Johnson said he’d cut the military’s budget and end Obama’s interventionism. It wasn’t until he got started on legalizing marijuana that the crowd (figuratively) lit up. A steady stream of applause followed Johnson’s declarations after that.

“I support gay marriage equality. I support repealing the PATRIOT Act. I would have vetoed the Department of Homeland Security, because I think it’s redundant. I would’ve never established the department of—the TSA agency. I think we should end the practices of torture. Period. I can understand the complexities in the following, but I think we should end the practices of detainment without being charged. There is nothing I want to see the government come in and fix with the Internet.”

Johnson also made a point throughout the evening of highlighting the differences between himself and Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), who sought and received Johnson’s endorsement in 2008.

“I don’t think that Ron Paul is going to win the Republican nomination. For the most part, we are talking about the same message, but we do have differences. And when he drops out, or finds an end to the Republican primary, I don’t see this agenda moving forward,” Johnson said.

“And I think it’s important to point out differences between myself and Ron Paul. I don’t support building a fence across the border, I do support gay marriage equality, I do believe in a strong national defense. I do believe in our alliance with Israel, for example. And I think military alliances are key to reducing military spending by 43 percent and still provide for a strong national defense. And I believe in a woman’s right to choose.”

The crowd went nuts over that last one.

Nate Nelson at United Liberty adds:

Johnson could pose problems for both Obama and the eventual Republican nominee. On the one hand, Johnson built a very solid fiscal and economic record as Governor of New Mexico — which could appeal to Paul supporters and other Republicans as well as right-leaning independents who may feel disaffected if Romney, Gingrich, or Santorum wins the GOP nomination. On the other hand, there are some remarkable differences between Johnson and Paul that could help him succeed in appealing to the more left-leaning so-called “liberaltarians” and even some non-libertarian progressive Democrats and independents whom Paul has so far failed to win over.

It’s unlikely in the extreme that Johnson will win the presidential election. The electoral game is too rigged against third parties and, besides, the Libertarian Party’s dysfunctional nomination process will officially put him into the general election campaign far too late for him to assemble the kind of grassroots movement he’d need to win. But Johnson could well be a problem for both major parties. He could be competitive in his home state and throughout the Southwest, which could make the race for some pivotal swing states even more interesting than usual. In other words, he could play the role of spoiler in the upcoming general election even better than Ralph Nader did in 2000, and it should scare the pants off both Republicans and Democrats that it’s still unclear whose campaign he could spoil.

ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero also drew the Nader comparison:

“Do you run the risk, in other words, of being a Ralph Nader, given the fact that you have so much more coincidence with the president’s agenda than with Mr. Romney or Mr. Gingrich?”

Meanwhile, Johnson has an article in the conservative Washington Times newspaper spelling out his plan for spending cuts and a national sales tax plan known by its proponents as the FairTax. Excerpt:

Here I present a simple but drastic economic plan to foster a boom in America.

First, we need to get rid of the income tax. When our first great Supreme Court justice, John Marshall, equated the power to tax and the power to destroy, he was predicting what’s happening to our country right now. Giant, slow corporations spend their money on lobbying because tax avoidance is where their profit is. General Electric earned $14.2 billion in 2010 and paid zero taxes on it. Why? Because it has the lobbyists to get subsidies and tax breaks.

But those mom-and-pop stores? The tech startups? The nimble new corporations with new ideas and new visions for our economy? They pay as much as 35 cents on every dollar they earn. When the company pays its employees, the government taxes that money again. We need to stop taxing work, savings and investment. I advocate removing all income taxes, all capital-gains taxes, and replacing them with a consumption tax, kind of a national sales tax called the Fair-tax.

We also need to get rid of payroll taxes. Look at it from the perspective of employers for a moment. When they want to hire someone, it costs more than just the wage they’re paying. They have to pay payroll taxes, including for Social Security and Medicare. That cost is about 10 percent of the wages they pay an employee. Remove that burden, and employers will be able to hire 10 percent more people. With an unemployment rate of 10 percent, why wouldn’t we jump at this chance? The Fair-tax replaces employment and payroll taxes.

[...]

At the same time, I have proposed cutting the federal budget by 43 percent to bring it into balance. It can be done. It requires the will and ability to ignore and even fight the special interests that have a vested interest in more and more government spending. Our system is corrupted by special-interest campaign contributions. Crony capitalism permeates our government. The result is that, as the Congressional Budget Office reported this week, the deficit for 2012 will once again exceed $1 trillion.

The Washinton Times article incorrectly says that “Gary Johnson is the Libertarian Party nominee for president….”

