Well I finally did it. I figured it was time to pay my dues considering that I intend to go to Vegas and run against Mr. Hinkle or any of the other Starr-cabal for chairperson.

Originally I had considered mailing in 2500 pennies in payment of my dues, in a nice flat rate US Postage box with a light activated audio player to belt out “zwanzig funfhundert Hinterpfennig” to the tune of “Neunundneunzig Luftbaloon”, but alas, I was certain the uberparliamentoonians would lay claim that it was not rendered in legal tender, so I used a credit card on the website instead.

See you all in Las Vegas!

-Wes Wagner
PS: This is why we can’t have nice things.

Wagner is the chair of the Oregon LP that is currently recognized by both the State of Oregon and the LNC, but is being sued by another faction which claims to be the real Oregon LP. For background on that see IPR archives for

Wes Wagner

Oregon Libertarian

Libertarian Party of Oregon

So far, there are no other announced candidates for national chair. It is expected that current chair Mark Hinkle will seek reelection.

Rumored candidates include current vice chair Mark Rutherford and At Large rep Kevin Knedler, who said in IPR comments that he “may” run.
George Phillies has also been a frequent candidate for national chair in the past, as has Ernest Hancock. Past comments by Dr. Phillies indicated that he was likely to run again this year, but in response to Wagner he wrote:

Congratulations on your sound decision, which I heartily endorse.

I have not yet been able to ascertain whether that means he is endorsing Wagner rather than running himself.

Of the remaining 2010 chair candidates, John Jay Myers wrote in IPR comments:

Mark Hinkle is a great chair, and I will support him again this year.

I haven’t asked Wayne Root for comment, but Knedler said in his IPR comment that Root will not run. Rutherford was Root’s running mate in 2010, so it is unlikely that they would both run.

I have not asked Hancock what his plans are.

These are all the likely/rumored candidates for national chair that I know of. Additions and corrections welcome in the comments.

In 2010, Libertarians made decisions.

Root and Starr were overwhelmingly rejected by our National Convention. Now the LNC has given them their own National Committee, one that legally has all the powers of the real National Committee, and no need for either of them to face election by the Libertarian Party’s membership.

IPR notes:

George Phillies ran for LNC national chair in 2010 against Mark Hinkle, Wayne Root, John Jay Myers and Ernie Hancock. The results of that election are here. Phillies comments regularly at IPR, as does Wayne Root, and Aaron Starr is an article writer for IPR as well.

Phillies has also run for chair several other times, and both Root and Phillies ran for the Libertarian presidential nomination in 2008.

IPR welcomes opinions on different sides of this issue, both in the comment section of this article as well as articles submitted for publication if anyone wishes to submit any.

Although I did not attend The Future of the Libertarian Political Movement conference in Manchester, New Hampshire on June 19, 2011, I compiled a few details and have written an article about the conference, which included the first Libertarian Presidential Debate:

http://drtomstevens.blogspot.com/2011/06/future-of-libertarian-political.html

In Liberty,

Dr. Tom Stevens

A one-day conference entitled The Future Of The Libertarian Political Movement was recently held on Sunday, June 19, 2011 at the Highlander Inn in Manchester, New Hampshire. George Phillies organized the conference, co-sponsored by the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire and the Libertarian Party of Massachusetts, and promised to cover any losses. He had support from his State Committee, Angela Keaton and Rich Tomasso.

The conference keynote speaker was Judge John Buttrick of Arizona who spoke at the luncheon. Other featured speakers included Angela Keaton of AntiWar.com and Outright Libertarians; Joe Kennedy, Libertarian candidate for U.S. Senate; Ernest Hancock, publisher of Freedom’s Phoenix; Mary Ruwart, author of “Healing our World” and member of the Libertarian National Committee, and Don Gorman, past LNC at-large representative, former Libertarian N.H. state representative and the most-elected libertarian in the country.

The conference featured the following panels and sessions, which were divided into two tracks:

■ Electronic Security and Activism in the Age of Anonymous

■ Campaigns for Congress and running large-scale campaigns

■ Future Outreach to Youth and Students

■ Future Outreach to the GLBTQ Community

■ Libertarians and the anti-war movement

■ Recruiting Candidates

■ New Hampshire Politics and the Free State Project

■ The State of the States and reviving state parties

The conference also featured the first debate of candidates seeking the Libertarian Party’s Presidential Nomination in 2012. To qualify for participation in the debate, candidates needed to prove they had an extended continuous record of Libertarian Party activism, completed their FEC filings and had a substantial campaign team in place. Three candidates qualified for participation: R. Lee Wrights of Texas, Carl Person of New York and Roger V. Gary of Texas. George Phillies moderated the debate.

The Massachusetts delegation promised to award one LPUS 2012 National Convention Delegate to the candidate who won the Straw Poll of attendees after the debate. Twenty-two people voted in the Straw Poll: 12 voted for R. Lee Wrights, 7 voted for Carl Person and 3 voted for Roger V. Gary. Wrights won the Massachusetts Delegate. The New Hampshire delegation caucused separately eventually committing one delegate to N.O.T.A. and one delegate to Albert Max Abramson, who declared his candidacy for the LP Presidential Nomination at the convention. Mr. Abramson was not permitted to participate in the debate and failed to mention to the convention attendees that he is currently a candidate running for State Representative in the Republican Primary in an upcoming Special Election.

Mary Ruwart, a member of the Libertarian National Committee, reported to conference attendees that membership in the Libertarian Party has recently been flat and only went up slightly during the past few months because Wes Benedict, Executive Director of the Libertarian National Committee, has been personally calling former members to ask them to renew. She stated most of the LNC is in denial about membership. George Phillies personally told me “a highly reliable source” told him Mark Hinkle. LP Chair, “is aware of the (membership) decline and blames it on Wayne’s (Wayne Allyn Root) bizarre and very public political stances”.

Despite the low attendance and the failure of conference attendees to offer possible solutions to address the decline in Libertarian Party membership, George Phillies was very positive about what the conference was able to accomplish. He said:

The convention was a fantastic success. We had better speeches, and more choices of panel, than you will see at any other libertarian convention this year.

Carl Person, one of the Presidential Debate Participants, had this reflection about the conference:

“George Phillies was a gracious host. He treated early-arriving participants to dinner on Saturday night and did an excellent job moderating the debate. The main point I walked away with is that the Libertarian Party must start to capture members from the ever-increasing number of voters who agree with libertarian principles and who are becoming increasingly dissatisfied with the Republican and Democratic parties.”

The Future Of The Libertarian Political Movement conference was held on Sunday, June 19, 2011 at the Highlander Inn located near the airport in Manchester, New Hampshire. Registration for the conference, which included meals, cost $100.00, although a half-day fee of $50.00 was also available.

The Libertarian Future is Here
and Republicans have only bad news incoming.

Exciting news from the Pew Trust. They just completed their latest study of American political opinions. They do these every few years, with careful statistical analysis. You can read the whole study at people-press.org/2011/05/04/beyond-red-vs-blue-the-political-typology/
The implications of the latest study are totally spectacular for the libertarian political movement. In particular:
*There are many more left libertarians than there are right libertarians.
*Libertarians are at least as large as Republicans. All liber-tarians need to do is to bring our supporters together.
*Are you wondering why you suddenly see “Libertarians should run no Presidential candidate and vote Republican”? Without libertarians, Republicans are completely dead in the water.

