke, but I’m pretty sure an irrational person would not be capable of obtaining the materials required to build a nuke and actually manufacture one.

    The fact is that nobody is actually worried about it at all. It is merely a strawman for moderates to use who wish to paint anyone less moderate as an extremist.

    In politics, everyone gets painted as an extremist by someone.

    It is so Junior High Schoolish.

  337. Robert Capozzi

    408 tk, the point is that there are more Ls in absolute numbers, a lot more. The cumulative effect of the efforts of L organizations, the LP, and RP have made the word and ideas almost common knowledge. Yes, that’s a good thing. However, the CONSEQUENCE of L-ism remains fleeting, which is unfortunate, since maximizing liberty is IMO an even BETTER thing.

    As for getting off the boxcar, I’m for it. Of course, I view the “camp” as absolutist dogma. I don’t buy the Bryan Caplan setup, where Rothbardians and other absolutists are the “pure” Ls, and those of us who got OFF the boxcar are mere fellow travelers.

    409 tb, I’d say nuclear proliferation in any form is threatening. It’s negative enough nation states have them. An individual who secures one is not on “equal footing”; IMO, such a person (Dr. Evil and Minnie Me?) is an inherent threat.

    How would you feel if your next-door neighbor had one? Everyone has their “rational” and “irrational” moments, near as I can tell, btw. Was the government of Pakistan “rational” or “irrational” when they got nukes after India did? I’m not sure it’s a meaningful question, actually.

    I’m really not sure I can explain a self-evident truth. One either gets it or one doesn’t. And, yes, that works both ways.

    And, yes, the charge of “extremist” is easily made. If the accused believes he or she in fact IS an extremist, taking non-serious stands, then odds are high that he or she won’t be taken seriously by many. Sanctimony appeals to true believers, but few others. The charge of extremist stings them, and they get defensive.

    If one has a sense of virtue AND a sense of humility, I suspect many will find those attractive qualities. Such an approach needs no defense.

  338. Carol Moore

    Dang, stop looking at this site for a couple months and look at the weird shit that pops up. It’s official, by the way, one of those ask.com type sites says Wayne Root WAS Obama’s Columbia roommate. Which means they were fucking like little bisexual bunnies. Yoo haa. Wayne you better get out there an clean up the internet if not true. (No I didn’t start the roomer – i mean RUMOR – some GOP web site did. Har har.)

Leave a Reply