Johnson’s plan stands in contrast to candidates such as Lee Wrights and RJ Harris, who are also seeking the Libertarian presidential nomination and have different proposals on taxes and spending. Wrights has his own plan for cutting spending and a couple of articles laying out his criticism of the FairTax (TM) plan, while Harris says

Fellow citizens, if you elect me as President I will exempt you from personal taxes by ending the IRS and allowing nothing to take its place. Then I will end the federal welfare system and the benefits will come from having stopped the government from stealing what you earn along with your ability to be as thrifty or as beneficent as you choose.

Finally, Johnson’s campaign has put out a message contrasting their candidate with two other past Libertarian presidential nominees other than Ron Paul (1988) – Bob Barr (2008) and Michael Badnarik (2004), and also by implication with Harry Browne (1996/2000).

George Phillies reports:

In a widely-circulated message “Paid for by Gary Johnson 2012″ a writer identified as Andrew Ferguson wrote in part:

“Flash back to the last election cycle. No, go back two, to 2004, when the LP, still reeling from Harry Browne’s machinations, nominated a complete unknown as its presidential candidate. The list of “missed opportunities by the Libertarian Party” is a long and tragicomic one, but surely the choice of Michael Badnarik must be at or near the top: in an election evenly split between the military-statist Bush and the eco-statist Gore, the LP could’ve had a healthy cut of the excluded middle – but Badnarik’s was not the name to draw those voters.”

(The letter writer seems to have been unaware that Kerry was the Democratic nominee who ran against Badnarik in 2004, and that Al Gore ran against Harry Browne in 2000, with Bush being the Republican nominee both times. Back to the letter:)

“In 2008, with that swing-and-a-miss behind them, the LP whiffed with the opposite approach, nominating a big name who was a, shall we say, imperfect fit with party ideals. I’m not one to deny the place of pragmatism in politics, but the man who authored the Defense of Marriage Amendment and fervently prosecuted the Drug War was a strange choice for the supposed party of freedom. No matter how hard he pushed his Road to Damascus narrative, a large chunk of the LP base (namely, donors and state and local party poobahs) was never going to buy into his campaign.”

“As a result, Bob Barr’s failure was utterly predictable – the rift in the party in 2008 was clear for all to see – but more to the point, just as utterly inevitable. In Barack Obama, the Democrats found a candidate who could reach out to the same undecideds the LP tries to make its own – those looking to cast a vote in dissent, anything so long as it has nothing to do with the party in power. Empty as we now know (or always knew) his promises of “Hope” and “Change” to be, they were nonetheless effective in closing off any change the Libertarians had of playing a role in the last cycle.”

(I believe that the writer meant chance, not change, in the last part of the preceding sentence. Back to the letter:)

“All of which is to say, the LP screwed up by getting its candidates backward – if anything, the off-the-ranch Republican with name recognition would have fared much better in 2004, serving as an alternative to two unpalatable statists. Meanwhile, 2008 would have been the time to run an outsider, someone who could elucidate a libertarian point of view, in the rare moments he (or she – vide Mary Ruwart) was called upon to do so.”

Here is Dr. Ruwart’s statement:

“For the 2012 LP Presidential nomination, I am proudly supporting R. Lee Wrights, editor and co-founder of one – if not the – longest running libertarian Internet blogs Liberty for All. Lee Wrights is a principled, knowledgeable libertarian who presents our message in a compelling yet uncompromising manner. He has worked in the trenches as ballot access coordinator in North Carolina, and served on the LNC, both as an at-large member and vice chair. Currently, Mr. Wrights serves on the national party’s judicial committee.

“As an Air Force veteran, Lee Wrights is the perfect person to call for an end to the overseas wars that continue long after the alleged mastermind of 9-11, Osama bin Laden, has been killed. As a parent and grandparent, he understands how our runaway spending is impoverishing the next generation. As a libertarian who thoroughly understands the non-aggression principle, Lee Wrights will represent our values valiantly.

“The Libertarian Party is at a cross-roads. If we want to be the Party of Principle, our banner must be lifted by someone who carries it proudly and without equivocation. In 2012, that person is R. Lee Wrights.”

R. Lee Wrights, 53, a libertarian writer and political activist, is seeking the presidential nomination because he believes the Libertarian message in 2012 must be a loud, clear and unequivocal call to stop all war. To that end he has pledged that 10 percent of all donations to his campaign will be spent for ballot access so that the stop all war message can be heard in all 50 states. Wrights is a lifetime member of the Libertarian Party and co-founder and editor of the free speech online magazine Liberty For All. Born in Winston-Salem, N.C., he now lives and works in Texas.