What did Pew do?

If you do not care how Pew came to its conclusions, skip to ―What did Pew Learn?
They asked a very large number of Americans a long list of questions. Then they used computers to do “cluster analysis”, meaning they looked for groups of people who agree with each other on lots of their questions. Of course, very few people agree with anyone else on everything. However, it turns out
experimentally that you can break voters into groups of people who agree with each other on most issues, and you can show that the space between groups has relatively few people in it, and everyone is in some group.
That outcome, well-defined tribes of people with similar sets of views, and few people with views midway in between, does not have to be the case. You could find, having asked your ques-tions, that people giving each combination of answers are ex-actly as common as people giving any other combination. You could, but you don’t. For example, you don’t find a lot of people who support gay marriage, believe that the social safety net is important, support government intervention to protect cli-mate, and … think that abortion should be totally illegal. You don’t find zero people like that, but they are rare, while people who support gay marriage, the safety net, and carbon emission control, and who are pro-choice, are common. That’s clustering.
The reason you do computer analysis is that computers are
relatively unbiased politically. They will find clusters that exist in your data, will not find clusters that are not there, and will tell you the odds that a cluster is real rather than random chance. If you are worried whether this approach makes sense, it is the same as the classical approach that decides whether two groups of not-entirely-similar birds are the same species or two different species.

What Did Pew Learn?

Pew found that you can divide Americans into nine political
clusters. That‘s way more clusters than a liberal-conservative line shows, and it is considerably more clusters than fit on the Nolan chart. What are these clusters?
“Bystanders” are young, politically disengaged, and amount to 10% of the population, but approximately zero percent of the registered voters. For political purposes, they don’t matter because they don’t vote. They could matter, if they became voters.

So what are the groups that matter politically?

Three groups of people that are mostly Democratic. There are ‘Solid Liberals’, amounting to 16% of registered voters, who take liberal stands most of the time. There are ‘hard-pressed Democrats’ who are religious and financially challenged, amounting to 15% of the electorate. Finally, the ‘New Coalition Democrats’ at 9% of the electorate take a positive view of our institutions, including business, and tend to be Latino and other minority groups. These groups differ on some questions; the liberals are much more socially liberal.

Count them up; the Democratic base is 40% of the voters.

Then there are the two groups that are mostly Republican, the
‘staunch conservatives’ at 11% of voters and the ‘Main Street
Republicans’ at 14% of the voters. The ‘staunch conservatives’ are very conservative on almost everything, and include the people favorable to the conservative tea party types. However, the Tea Party is much more complicated than the Staunch Con-servatives, and is not a unified movement. The Main Street Conservatives are also conservative, but less so. Observe that the conservative tea party types, who are not all the tea parttypes, the staunch conservatives, are a minority in their own party.
How do the Republican groups differ? Staunch conservatives think environmental laws hurt the economy and businesses do not make too much profit; Main Street Republicans are just the opposite. Counting them up, the Republican base is 25% of the voters, way less than the Democratic base.
Pew identified three totally different groups in the middle, which the Pew writers described as ‘Disaffected’, ‘Libertarian’, and ‘post-modern’. The three groups are very different. Post-Moderns might reasonably be described as Left Libertarians, while Pew Libertarians are actually ‘Right Libertarians’. Non-libertarians may be unaware of that there are right and left libertarians, let alone that they disagree. The Left and Right Libertarians are substantially split, even as the two groups of Republicans and the three groups of Democrats are badly split. The Disaffected may be described as very upset, but not in the same ways as some other people; they think that government is almost always ineffective and wasteful, and also government should do more to help the needy.
Left and Right Libertarians are both fiscally conservative and
socially liberal, left libertarians being younger and more diverse, while right libertarians are 2/3 white males. Oh, yes, left libertarians are young people, largely under 30. The Right Libertarians are 10% of the population, the Left Libertarians are 14% of the population and the Disaffecteds are 11% of they
population. Left and right libertarians differ on such issues as global warming.

My conclusions

There are many more left libertarians than there are right
libertarians. The ratio is almost 3:2. Counting even a few of the disaffected ‘government does not work’ people as libertarians, 25%+ of the electorate is libertarian, and that’s as many libertar-ians as there are Republicans. Now we see why Republican empty heads have been calling for Libertarians — mostly right libertarians — not to run a Presidential candidate next year, namely without the right libertarian vote the Republicans are in an impossible position. They have the same fine electoral chances as Massachusetts Republicans.
The Democratic block will not vote Republican. The Disaffect-eds see that Republicans will tamper with the social safety net to the profit of the Republicans’ plutocrat bosses. The Left Libertarians are overwhelmingly supportive of gay marriage and environmental protections, and will not go near Republican religious-anti-environmental types. Without Right Libertarians, the Republicans are stuck at a quarter of the vote, which is not even minority status in most places.

What Should Libertarians Do?

The Libertarian objective is to become the #2 and then then #1 party in the country. To become #2, one of the other parties must be sent to the grave. There are far fewer Republicans than Democrats, and their positions on issues dear to the younger generation are far less acceptable to that generation, so clearly the Republicans should be the first to go, the Democrats coming later.
Thanks to first-past-the-post elections, a 30% Libertarian bloc confines the Republicans to third-party status.
How do we unify left and right libertarian voters and others? We need to pound hard on the wedge issues that divide right libertarians from Republicans, and we need to remove some wedges that make it harder for left libertarians to support us.
The core wedge issues for pulling Right Libertarians away from
Republicans are the social issues, notably abortion and gay rights. An effective libertarian campaign will take hard core libertarian positions on abortion, gay marriage, gay adoption, and other GLBTQPL issues, forcing right libertarians to consid-er the ways in which right libertarians are least like Republi-cans. Opposition to the Asian land wars and to the national security military welfare state likely also help.
Libertarian Party supporters will correctly recognize that Liber-tarian Parties in the deep south and parts of the Mississippi river basic may not like a pro-abortion stance. Supporting abortion access is like supporting the right to vote for African-Americans. Both are the right thing to do, racist reactionary manques notwithstanding, even if supporting voting rights did cost the forces of virtue the votes of white racist bigots. All the
Southern white racists shifted from the Democratic Party to the Republican. In the modern era, the libertarian position that immigrants strengthen American society not only drives away Republicans but links right and left libertarians.
Core issues for uniting right and left libertarians are again the social issues, the belief that we are a secular rather than a reli-gious society, that we welcome immigration, that capitalism works, that we oppose the warfare national security state, and that America has substantially made the changes needed to give equal rights for all.
And now we come to a few wedges that need to be removed.
Right libertarians are somewhat to prone to fall for conserva-tive anti-intellectualism, expressed as global warming denial, evolution denial, and a completely unworkable environmental defense scheme based on litigation on an unprecedented scale. Anti-intellectualism may have a long American tradition be-hind it. However, we are the wealthiest and most productive country in the world because of our engineers, our skilled workers, and our learned professions, not because the ignorant assert their right to believe their wrong opinions.
For a somewhat different progressive democratic take on the same data, see dailykos.com/story/2011/05/08/973770/-Pew-typologies: Beyond-mere-left-and-right.