Lee Wrights for President
Contact: Brian Irving, press secretary
press@wrights2012.com
919.538.4548

Check it out:

Agora I/O: The Liberty Unconference 

If you’d like to hear some free market solutions to green problems, check out Dr. Mary J. Ruwart chat with Bob Zadek on Fox News radio at:

http://bobzadek.com/environmentalism-the-libertarian-way/

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.

Dr. Mary Ruwart is an At-Large Representative on the Libertarian National Committee, an active member of the Texas LP, and a leading expert in libertarian communication.  In this column she offers short answers to real questions about libertarianism.  To submit questions to Dr. Ruwart, see end of column.

How can I argue against victimless crime laws without sounding like I approve of those acts?

Question: I recently was discussing the legalization of drugs and prostitution with someone. This person said he thought I took this position because I wanted to engage in these activities myself! How do I argue for legalizing prostitution and drugs — without making people think I approve of, and participate in, these behaviors?

My Short Answer: : I suggest something along the following lines.

Libertarians recognize that outlawing vices can cause worse damage than the vices themselves. For example, the War on Drugs causes more deaths and damaged lives than the use of illegal drugs.

Because we spend about 50% of our police, prison, and court resources on drug use, our justice system has less to spend on tracking down murderers and rapists. Indeed, because of mandatory minimums for drugs, violent criminals often get a shortened sentence in order to jail drug users. About 80% of those in prison for drug-related crimes are for non-violent marijuana possession.

Drug abuse is a medical problem, just like alcoholism. Unless a person is a direct physical threat to others (such as driving under the influence), putting them in prison is counter-productive.

Similarly, prostitution, like drug use, may be a vice, but treating it like a crime only makes the situation worse. Amsterdam, where both marijuana use and prostitution is legal, has much less sexually-transmitted disease and drug use/abuse than in the U.S. For example, only about half as many Amsterdam high school students use marijuana compared to the U.S. John Stossel, in his book Give Me A Break!, notes that the Dutch minister of health said that legalization has “succeeded in making pot boring” for students. If we care about our children enough to get the pushers out of the schools, perhaps we need to follow Amsterdam’s example.

(For more details and references for these and similar arguments, see Chapter 15 in my book, Healing Our World. The earlier edition can be read and downloaded free at my website, Ruwart.com . The new and updated versions can be purchased from the Advocates).

Learn More: Liberator Online editor James W. Harris suggests the following articles for further reading on this topic:

* Vices Are Not Crimes: A Vindication Of Moral Liberty by Lysander Spooner. The 19th century abolitionist and constitutional lawyer Spooner — author of perhaps the most subversive essay in American history, No Treason — here argues that vices should not be treated as crimes. As always, Spooner’s prose is scintillating and his reasoning is relentlessly logical.

Excerpt: “Vices are those acts by which a man harms himself or his property. Crimes are those acts by which one man harms the person or property of another. Vices are simply the errors which a man makes in his search after his own happiness. Unlike crimes, they imply no malice toward others, and no interference with their persons or property. In vices, the very essence of crime — that is, the design to injure the person or property of another — is wanting.”

* Every Crime Needs a Victim by Laurence M. Vance. This excellent article updates the essential insights of Spooner (above) with modern-day examples.

Excerpt: “Prostitution isn’t just the world’s oldest profession, it’s also the world’s oldest victimless crime. But if adultery or fornication should not be crimes, then why should prostitution be one? They are all consensual acts between two or more parties. Forced prostitution, of course, is a crime because it has a victim. And prostitutes who trespass by plying their trade without permission on private property are themselves committing a crime. But sex between two consenting adults without dinner and a movie should not be the business of government or anyone else. Again, if an individual is genuinely concerned about what he sees as the plight of prostitutes, then he should resort to persuasion or provide an employment alternative instead of looking to the government to outlaw immoral activity.

“The state’s war on drugs, like its war on poverty and its war on terrorism, is a failure, unless you consider turning hundreds of thousands of otherwise law-abiding people into criminals a success. Out of the 847,863 arrests for marijuana in 2008, 754,224 were for possession alone. According to the Sentencing Project, over half of the federal prison population is the result of drug charges. Twenty percent of the state prison population and 25 percent of the local jail population is due to drug charges. There are currently about half a million drug offenders in prison or jail, an increase of 1,100 percent since 1980. Not only has the unconstitutional drug war had virtually no impact on the use or availability of most drugs in the United States, it has destroyed civil liberties and financial privacy.”

* * * * * * * *

Got questions? Dr. Ruwart has answers! If you’d like answers to YOUR “tough questions” on libertarian issues, email Dr. Ruwart at: ruwart@theAdvocates.org

Due to volume, Dr. Ruwart can’t personally acknowledge all emails. But we’ll run the best questions and answers in upcoming issues.