The Republican-appointed “Emergency Manager” of Benton Harbor, Michigan,
appointed by the Republican Governor of Michigan, has just dissolved the
City Government of Benton Harbor in favor of his personal rule as, oh,
we need a title, “People’s Commissar”. Or, if you have an alternative
opinion of Republicans “Gauleiter”.

Here is his Leader-Decree dissolving government OF and BY the people.

EMERGENCY MANAGER
CITY OF BENTON HARBOR
BERRIEN COUNTY MICHIGAN
ORDER NO.: 11-C5
ORDER PROHIBITING ALL ACTION BY ALL CITY BOARDS,
COMMISSIONS AND AUTHORITIES, EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY
THE EMERGENCY MANAGER

I, Joseph L. Harris, the duly appointed Emergency Manager for the City
of Benton Harbor, Michigan (the “City”), pursuant to the power and
authority granted by Act 4 of the Public Acts of Michigan of 2011, being
MCL 141.1501 et seq (the “Act”), do hereby resolve and
order as follows:

WHEREAS, Section 19(ee) provides that the Emergency Manager may exercise
any power or authority of any office, employee, department, board,
commission or similar entity of the City, whether elected or appointed;

WHEREAS, the power of the Emergency Manager as set forth in Section
19(ee) of the Act is superior to and supersedes any such officer or
entity; and

WHEREAS, now, no City Board, Commission or Authority has authority or
power to act on behalf of the City as provided in the Act.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS:
1. Absent prior express written authorization and approval by the
Emergency Manager, no City Board, Commission or Authority shall take any
action for or on behalf of the City whatsoever other than:
i) Call a meeting to order.
ii) Approve of meeting minutes.
iii) Adjourn a meeting.

2. That all prior resolutions, or acts of any kind of the City in
conflict herewith are and the same shall be, to the extent of such
conflict, rescinded.

3. This order shall be effective immediately.
City of Benton Harbor
Dated: April 14, 2011
(Signed) Joseph L. Harris
Emergency Manager

Now, why would a Republican Governor think he could tell the people of
Benton Harbor that they are now living in the Satrapy of Bentongrad?

A statistic courtesy Eclectablog on Daily Kos: Benton Harbor is 92.4%
African American.

After all, if Republicans let African-Americans vote for local
government officials, they might develop a far,m team of people who
might run for higher office against Republicans.

Perhaps it is time to litigate.

And perhaps it is time for Americans to bring Egypt — peaceful assembly
in protest against tyranny — to America. Because whether you live in
Bar Harbor, Kansas City, Philadelphia-Mississippi, Salt Lake City, or
San Francisco, what happened to Benton Harbor might happen next to you.

The headlines, some of which have been already posted as IPR stories, and others which may or may not in the coming days:

LSLA Meeting Cancelled
LP Oregon Sets State Convention
New Hampshire Liberty Forum Cancelled
LP California Sets State Convention
Libertarian State Parties Raise Federal Money
Assange News Even Better Than Previously Reported
Massachusetts Circulates Newsletter
Rhode Island Party Starts Issuing Press Releases
LNC Receives Proposed Budget
LNC Seemingly Violates By-laws, Lets ExComm Appoint New Treasurer
Knedler Appointed to LNC ExComm
Can He Actually Stop With One? Or Will Your Preacher Be Next on the Presidential Death List?
LP Texas Calls for Flood’s Removal from LNC
Region Four Alternate Wills Resigns, Starts New Party
LNC Member Olsen Praises LNC Staff, Criticizes Budget
The Secret LNC Email List
LNC In Action
LNC Appoints Wolf to Audit Committee

Over email, Phillies and I (Paulie) discussed two of those items:

1) “LSLA meeting cancelled” – in response to Kevin Knedler’s comment on that article being reproduced on IPR, we reported that the LSLA meeting was rescheduled. Dr. Phillies responded that, since there is no detailed agenda, he does not at this time consider it to be a real LSLA meeting correction: have an opinion as to whether it is a real LSLA meeting or not.

2) “LNC Seemingly Violates By-laws, Lets ExComm Appoint New Treasurer” – This one may well become a separate IPR post, but in the meantime, please feel free to discuss that (or for that matter any of the other headlines, whether or not they have been discussed as separate IPR articles yet) in the comments on this post. Again, you can read that and all the other articles at http://libertyforamerica.com/201102.pdf.

Thomas Sipos at Libertarian Peacenik blog:

At a recent Libertarian National Committee meeting, Libertarian Party chairman Mark Hinkle proposed increasing the LP’s outreach to Muslims. LNC member Wayne Allyn Root objected.

Here are more details, are reported by Gold America Group:

Mark Hinkle announced he was going to present our party before the American Muslim Alliance, where he had been invited to speak….

Probably not expecting the responder, “Jews,” from Scott Lieberman.

=============================

Some observations:

Outreach is generally aimed at under-represented groups (as per their percentage of the U.S. population). It appears to me, based on my decades of following the LP, that:

* Jews, atheists, pagans, and Christians are well represented. Yes, the LP has a minor reputation of being unwelcoming to Christians, but I’ve not found this to be so.

* Women and youth are under-represented.

* Muslims and people of color are heavily under-represented.

It’s nice that the LP has so many older, white men of Jewish, atheist, and Christian background. But Libertarians have long griped about the lack of women, youth, and people of color in the LP. So what are they doing about it? How about increasing outreach to under-represented groups?

It’s telling that I’ve not heard complaints about the lack of Muslims in the LP, but it make sense to increase outreach to them as well.

Imagine if a member of the Lily White Country Club suggested outreach to blacks? And someone said: “No, that looks anti-white! It’s racist to outreach only to blacks! We shouldn’t do outreach to blacks unless we do equal outreach to whites!”

That’s Root’s logic.

The flaw in Root’s logic is that the LP’s door is obviously open to Jews and atheists, Christians and pagans. It’s not obviously open to Muslims (or to blacks, or Mexicans…).

As for Root’s worry that Jews or Christians may be “offended” by the LP’s “biased” outreach to Muslims, well, I suppose that in the 1950s some Lily White Country Club members were offended by outreach to blacks (and Jews, and Catholics, and Latinos).

But so what?

If LP members (or American voters) are offended by outreach to Americans of Muslim heritage … let them be offended.

(I can’t speak for other faiths, but I’ve done the research, and I know that good Catholics won’t take offense at Muslim outreach.)

=============================

Thomas L. Knapp makes a good observation at Independent Political Report. “Left libertarians” have long griped about Root appearing on far-right, pro-war, and even homophobic shows (e.g., radio’s Mike Savage). Knapp observes:

Root objects to the chair accepting the Muslim group’s invitation, characterizing the chair’s acceptance as an LNC activity that amounts to “the LNC sending a rep” … Three guesses what [Root's] likely response would be if anyone on the LNC tried to tell him what shows/events he could or could not appear at/on.

Yup. Root demands the right to represent the LP anywhere he wishes (no matter how it reflects on the LP), yet he conversely wants to veto others in representing the LP in ways he disapproves of.

Hypocrisy?

Our usual sources provide us with information that we believe to be correct about LNC acts this past month.

The LNC added LP Maryland State Chair Bob Johnston to their part-time as their Candidate and Affiliate Support Specialist. The LNC has finally noticed that it had inactive affiliates, that it is now trying to revive. Here in New England, Rhode Island and Maine were inactive; friends of mine revived both of them.