Dr. Ruwart’s previous Liberator Online answers are archived in searchable form.

Dr. Ruwart’s outstanding book Healing Our World is available from the Advocates.

Ask Dr. Ruwart

Dr. Mary Ruwart is an At-Large Representative on the Libertarian National Committee, an active member of the Texas LP, and a leading expert in libertarian communication.  In this column she offers short answers to real questions about libertarianism.  To submit questions to Dr. Ruwart, see end of column.

Is libertarianism the “ultimate answer” to the world’s problems?

Photo: jmscottiMD

My Short Answer: We always need to question our values and keep open minds. Otherwise, where is freedom of thought?

You say you are asking questions to determine whether liberty is the “ultimate answe”’ to the world’s problems, whether liberty will ever fail us. I would say, as trite as it sounds, that love is the ultimate answer and that liberty, or political freedom, is one aspect of that love. Without love, liberty will be fleeting. If you are looking for the ultimate answer, you need to look one step beyond liberty.

If we are loving towards each other, we won’t assault, steal from, or defraud one person to give to another. If someone is in need, we give of ourselves. If another person doesn’t want to help, we honor their choice out of that same love. When we love, we are not tempted to aggress.

* * *

LEARN MORE: Suggested additional reading on this topic from the Liberator Online editor:

There are libertarians of every religious persuasion (and none). Here are two sources for learning more about why Christian libertarians reject force out of love and respect for others. (Libertarians of other faiths will find much to agree with in both pieces.)

* “Thoughts On the Word ‘We’” by Doug Stuart. This short piece is from the LibertarianChristians.com website, an excellent source for learning more about how some libertarian Christians believe their religious and political views are in harmony.

Excerpt: “It is not a Christian duty to ensure that our subjective preferences are imposed upon those around us who may and do have very different preferences. It is our Christian duty to love our neighbor and fight injustice. To seek a just society means we must advocate for a free society where individuals are embraced as unique and worthy of being handed the power to their own lives. We must oppose a planned social order and seek a free one because we know that groups that emerge spontaneously through free association are likelier to provide a social benefit because people are free to participate. Their benefit to the individual and to society depends largely on the extent to which these groups are joined voluntarily. Forcing people to belong to and identify with the collective effort of seeking social justice will create a society that is neither social nor just.”

* “Must a Christian be a Libertarian?” by Clifford F. Thies. economist and long-time libertarian activist, explores religion and libertarianism in this 1996 speech.

Excerpt: “Because we are commanded to love one another, we cannot be morally neutral. But because we respect the limits on our authority, and we trust in God’s plan of salvation, we do not violently intervene into the lives of others. … It’s with loving kindness, not coercive force, that we are to uphold each other.”

* * * * * * * *
Got questions? Dr. Ruwart has answers! If you’d like answers to YOUR “tough questions” on libertarian issues, email Dr. Ruwart at: ruwart@theAdvocates.org

Due to volume, Dr. Ruwart can’t personally acknowledge all emails. But we’ll run the best questions and answers in upcoming issues.

Dr. Ruwart’s previous Liberator Online answers are archived in searchable form.

Dr. Ruwart’s outstanding book Healing Our World is available from the Advocates.

———————————————————————————————————-

Read the rest of the newsletter here.

BURNET, Texas (Feb. 23) – Since I signed on as the campaign manager of the Lee Wrights for President Exploratory Committee I’ve taken some heat from some of my radical and anarchist friends in the libertarian movement, people I love and respect, for getting involved in electoral politics. Some of them have even called me a statist, which is very hurtful.

Now I understand libertarians may have disagreements about tactics, and I understand that some in the movement refuse to participate in electoral politics because it’s based on force and violence. I understand and I agree with many of these views. But a true libertarian attitude is to respect each other’s choices, not condemn them.

I’ve chosen to become involved in the electoral process because I’m driven to do it. I’m driven to do it first because I love and respect R. Lee Wrights and what he stands for, and second because it’s a way to use the networking infrastructure of electoral politics to educate the mainstream about radical libertarianism, the heart and soul of libertarianism.

That’s why I think it’s the right thing to do and I’ll continue to do it. I have no problem with disagreements and arguments over tactics. But disagreement is no reason for good people in the movement to be mean to one another. As Lee has said, libertarianism is a way of life. I’m a libertarian because of what I do, not what I say. If we in the libertarian movement can’t respect the right of each of us to make our own decisions, what kind of message does that send to people outside the movement? What ammunition does that give to our real opponents?

All of us in the libertarian movement are on different parts of the journey. I came from a conservative, classical liberal background and I evolved. We all evolve over time. Some will take a little longer to get to that point where we are not afraid to think about a society without the state. We are all afraid because we have been conditioned to be afraid by the state, by government schools, by our society.