The LNC debated changes in the Policy manual to specify what information should be in the Treasurer’s budget. Brad Ploeger was appointed to the Technology Committee. The LNC spent $50,000 in a failed effort to get a particular legal status in New York. The ExComm vote was 4-3. Oaksun voted against, he said. The effort failed and there was then dissension on the LNC. James Oaksun prior to his resignation advised:

Continue reading….

Do you truly believe a President can stop with just one?

Last year the Obama Administration took a step without historical precedent. It ordered the assassination of an American citizen.

The citizen is Anwar al-Awlaki, described by the New York Times as “an eloquent Muslim cleric.” Anwar al-Awlaki, born in 1971 in New Mexico, is a native-born citizen, not a foreigner. There appears to be agreement that he has not planted explosives, nor has he launched military attacks. He has preached, and preached inspiringly.

The ancient history of the Abrahamic religions — Judaism, Christianity, and Islam — is filled with prophets and preachers, men and women who spoke truth to power, men and women who warned Kings and Presidents and those who lived in proud towers that they had turned their back on virtue and justice. Some were heard. Some were ignored.

Powerful secular rulers fear truth. When prophets and preachers spoke the truth, they faced the wrath of great kings. Jezebel slaughtered prophets by the tens and hundreds. Nebuchadnezzar strove to execute Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, to no avail. Martin Luther King invoked Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego in his letter from the Birmingham jail, writing of the deeds leading to his incarceration “one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.” His letter showed an equal duty, the duty to preach against unjust acts. And that is the crime of which Anwar al-Awlaki is accused: preaching.

Of course, it is not given to men to know for certain which preachers speak the truth, and which are in error. The “Letter from the Birmingham Jail” was a response to another letter, “A Call for Unity,” from eight Birmingham preachers, Bishops, a Pastor, and a Rabbi, giving advice that was quite opposite to Martin Luther King’s.

Because we cannot know truth, we reject the example of Jezebel. We reject the example of the Englishmen who burned Joan of Arc and put to death all manner of ministers. In America, we have until now rejected religious persecution in favor of freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

Barack Obama has changed all that. Barack Obama has ordered the assassination of a man of faith, for the crime for preaching. You may say ‘but that man is an Islamite. Why should I fear what Obama does to a worshipper of a false god?’

Do you truly believe that men and women of your faith never preach truth to power? Are your sermons all spoken by cowards, men who bow their heads to Nebo and Nergal lest they offend the King of Babylon?

Anwar al-Awlaki may be the first, though thus far like Shadrach he has walked through the furnace and taken no harm. Do you truly believe he will be the last?

Or will you wait until your preacher gives some President mortal offense, so that the President’s men come and take him away? Must it be your preacher added to the Presidential death list before you see the error of these ways?

Barack Obama has shown himself by his execution order to be the second Nebuchadnezzar, the imperial potentate who has rejected our secular faith, our Constitution. America should reject Obama’s false ways. It should reject the false prophets of his National Security Council, the men who bow before Obama chanting that an American President is The Lord of Life and Death.

We should through our Constitution and laws and legal political processes reject Obama and his false prophets of death, for if we do not there will soon enough come among us a messenger, and the messenger’s words for our Republic will be “mene mene tekel upharsin” … you have been measured and found wanting and the number of your days is no more.

George Phillies is a contributing editor for Liberty For All. You can contact Dr. Phillies at phillies@wpi.edu.

Some prior discussion of this issue already took place in the election predictions thread. At that time I asked that people hold off that discussion so that we would get a chance to get in some election predictions, and promised to give it its own thread after the election. This is that thread, if anyone wants to continue that discussion. We’ll have another thread comparing our readers’ election predictions with actual results in the next couple of days.

The Liberty for America Political Action Committee has launched a fund drive for support of New Hampshire Libertarian candidates. “Advertisements are already running” emphasized LfA Chair George Phillies. “If you live in New Hampshire and use Facebook, you are already seeing our advertising. If you live in New Hampshire and see Google Adwords, you may soon be seeing our advertising.” Liberty for America has already launched a new web page http://libertyforamerica.com/NHFundraising.htm in support of the campaign.

“We have great opportunities”, Phillies added. “The American people look at the Old Parties. They know one is bad. and the other is worse. Liberty for America is making sure New Hampshire voters know they have a better choice, the Libertarian choice. We’re already running ads like “Vote Libertarian! Vote for lower taxes. Vote to protect your Second Amendment rights. Vote for opportunity, freedom, and peace.”

Liberty for America has launched a direct mail campaign, asking New Hampshire Libertarians to contribute. Front and center in that campaign is a promise: The majority of every dollar received, from the first dollar on, will be spent on advertising, even before fundraising costs are covered. “We don’t have a fancy headquarters or an expensive staff,” Phillies said. “We just have some great opportunities.”

The Libertarian Party of New Hampshire is running a slate of Federal and statewide candidates, including Ken Blevens for Senator, John Babiarz for Governor, and Howard Wilson and Philip Hodson for Congress. If Blevens or Babiarz gets 4% of the vote, the LPNH gets better ballot access. Liberty for America is making supporting coordinated expenditures in support of Libertarians within the constraints of state and Federal law.

Notes from the Wilders:

Correct website for Green Party of New York State is www.gpny.org

Howie Hawkins tells us about the 1st amendment of the Constitution. Freedom of religion is the cornerstone to what our forefathers envisioned as a free society. With all the troubles of the working class in New York, these rightwing politicians only want to talk about “the 911 Mosque”.

The only way that the Green Party can regain ballot status in NY is to get 50,000 votes for their Governor candidate in 2010. This opportunity comes only once every four years, and it only applies to the Governor’s race. Gaining ballot status will enable the Green Party to run more peace candidates, more single-payer candidates, more anti-fracking candidates, and more sustainable energy candidates. The last time that the Green Party of New York State had ballot status it set the record for running the most Green candidates of any state.

Notes from Paulie:

1) As of the times of this writing, this video is front and center on the Hawkins for Governor website.

2) Previously at IPR on the so-called “Ground Zero Mosque” (New York candidates for Governor in bold): Conservative Party of New York State (including Rick Lazio), Thomas Sipos, Phil Maymin, Ron Paul, Mike Beitler, Howie Hawkins print commentary, Jake Towne, Warren Redlich video, John Jay Myers, Darryl Perry, Wayne Root (1) and (2), John Hospers, Reactions to Root’s piece from the libertarian blogosphere, LNC member Daniel Wiener, Tom Knapp, Kristin Davis, Warren Redlich (print commentary), Carl Paladino, and LPHQ interns Marissa Giannotta and Josh Roll.

Conservatives to Con Ed: No Mosque at Ground Zero

CPNYS Cordoba ConEd from Howard Lim, Jr. on Vimeo.

Watch our new ad, then call Andrew Cuomo

CPNYS Mosque Lazio Cuomo from Howard Lim, Jr. on Vimeo.

In case you missed Chairman Long debating on the Cordba Mosque on Fox 5 NY this morning, you can view the segment here.