From the classical liberal to the anarchist, no matter where you are on that journey towards freedom I’ll work with you because you are my friend, you are a friend of liberty. I’ll never call you a statist because you participate in electoral politics. I’ll work with anyone wanting to maximize freedom and minimize coercion.

Lee Wrights has earned a well-deserved reputation as a radical, passionate warrior for freedom and liberty. He’s devoted his life to working within the Libertarian Party, one small part of the libertarian movement, in order to secure a freer tomorrow.

Lee chose to participate in electoral politics and the Libertarian Party because he believes Americans can’t vote for liberty and freedom unless there are Libertarian candidates on the ballot. That’s also why he’s made sure ballot access drives were a key component of Libertarian Party activities, including running successful ballot access drives in his home state of North Carolina.

He believes, as I do, that the Libertarian Party should promote a message that represents the views of all libertarians — radicals, reformers, minarchists, anarchists – whatever label you want to apply to yourself. We are all on the same team, we just play different positions. This campaign is focused on representing and celebrating libertarianism in the Libertarian Party.

The message of this campaign is a message all libertarians can and should embrace – stop all war. But before we make peace with the world, we must stop all war within ourselves, and within the libertarian movement.

All of us in the Wrights 2012 campaign agree with Lee that Stop All War is the message the Libertarian Party must champion in 2012. If we don’t, nobody else will. To spread that message across the country, we will need the help of anyone who desires to be free and who opposes tyranny in any form.

All libertarians should join us to stop all war.

-30-

Thomas Hill is chair of the Lee Wrights for President Exploratory Committee. He is also executive director of Stop All War and regional coordinator for the Campaign for Liberty. In 2008, he served as aide de camp for the Dr. Mary Ruwart for President campaign. Hill is a past chair of the Libertarian Party of North Carolina and a charter member of the Cabarrus County LP, where he has served as chair, treasurer and membership secretary. He was a candidate for Cabarrus County Commission in 2002 and 2004, the Cabarrus County Board of Education in 2006 and 2008, the N.C. Senate in 2008 and the U.S. House 2010. The North Carolina native now lives in Illinois.

Contact:
Brian Irving
Press Secretary
WRIGHTS 2012 EXPLORATORY COMMITTEE

http://www.wrights2012.com

Ernie Hancock writes:

Google Translators are already available and the graphics are very timely.

What would happen if all of the Technology, Graphics, Lyrics, Music, Philosophy and the Rhetoric of the r3VOLution was sent to Cairo LOVEolutionaries? I don’t know but we are going to find out…

Think of your favorites and send them to me now at Publisher@FreedomsPhoenix.com. The Libertarian Party of the United States, The International Society for Individual Liberty, and several artists and activists are already putting together a list of addresses to send these activist packets to. We will begin compiling a kit of printed material and Computer files to be placed on CDs. We will begin with about 50 of the best activists in the Cairo area that will have the best access to activists and artists to customize the Graphics, Supply translated lyrics to music and to learn from our experiences. We also need files placed on the web for them to access.

The Philosophy of Liberty is being translated into Arabic now (the right to left reading and the fonts are difficult to work with or it would have been finished already) I talked to Ken Schoolland (ISIL) and they are working on it now.

It started with today’s radio show in Hour One

Because we can

And via email (embedded links by Paulie):

Mark Hinkle has agreed to make an attempt to supply some libertarian oriented contacts in Cairo and supply some useful material [..]

Mary Ruwart is researching what resources are available via ISIL’s contacts and I have many resources and contacts available via the LOVEolution across the country along with materials at FreedomsPhoenix Workshop etc.

Ken Schoolland is on top of the Arabic translation of The Philosophy of Liberty…. so we got a working plan.

A single CD with Artwork and a simple Liberty Philosophy that it clearly represents, that is universally supported by all young human beings yearning for the same thing might have what long term impact?

Well,… I’m going to find out. Wanna Help?

Money is always useful, but what I really need is addresses of liberty minded contacts in Cairo (the hub of the Arabic speaking world).

You did know that this was always a Worldwide LOVEolution,… Right?!

The radio show mentioned above:

I encourage people to get these and similar images up on as many Libertarian and libertarian sites as possible, including LP.org, for LNC members who — unlike ordinary Libertarian Party members, shamefully — are the only ones currently able to post content to our national party website.

I took all the attached photos and have full rights to them*, so I hereby grant unrestricted use for any pro-freedom purpose in support of the uprising. Giving me photo credit is encouraged (you can label the shots as courtesy of “Starchild, libertarian activist, San Francisco”), but not required, since the most important thing is to get the images out there in conjunction with the libertarian message and I understand it may not be convenient or possible to cite a photo credit in every context of usage.

*With the exception of the one image of the child on the tank in Tahrir Square in Cairo, which I took but which is a photo of part of another photo that was part of a collage of images on a poster at the protest I attended. I’m not entirely sure how current laws regard the use of such secondary images. I think since I cropped the original photo rather than capturing it in its entirety, it constitutes a new image to which I have ownership, but that might be subject to dispute.

Other recent efforts by Libertarians to express solidarity with the people of Egypt and the revolutionaries all over the Arab world include Ernie Hancock, Mark Hinkle, Mary Ruwart joining with others to help bring libertarian message to Arab world.

Some of the banners at the rally, which can be seen in the photos below, read, among other things:

• Our Taxes Support Dictatorship in Egypt

• Power to the People

• Solidarity with the People of Tunisia and Egypt

• Stop Sending Our Money To Support Mubarak

• Victory will be attained by the peoples who struggle for their liberation

• Egyptians Want Mubarak Out

• Change US Foreign Policy

• We Want Freedom Now

• Truth Will Out: Wikileaks.org

• Free Egypt – Jail Mubarak

• All Natural Free Range Egyptian

• Khaled Saeed – Egyptian Blogger Killed By Regime

• Mubarak Must Go – Free Egypt

• Our Hearts Are With You

• Democracy Now

• Be Strong Egypt

• Down With Regime – Your Tax $ At Work

• De-Nile: Not Only A River In Egypt

• Down With The Mubarak Regime

As with all IPR stories, please help get this story out by using the social media icons at the bottom of the post to share as widely as possible.

by Mary J. Ruwart, LNC At-large

Dear Colleagues,

I am writing to you in my capacity as an At-Large Representative of the Libertarian National Committee (LNC), which is in receipt of your resolutions concerning Mr. Root. As you are probably aware, I attempted without success to have the Florida resolution placed on the agenda at the LNC meeting in New Orleans. Shortly thereafter, Idaho passed a virtually identical resolution.

As your At-Large Representative, I feel honor-bound to give you a response in the absence of one from the LNC as a whole. I understand that another state is considering passing a similar resolution, so a response seems necessary and timely.

Several LNC members, including myself, share your concerns. Mr. Root makes it abundantly clear in his 2009 book that he has little respect for liberals and gives the impression that only conservative-leaning individuals are welcome in the Libertarian Party (LP). I have attempted to do some damage control by posting reviews of his book that hopefully will correct that mistaken impression (http://www.amazon.com/review/R3TX5IAH0JSW5A/ref=cm_cr_pr_cmt?ie=UTF8&ASIN=047045265X&nodeID=&tag=&linkCode=#wasThisHelpful).

Upon receiving the Florida resolution our late founder, Mr. David Nolan, put forward a resolution of his own which was passed at our New Orleans meeting. He told me specifically that he hoped that Mr. Root would take the hint and stop discouraging approximately half of the American public from seriously considering the LP.

You might recall that during the last LNC term Mr. Starr initiated proceedings against both Ms. Angela Keaton and Mr. Lee Wrights that were presumably intended to remove them from their At-Large positions. The delegates to the National Convention in St. Louis responded by giving his opponent for Treasurer a landslide victory.

I believe that this incident speaks to your resolution. Although At-Large Members can be removed “for cause,” the delegates frown on such removals without considerable justification. Consequently, even though I and others on the LNC are sympathetic to your concerns, I am unaware of any support, including my own, for removing Mr. Root for the reasons stated in your resolution.

However, if you feel strongly about Mr. Root’s comments, you have several avenues open to you. You can correct Mr. Root’s public statements as I have attempted to do. You can attempt to persuade him to change his behavior as LP founder, the late Mr. David Nolan, has tried to do. In addition, you and any LP members who share your views can attend the next national convention en masse and cast your votes for someone more to your liking. Mr. Starr’s fate has demonstrated that the delegates to a National Convention can effectively prevent the election of anyone who does not meet their expectations.

Our next convention also elects our 2012 presidential nominee; Mr. Root has clearly stated his intentions to run both in his book and on the air (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIeLgzWDekI at about 6:15 minutes). If you would rather not see Mr. Root in another leadership position, you may wish to attend the Las Vegas convention and vote for a candidate who better represents your views.

Mary J. Ruwart, Ph.D., is the author of Healing Our World, a liberty primer for liberals, Christians, New Agers, and pragmatists. She also wrote Short Answers to the Tough Questions: Sound Bites for the Libertarian Candidate after her Internet column (www.self-gov.org) of the same name.