Previously at IPR on the so-called “Ground Zero Mosque” (New York candidates for Governor in bold): Thomas Sipos, Phil Maymin, Ron Paul, Mike Beitler, Howie Hawkins, Jake Towne, Warren Redlich video, John Jay Myers, Darryl Perry, Wayne Root (1) and (2), John Hospers, Reactions to Root’s piece from the libertarian blogosphere, LNC member Daniel Wiener, Tom Knapp, Kristin Davis, Warren Redlich (print commentary), Carl Paladino, and LPHQ interns Marissa Giannotta and Josh Roll.

We’re the Libertarian Party. We’re for liberty. We’re against people who believe that the state should be omnipotent, knowing no limits to its powers or deeds.

Once again, Mr. Root has missed the boat on positions that a libertarian should take. And when you are on our National Committee, you have a real obligation not to miss that boat.

I quote for purposes of review a recent Facebook message he sent to me:

Wayne wrote: “Obama is an extension of Bush only to people who understand ZERO about economics and have never run a business in their lives. There is no comparison. Bush violated civil liberties that 90% of Americans did not even notice.

“Obama effects my business, my bank account, my savings, my stocks, my real estate, my future business decisions, the jobs that I decide to create or not, and for millions of business owners- whether they choose to stay in America or not. If you don’t understand this…you are probably without a job, own no stocks, own no home, own no business, have no family.

“Sorry but listening in on a phone call is not on par with destroying capitalism and redistributing my income. One is a pesky Nanny State…the other is communism. [emphasis added]

“And the irony for Libertarians who don’t get it…is that Obama still listens in on your calls, still runs 2 major wars, hasn’t cut one dollar in foreign aid. Yes on certain issues, Obama is an extension of Bush. On all of Bush’s worst issues.

“But Obama has added hundreds of bad economic policies that are plunging USA into economic Armageddon and destroying capitalism.

“Obama is in a league all his own.

“That could be why I have HUNDREDS of friends who all own businesses…and they all agree…to a man and woman…that Obama is the worst President of our lifetimes…and a threat to our existence. Not one of them would say that about Bush.

“So I guess Libertarian leftist radicals and anarchists are living in an alternate world…or just don’t own anything that Obama is grabbing.”

To this I answer: It’s hard to see how you could go farther off the rails. We are the party of liberty, not the party of greed.

Sir, the essence of Communism is the police state, the KGB and its American counterpart the National Security Agency listening to our every phone call. That’s what real Communism is about, and that’s what George Bush brought to America. The KGB apparatchiks who tried to listen to every thought of every Russian were enemies of civilization, enemies of freedom, enemies of basic civil liberties. The NSA apparatchiks who listen to our every phone call are equally evil and far more of a danger to us and our fellow Americans.

You just don’t get it. We’re here about LIVE FREE OR DIE, not about TAKE MY FREEDOM, JUST LET ME KEEP MY LOOT.

I understand that your small business friends, like the legendary Mr. Babbitt, have thus far spent the first third of the book completely missing the point about what is wrong with their lives. They still do not know. What is clear is that it is not you who will lead them to the libertarian understanding of why America is rotting out from the core.

Mr. Root, the basic problem that you share with your Republican friends, from the banksters and defense contractors who just want more corporate warfare to the Bachmanns, Angles, Palins, Savages, and their fellow shock troops of the Republican Party’s Christian Taliban wing, is that you have not the least understanding of what it means to be a libertarian.

And for readers who think that I spend all my time discussing the inadequacies of Mr. Root as an LNC member, be prepared for change. Another LNC member has volunteered to be next on my list.

George Phillies is a contributing editor for Liberty For All. You can contact Dr. Phillies at phillies@wpi.edu.

Wayne Allyn Root, John Hospers: The LP’s Anti-Libertarian Faces

Massachusetts Libertarian Party Chair George Phillies reports on Independent Political Report (comment 148):

“I am amused to report that the LNC was contacted by a reporter who wanted to do a story on possible interactions between the Libertarian Party and Malcolm X, the question being ‘Has Malcolm X inspired your Libertarian activism?’

“I have not yet learned if the reporter got an interview with anyone.”

Some observations:

1. This above thread concerns 1972 LP presidential candidate John Hospers’s call to oppose the Muslim cultural center being built two blocks from Ground Zero.

2. LNC member Wayne Allyn Root had previously also called for public opposition to the Muslim center.

3. Root’s position resulted in criticism from Libertarian bloggers, which is why Hospers felt the need to jump in and defend Root.

4. Well, of course it resulted in negative reaction! For Root and Hospers to call for public opposition to building the Muslim cultural center is to invite the public to suppress the property rights of the building owner and the religious freedom of Muslims.

Seems the Libertarian Party tent has gotten so big, it now welcomes people who are pro-war, anti-property rights, and anti-religious freedom.

And now Root claims that he’s the “de facto voice and face of the LP.” Considering Root’s constant conspiratorial speculations about Obama being a black radical at Columbia University (even though Root claims that he never met Obama at Columbia), I wonder what Root would have told the reporter about the LP’s views on Malcolm X.

(I myself have no views on Malcolm X, as I’ve never read or studied him. I only saw the Spike Lee film, which is not enough for an informed opinion.)

Root’s defenders (the usual suspects) chimed in that Root hasn’t called for government intervention against the “Ground Zero mosque” (a misnomer, since it’s neither a mosque, nor on Ground Zero — it’s a Muslim cultural center two blocks away from Ground Zero).

Root’s defenders praise Root for calling on the private sector to exert “market pressure” on the property owner and Muslims to not build there, and to leave the government out of it.

Now, can you imagine if anyone in the LP called for the private sector to exert “market pressure” on someone to not build a synagogue? Or a gay or black cultural center? Yes, it would technically be “libertarian” in that it’s not a call for government intervention — but it would still be bigotry.

While the LP may well defend the rights of haters, that doesn’t mean the LP should actually instigate hateful action. The ACLU defended the free speech rights of Nazis, but it didn’t go the extra step of encouraging the Nazis to engage in hate speech.

Alas, Hospers and Root are calling for the LP to side with haters.

However, Root may well be correct in that he is one of the more famous LP members out there. How tragic for liberty if Root becomes the “de facto” voice of the LP.

Ron Paul is far more famous that Root, and more respected. But Paul is not active in the LP. (Yet another thing to admire about Dr. Paul).

If there was ever any doubt, Root and Hospers are not libertarians. Whatever titles they accumulate, however many talk shows they appear on, they have left the pro-liberty reservation.

Gasp! Am I suggesting a litmus test?!

See Thomas Knapp’s excellent article on libertarian litmus tests.

There’s been much bigoted hysteria regarding the “Ground Zero mosque” (which is not on Ground Zero, and is not a mosque), including bigoted statements from Libertarian Party embarrassment Wayne Allyn Root.

It’s therefore nice to see a Libertarian Party candidate actually take a libertarian position on this issue. You rarely see LP candidates or officers speaking like libertarians any more (one reason I rarely vote LP anymore), but Warren Redlich, the LP candidate for New York governor, correctly supports both property rights and religious freedom, and thus supports the right of our fellow Americans (of the Muslim faith) to build a Muslim cultural center two blocks from Ground Zero:

Curiously, the New York LP nominated Alden Link as their Lt. Governor candidate. I don’t know Link’s position on the “Ground Zero mosque,” but when I met him at the 2006 LP national convention, Link struck me as quite pro-war. He suggested the U.S. military should bomb the branches of banks that hold “terrorist money” in their deposits.

Link was also quite the warhawk at the 2008 LP national convention. He was the only candidate who managed to make Root look like a dove.

After failing to get a single delegate’s vote at the LP convention, Link (who was not a delegate), attempted to get the Boston Tea Party’s presidential nomination.

Failing that, Link eventually managed to secure the Objectivist Party‘s vice presidential nomination. Considering how insanely pro-war organized Objectivism is these days, that seemed an appropriate political home for Link.

Objectivist Party founder, presidential candidate, and sometime LP officer, Dr. Tom Stevens, has formed Bachelors for Link to support Link’s Lt. Governor candidacy.

Who or what is Bachelors for Link? In endorsing Link, this “group” (assuming it’s more than just Dr. Stevens and his blog) says: “Bachelors often feel pressure to get married and to live a conventional lifestyle. Despite choosing to be ‘unattached’, they often face ridicule and are the subject of ‘whispering campaigns’ questioning their sexual orientation. We are proud to support Alden Link, the Libertarian Party’s candidate for Lt. Governor of New York State, who has socially tolerant views and a principled belief that people should be able to organize their lives as they see fit without private sanction or governmental interference.”

So…should Link be elected Lt. Governor of New York, he’ll use his office to end “whispering campaigns” against bachelors? Well, at least it’d be a less offensive use of Link’s time than his previous Islamophobic war hysteria.

Kudos to Warren Redlich’s defense of Muslim Americans’ equal rights — and a curious, raised eyebrow to Alden Link’s latest weird candidacy.

Libertarianism Is Dummied Down and Declining

Libertarian Party members keep talking about “growing the party.” I’ve heard this mantra for decades. Optimistic Libertarians of all factions have assured each other that Americans are really libertarians, that major party status is just 15 or so years away.

It’s always been 15 or so years away. In the 1990s, the national LP sent out some junk mail promising a “Libertarian majority Congress in 2010!” They did not promise one elected Libertarian, but an LP majority in both Houses of Congress.

Wayne Allyn Root likewise, when running for president in 2008, promised that he would win the presidency on the LP ticket in 2016. Victory is always 15 years away, give or take.

Well, no. Libertarianism as a philosophy is going backwards in the U.S. The “Ground Zero mosque” controversy is proof of that. Vast numbers of Americans have embraced xenophobic bigotry against Muslims.

Even “sensible, moderate” radio talk show hosts here in Los Angeles (e.g., Dennis Prager, Peter Tilden) oppose the “Ground Zero mosque” and imagine that their positions are moral. The saw how the “mosque” would insensitive to Americans — ignoring that the people building the Muslim cultural center are Americans.

And even members and spokesholes for the Libertarian Party are “opposing the property rights and religious freedom of their fellow Americans.

At Los Angeles’s Karl Hess Club last week, one longtime “libertarian” kept spouting snide smears against Muslims, hoping to entice others to join in. We didn’t. But while many of the KHC attendees are not anti-Muslim, several have indeed succumbed to Islamophobic fever.

First the LP tent grew to accommodate warmongering imperialists. Now the LP has grown to include xenophobes opposed to property rights and religious freedom.

Fifteen years ago, it was a given that most Americans were not libertarians. But now, you can’t even be sure that a Libertarian is a libertarian. The Libertarian Party has gone backwards. The libertarian movement has gone backwards. America is retreating from freedom and rationality, and libertarians are no help at all.

“Ground Zero” Synagogue Goes Up in Lebanon

American bigots — hiding under the labels of “conservative” or “libertarian” — have a favorite talking point: “We’ll let Them build a mosque in America, when They let Us build a church or synagogue in Saudi Arabia.”

Yes, some bigots are saying “No mosques in America,” not just on Ground Zero.

It’s an absurd demand. Why? Because Germans, Russians, Italians, Chinese — everyone — have long come to America to escape more oppressive nations. We never said to Russians, “You can’t enjoy free speech in the U.S. until Americans can enjoy free speech in the Soviet Union.” We never before demanded that American immigrants live by the laws of theirs foreign homelands.

Why change that American standard for Americans of Muslim heritage? (That’s right — the “Them” and “They” are our fellow Americans.)

Even so, it seems that some foreign, Muslim nations are more tolerant than is the U.S. Here’s a must-read peace about Lebanon’s Ground Zero Synagogue.

Previously at IPR on the so-called “Ground Zero Mosque” (New York candidates for Governor in bold): Phil Maymin, Ron Paul, Mike Beitler, Howie Hawkins, Jake Towne, Warren Redlich video, John Jay Myers, Darryl Perry, Wayne Root (1) and (2), John Hospers, Reactions to Root’s piece from the libertarian blogosphere, LNC member Daniel Wiener, Tom Knapp, Kristin Davis, Warren Redlich (print commentary), Carl Paladino, and LPHQ interns Marissa Giannotta and Josh Roll.

When it comes to the mosque to be built near Ground Zero in New York City, everyone is pretending to be something they’re not.

Perhaps for the first time since Grover Cleveland, a Democratic president is championing private property rights, states’ rights and a limited federal government. Barack Obama endorsed the right of Muslims “to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in Lower Manhattan in accordance with local laws and regulation.”

Has Obama, of all people, flipped through the Constitution and achieved a clearer understanding of the first, ninth and tenth amendments?

No, it is merely a mask. Otherwise, he would repeal a host of invasive laws. Your First Amendment guarantees to free travel, association, speech and religion are violated whenever your naked body is scanned at an airport, your political book club’s reading list is secretly inspected, your phone is tapped without a warrant or your tax dollars are funneled to religious groups and nations that actively fight against your own sacred beliefs. If Obama were sincere, he would end those intrusions and more.

What could or should Obama have said instead? He could have said nothing. It is simply not his place.

This is a rare quality, to be sure. The only politician (other than Ron Paul) who I have ever heard say that something was not his decision was Jesse Ventura, when he was governor of Minnesota. Asked by a reporter about some private entity, though he obviously had a strong personal opinion, Ventura’s response was simple and clear. “It is not my call,” he essentially said. “It is not within my duties as governor.”

Obama could have answered as Ventura did. Instead he chose to inflict his unsolicited opinion on us.

Deep in his heart Obama still denies the intended limited role of the federal government. He thinks it, and he, should be everywhere. He does not fathom that some things are just not his call, whether they be banks, car companies, foreign nations or where LeBron James should have taken his talents.

Most other Democrats actually are silent, refusing to go on the record, probably because they feel, and rightly so, that whatever they say will be used against them. But ironically this silence is a mask for them too. They have donned it not as a principled stand for local autonomy, but purely out of fear for their careers.

Democrats are not alone in their hypocrisy. Republicans who have spent the past decade preaching the need to spread democracy abroad are now upset that democratic institutions at home prevent them from successfully meddling. Republicans have called the project an “unnecessary provocation,” an example of “territorial conquest,” and “an aggressive act that is clearly offensive.” But they don’t really think the mosque is a truly violent act. If they did, they would seek to file charges or sue for damages. No, they just want to ride our emotions to get back in power and continue expanding the American empire.

Even libertarians are hiding behind a mask of tolerance. Citing basic property rights, they argue anybody can build a mosque on any property they own and there is nothing anyone can or should do about it. They are right about the first part, but deeply wrong about the second. There is nothing wrong with voicing disapproval for the mosque. It is an expression of free speech. They may build, but we may protest. True tolerance does not mean you approve of everyone; it means you do not do violence even to those of whom you disapprove.