Everyone is talking about the potential GOP candidates for President, so I thought I might spice things up a bit by discussing the potential and confirmed list of Libertarian Party candidates. I am neither an LP member nor a philosophical libertarian, but I am sympathetic to third party activism, and I enjoy observing the internal wranglings of the LP. Internal wranglings are actually a sign of some health in a party. A lack of internal wranglings would indicate inactivity or that nobody cares.

This IPR article announces the candidacy of Jim Duensing, but it lists the other potential candidates as well.

Duensing’s main “claim to fame,” for lack of a better phrase, is that he was shot by the police and currently has a case pending. He appears to be from the Ernest Hancockesque faction of the party. He is a philosophical anarchist and radical, but “rightish” in feel and a believer in conspiracy theories such as 9/11 truth. While I am certainly not an anarchist nor am I generally inclined to believe in conspiracy theories, I have a greater problem with outright anti-rightists and conspiracy phobics. From my perspective, this faction of the party is easier to work in coalition with in some respects. Many of them supported Ron Paul, and they don’t seem to have that Blue America tendency to want to purge or distance themselves from undesirables because they are the undesirables in the opinion of some.

Jim Burns is a perennial candidate, and I am not quite sure what faction he represents. He has been arrested in the past for tax protesting and once officially changed his middle name to James Libertarian Burns. He generally has a rightist feel. He has gotten grief in the past for wearing a Confederate Battle Flag themed tie in his campaign picture, so the fact that he hasn’t changed it to appease the PC police makes me sympathetic to him.

Wayne Root, the 2008 LP VP nominee, hasn’t announced but everyone expects him to run. Wayne Root is not a plumbline Libertarian, and is alleged to be weak on non-interventionism. He is able to garner a lot of mainstream media attention and is definitely playing to the Tea Party and anti-Obama Red America crowd. Normally, someone similar to him might be the natural choice of realist and pragmatists within the LP, but Root inspires visceral emotions in people for reasons I plan to delve into in greater detail at a later date. Suffice it to say for now that his polarizing effect makes it hard for him to be the realist/pragmatist candidate per se. He is more likely to be the candidate of the Republican Liberty Caucus wing of the LP.

R. Lee Wrights has formed an exploratory committee. He was a supporter of Mary Ruwart in 2008, and is generally considered a radical, but he is a bit hard to characterized entirely as such. He is a prolific writer and is well known in libertarian web circles. Despite being a radical, he isn’t particularly polarizing and seems to be intentionally leading with a unifying message of opposition to war. (His links include the CATO Institute and the Mises Institute.) Of the four candidates, he has the most leftish feel.

Again, I am not an LP member, and so I am not privy to all the internal factions and distinctions in the LP. These are gestalt impressions based upon my outside rightist perspective of things. I welcome corrections and clarifications, but keep in mind these are my impressions, so I hope people won’t nit-pick or blast me especially about my use of left and right which are admittedly imperfect designations.

With the economy in a tailspin, most people are concerned about the shrinking number of job opportunities. Those who have jobs fear that they will lose them; those who have already lost their jobs find that new ones are few and far between.

Who is to blame for this sad state of affairs? While Obama is only making matters worse by his ill-conceived policies, earlier Republican administrations are just as much to blame for creating our economic woes. Study after study shows that taxes, regulations, and trade restrictions destroy the Mom-and-Pop businesses that create most of America’s jobs. Both Democrats and Republicans have voted for all three, even when paying lip service to smaller government. The economic stagnation we are now experiencing can be laid at the feet of both parties.

The disadvantaged would-be entrepreneurs are hurt the most by the added expenses and red tape put in place by both Republicans and Democrats. Regulators in several states have tried to drive African-Americans out of the hair-braiding business because they didn’t have a cosmetology license, which costs about $5000 for the year-long course which doesn’t even teach braiding. In Texas, regulators insist that computer repair technicians get a costly private investigator license that requires a three year apprenticeship—or go to jail! Florists in Louisiana have to pass a rigorous licensing exam, even though experts can’t tell which floral arrangements were created by licensed or unlicensed practitioners. I could go on, but you get the idea. These regulations cost would-be entrepreneurs time and money, so that fewer individuals can afford these extras. Fewer service providers translates into higher consumer prices.

Unlike Libertarians, both Republicans and Democrats support such regulations. Consequently, those frustrated by them turn to the libertarian Institute for Justice (IJ), a non-profit legal firm that takes such cases pro-bono. In state after state, IJ has fought for our right to make an honest living—and won! Visit their web-site (www.ij.org) to see the smiling faces of the IJ clients who have the job of their dreams because libertarians came to their rescue!