So far, I too have been hiding behind a mask, the mask of indifference and neutrality, as if I am above these petty issues. But unlike the others, my mask will now come off.

I am deeply offended by the project, for two reasons. First, it strikes me as an ugly ploy. Any religious or political entity that intends to launch on the ten-year anniversary of 9/11 seems disingenuous to me, more interested in its own publicity than in actually doing good.

Second, the name of the entity is nasty. They intend to call it the Cordoba House and the sponsors call themselves the Cordoba Initiative, both named after the city in Spain where, they say, Jews, Christians, and Muslims co-existed peacefully. Theirs is the most contemptible mask of all, because what they don’t say is how that peace ended. Fundamentalist Muslims gave all its residents a choice: convert to Islam or die. My great-great-great-…-grandfather Maimonides took his family and fled. In my mind, the name Cordoba does not conjure images of peace and co-existence.

By their logic, they would see nothing wrong with opening a German cultural center in downtown Tel Aviv called the Dachau House. After all, there was a time when Jews and Gentiles lived peaceably side-by-side in that pleasant Munich suburb

Dr. Phil Maymin is a professor of risk management at the NYU-Polytechnic Institute.

Previously at IPR on the so-called “Ground Zero Mosque” (New York candidates for Governor in bold): Ron Paul, Mike Beitler, Howie Hawkins, Jake Towne, Warren Redlich video, John Jay Myers, Darryl Perry, Wayne Root (1) and (2), John Hospers, Reactions to Root’s piece from the libertarian blogosphere, LNC member Daniel Wiener, Tom Knapp, Kristin Davis, Warren Redlich (print commentary), Carl Paladino, and LPHQ interns Marissa Giannotta and Josh Roll.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20014453-503544.html

Libertarian Congressman Ron Paul is breaking with many of his fellow Republicans – among them his son Rand – to support the creation of the planned Islamic cultural center near the former site of the World Trade Center that has come to be known as the "ground zero mosque."

In a statement decrying "demagogy" around the issue, the former Republican presidential candidate wrote late last week that "the debate should have provided the conservative defenders of property rights with a perfect example of how the right to own property also protects the 1st Amendment rights of assembly and religion by supporting the building of the mosque."

 "Instead, we hear lip service given to the property rights position while demanding that the need to be ‘sensitive’ requires an all-out assault on the building of a mosque, several blocks from ‘ground zero,’" Paul continues.

 He goes on to argue that "the neo-conservatives who demand continual war in the Middle East and Central Asia…never miss a chance to use hatred toward Muslims to rally support for the ill conceived preventative wars."

Previously at IPR on the so-called “Ground Zero Mosque” (New York candidates for Governor in bold): Mike Beitler, Howie Hawkins, Jake Towne, Warren Redlich video, John Jay Myers, Darryl Perry, Wayne Root (1) and (2), John Hospers, Reactions to Root’s piece from the libertarian blogosphere, LNC member Daniel Wiener, Tom Knapp, Kristin Davis, Warren Redlich (print commentary), Carl Paladino, and LPHQ interns Marissa Giannotta and Josh Roll.

The issue of whether or not to build a mosque near the site of the World Trade Towers terrorist attack has been hijacked for political expediency, said Mike Beitler, Libertarian candidate for U.S. Senate in an op ed on his website. “To collectively blame every Muslim for the actions of a few is probably the most un-American act I can think of,” Beitler said. “Our country was formed by the ideals of individual liberty, not blaming the innocent for a crime committed by the other.”

Terrorism is a tactic that uses fear to make people act in ways against their belief, he said. “To defeat terrorism, we must embrace the ideas of freedom and liberty and protect the rights of all individuals and not just of a select few.”

Beitler said that some politicians have decided to take a different path, which he describe as “the religious crusade for some, this hatred of the other.” “These are not American ideals,” Beitler said, “they are fascist ones.”

One of the most shameful things he said he’s learned about the political manipulation of September 11 is the refusal to mention the Muslims murdered that day.

One of the 63 Muslim victims was Mohammad Salman Hamdami, a part-time ambulance driver, medical student, and an NYPD cadet.

When he saw smoke coming from the twin towers, he drove right to the scene and tried to help,” Beitler said. “Since he wasn’t working and no one knew his whereabouts, the media were happy to brandish him as a terrorist and say that he was involved in the plot due to his ethnicity and religion.”

Rahma Salie was passenger on the American Airlines flight that crashed into the North Tower. She was seven-months pregnant and traveling to California with her husband to attend a wedding. Beitler said that Rahma was put on the FBI watch list because of her “Muslim-sounding” name and her travel patterns were similar to those of the hijackers. She was a computer consultant living in Boston.

Although her name was eventually removed from the list, several of her family members were barred from taking flights to her memorial service,” Beitler said.

Mohammad Chowdhury was a waiter in the Windows of the World restaurant on the top floors of Tower One. His wife Baraheen Ashrafi gave birth to a son two days after the attack.

“I wonder what the eight-year-old Farqad is thinking today when he hears that a mosque his father might have worshiped in should not be built because it’s an affront to his father’s memory,” Beitler said.

Beitler said he’s been silent on the issue in the hope that common sense would prevail. To a libertarian, this is not really an issue, since the Constitution protects religious freedom and property rights. “Everything else is irrelevant,” he said.

Previously at IPR on the so-called “Ground Zero Mosque” (New York candidates for Governor in bold): Howie Hawkins, Jake Towne, Warren Redlich video, John Jay Myers, Darryl Perry, Wayne Root (1) and (2), John Hospers, Reactions to Root’s piece from the libertarian blogosphere, LNC member Daniel Wiener, Tom Knapp, Kristin Davis, Warren Redlich (print commentary), Carl Paladino, and LPHQ interns Marissa Giannotta and Josh Roll.

The only way that the Green Party can regain ballot status in NY is to get 50,000 votes for their Governor candidate in 2010. This opportunity comes only once every four years, and it only applies to the Governor’s race. Gaining ballot status will enable the Green Party to run more peace candidates, more single-payer candidates, more anti-fracking candidates, and more sustainable energy candidates. The last time that the Green Party of New York State had ballot status it set the record for running the most Green candidates of any state.

Howie Hawkins, the Green Party of New York State candidate for Governor, said today that he was very disturbed by the efforts of the Republican Governor candidates to advance their sagging election prospects by crudely inflaming religious and ethnic tensions by attacking the proposed Muslim Center near the former World Trade Center.

Hawkins said:

Why do these Republicans hate our freedom? Freedom of religion is the first freedom protected in the First Amendment. It’s about freedom of thought, the foundation of freedom of speech, press, assembly, and petitioning the government for redress of grievances. Why do right-wingers like Lazio and Paladino hate our U.S. Constitution? They talk freedom and practice repression. They sound like Big Brother in George Orwell’s 1984: War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength.

“At a time when the Great Recession is still throwing New Yorkers out of their jobs and homes, when the state budget is bust because all the major party politicians refuse to make the rich pay their fair share of taxes, these guys are trying to win the election by dividing New Yorkers against each other by race, ethnicity, and religion. They are making the Muslim community center an issue to divert attention from their unpopular response to the economic crisis of cutting public spending, gutting our schools, hospitals, mass transit, highways, police, and other public goods and services, and throwing thousands of more teachers, transit workers, police, and other public workers into the unemployment rolls. I trust that New Yorkers will see through this ugly strategy,” said Hawkins.

Hawkins said he supported the proposed Muslim center. Hawkins noted that it would have an interfaith mission of service and mutual understanding, and was approved by the Community Board of Lower Manhattan, following public hearings, by a vote of 29 to 1, with 10 abstentions. The proposed center features space for inter-community cultural events and multi-faith prayer, community services such as gym facilities and cooking classes, and a memorial to those who died on September 11.

Hawkins said he is troubled by how both Republicans and Democrats have manipulated the murder of thousands of innocent individuals on September 11, 2001 to further their political agenda of armed invasion of the Middle East to seize oil supplies while curtailing civil liberties here in the United States.

“I wish the Democrats and Republicans were more interested in answering the myriad unanswered questions about 9/11, starting with who actually paid for the attacks, an issue the 9/11 Commission said was not important to resolve. The Commission pointed out that the Saudi Arabian ruling family had been financially backing the Al Qaida terrorists for years, something that the two major parties don’t seem too concerned about since they sell us oil. The Commission failed to investigate why the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency wired money to the 9/11 lead hijackers right before the attacks. We received documentation this week that the ISI continues to actively support Taliban in who are fighting American soldiers and Marines,” said Hawkins, a former Marine.

“No one has been indicted for providing logistical support to those who murdered 3000 Americans on 9/11, and it seems no one in the government is interested in investigating who there were. Why aren’t Lazio and Paladino asking why our City and State governments have failed to rebuild at the WTC ten years after the attack? Instead they act as bigoted demagogues, sacrificing the fundamental freedom of religion for which the American revolution was fought at the spurious altar of scapegoating and social division,” remarked Hawkins.

Previously at IPR on the so-called “Ground Zero Mosque” (New York candidates for Governor in bold): Jake Towne, Warren Redlich video, John Jay Myers, Darryl Perry, Wayne Root (1) and (2), John Hospers, Reactions to Root’s piece from the libertarian blogosphere, LNC member Daniel Wiener, Tom Knapp, Kristin Davis, Warren Redlich (print commentary), Carl Paladino, and LPHQ interns Marissa Giannotta and Josh Roll.

On the front page of today’s Morning Call was an article on the mosque to be located near Ground Zero in NYC. Below is a video statement and transcript of those remarks. My comments were misinterpreted slightly, and I absolutely do not speak for all Muslims – just myself – but the fact remains the reporter just wasn’t able to fit in my full thoughts on the matter, so the below is mainly to elaborate.

In New York, several blocks from the former site of the World Trade Center, an Islamic center and mosque is being considered. As a federal representative, it is my duty to defend the Constitution and the natural right to religious freedom as protected by the First Amendment. This freedom has its roots in how America was first settled by European religious outcasts. (Photo courtesy Rosino)

Therefore my stance is that if built on private property and approved by the local authorities, the citizens building the center are perfectly free to do so. I am sure the builders realize the impact of their actions, and the careful, sensitive path they will realistically need to tread if they choose to continue.

However, due to some minor misinterpretations of my position in the front page article in today’s Morning Call, I would like to elaborate:

9/11 remains a great scar on America’s soul. However, the fact remains that the threat of suicide terrorism is enhanced – NOT lessened – by the conventional armies stationed abroad in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Suicide terrorism is not caused by religious “fundamentalism.” Instead, suicide terrorist groups have a secular and strategic goal in mind – to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland. Period. Religion is NOT the root cause, and is mainly employed as a tool for recruitment and highlighting differences with the “invaders” from the native community. (I highly recommend reading Dr. Robert Pape’s “Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism” as academia’s best scientific study of suicide terrorism, see the video below.)

Again, Islamic fundamentalism was not the root cause of 9/11 or even suicide terrorism in general. This myth is just as nonsensical as blaming the religion and morals I was raised under, Catholicism, as the root cause of IRA (Irish Republican Army) car bombings in Northern Ireland. Even if the mainstream media has permitted this prejudice to pervade the public consciousness, this logic is nonsense.

For instance, Hezbollah’s first (and highly successful from their point of view) suicide terrorism campaign resulted in 241 Marine fatalities. This led to the rapid and complete withdraw of US Marines and French military forces from Lebanon in 1983. However, only 8 of the 38 identified Hezbollah suicide terrorists practiced Islam. The others either practiced Christianity or were secular. (Source: Pape’s book)

Specifically, Osama Bin Laden and his ilk follow Salafism which is a perversion of Islam. Al-Qaeda perverts the concept of jihad into a “holy war” that rationalizes the murder of innocent civilians. It is my understanding that those of the Shia and Sunni Islamic faiths in the United States peacefully believe in “jihad” as literally a “struggle” to maintain faith and piety in a greater sense, and in the right to personal self-defense when attacked in a lesser sense.

Of course, while speaking of the murder of innocent civilians, Americans must refuse the role of naive bystanders. We must realize hundreds of thousands of innocents have been killed in Iraq, and tens of thousands in Afghanistan. A huge percentage of these violent deaths were caused by our military. We must realize that the deaths of 5,642 American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan in unconstitutional, preemptive wars of aggression IN NO WAY compensates for the deaths of those that died on 9/11. Only the capture and trial of those responsible for 9/11 can in some way compensate for this tragedy.

The only effective and proper solution to defeat suicide terrorists is to capture the current generation and prevent the next generation from being created from collateral damage and blowback. Capture of the current generation will best be attained by small special ops forces acting under constitutional letters of marque and reprisal as explained here. Raising the reward for the capture of 9/11 criminals is also necessary, but also note that the American military believes there is less than 100 Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.

American soldiers are dying NOW in far-flung deserts and mountains EVERY DAY. These brave men and women have written a check for up to and including their lives to defend their country. These checks are being cashed out into coffins in what I believe to be a negligent and fruitless manner.

If we aspire to be a just nation ruled by laws we must resolve to never ask our military men and women to engage in unconstitutional warfare and nation-building missions.

I do not wish to see the day when not only essential civil liberties are revoked by the PATRIOT Act – as they are today, not only when more than 1 in 8 Americans are living on food stamps – as they are today, and not only when employment is crushed by the economic suppression of the federal government – as it is today, but religious freedom is also lost.

I saw firsthand the evils the lack of liberty brings when I lived abroad in communist China, and I’ll be damned if I do nothing to stop these very same evils in my home country.

We must stop the endless debt and the endless wars. Yours in liberty,
Jake Towne

Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito. “Never give in to evil but proceed ever more boldly against it.”

The campaign’s stances on Veterans, the Iraq War, and the Afghanistan War in detail can be accessed from this page.

A video of Dr. Robert Pape talking about his research on the logic of suicide terrorism.

Other opinions on the “ground zero mosque” previously posted at IPR:
Warren Redlich video, John Jay Myers, Darryl Perry, Wayne Root (1) and (2), John Hospers, Reactions to Root’s piece from the libertarian blogosphere, LNC member Daniel Wiener, Tom Knapp, Kristin Davis, Warren Redlich (print commentary), Carl Paladino, and LPHQ interns Marissa Giannotta and Josh Roll.