Imagine what a Libertarian president could do for the national economy when he or she stopped federal regulators from killing the jobs that Americans need to feed their families. The average federal regulator destroys 150 private sector jobs per year. For every regulator who lost his or her job, the American citizenry would gain 150 new ones! With that rate of job creation, the out-of-work regulators would probably find themselves speedily rehired. More people working means more wealth creation for all and lower prices for consumers. Everyone wins!

Right now, the American government, at both the state and national level, is at war with its citizens, especially those too disadvantaged to jump through the regulatory hoops. Isn’t it time to end the “war on work” and enjoy the “peace dividend” of more jobs and greater prosperity? Isn’t it time to vote Libertarian?

It appears that the 2004-5 minutes in the public archive included conference call minutes, but between 2006 and the May 2010 convention only minutes of the entire LNC meeting in person were made available in the public archive.

The most recent Exec Comm minutes currently posted are from Aug 15.

The Exec Comm is a subcommittee of the LNC: Officers Mark Hinkle, Mark Rutherford, Alicia Mattson and James Oaksun, At Large Reps Mary Ruwart and Bill Redpath, and Regional Rep James Lark.

It’s true that Texas Democrats did not file a candidate in the race for Comptroller, leaving only Republican incumbent Susan Combs versus two third-party candidates. But that doesn’t mean this race doesn’t represent a loss for Democrats (at least, in future elections). We previously reported that if the Green Party took more than 5 percent in this race, they would be in a position to chip away at close Democratic races in upcoming years — the same as what Libertarians theoretically do to Republican candidates. Well, it seems that Green Party candidate for Comptroller Edward Lindsay took 6.34 percent (or 251,842 votes), which puts the Greens over the 5 percent rule required by Texas election law for the same automatic ballot placement that the Libertarians, Republicans and Democrats enjoy.

And from the Libertarian Party:

For Immediate Release
Contact:
Pat Dixon
512-771-3936 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              512-771-3936      end_of_the_skype_highlighting begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              512-771-3936      end_of_the_skype_highlighting begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              512-771-3936      end_of_the_skype_highlighting
Libertarian Party of Texas

Libertarians secure ballot access through 2014

AUSTIN, TEXAS – November 4, 2010 — The Libertarian Party of Texas ensured its candidates will automatically appear on the 2012 election ballot by exceeding 5% in several statewide races. Libertarian candidates J Randall Stevens (Judge, Court of Criminal Appeals Place 2), Dave Howard (Judge, Court of Criminal Appeals Place 5), and Mary Ruwart (Comptroller of Public Accounts) significantly surpassed the qualification requirement to retain the party’s ballot status.

Additionally, Libertarian candidate for Governor Kathie Glass exceeded the 2% requirement to maintain that party’s ballot status through 2014.

“We are very happy to inform our candidates and membership that we will continue to offer Texas voters a Libertarian choice for 4 more years” said state chair Pat Dixon.

The party placed over 150 candidates on the Texas ballot in 2010, but Dixon is not satisfied. “There were many offices for which we did not place a Libertarian on the ballot in 2010. We need to recruit more candidates and offer a Libertarian choice for every Texas voter.”

Several Libertarian candidates have already committed to file for office in the 2012 elections.

Ballot Access News reports that

[T]he Libertarian Party polled over 2% for Governor, so it not only retains qualified status for 2012, but 2014 as well. The Green Party kept qualified status but only for 2012, not 2014.

In news from other big states which require large amounts of signatures in a short time, the Greens gained ballot access in New York, but lost it in Illinois. Both parties were among those that kept ballot access in California (see BAN story linked above). Richard Winger and LPNY chair Mark Axinn expressed cautious optimism that the Libertarians may also gain ballot access in New York through votes that have yet to be counted.

As Senator, Gravel became nationally known for his forceful but unsuccessful attempts to end the draft during the Vietnam War and for having put the Pentagon Papers into the public record in 1971 despite risk to himself. He conducted an unusual campaign for the Democratic nomination for Vice President of the United States in 1972, and then played a crucial role in getting Congressional approval for the Trans-Alaska pipeline in 1973.

More recently, he has been making videos at Barely Political. Here are the recent ones:

Republican Gov. Rick Perry leads his Democratic challenger, Bill White, by 6 percentage points — 39 percent to 33 percent — in the latest University of Texas/Texas Tribune poll. Libertarian Kathie Glass has the support of 5 percent of the Texans in the survey; Green Party candidate Deb Shafto gets 1 percent. And 22 percent of respondents — more than one in five Texans — say they’re undecided about which candidate to support with only seven weeks to go in the fall campaign.

One major reason for this poll was to determine the eligibility of the minor party candidates for participation in an upcoming televised gubernatorial debate hosted by major newspapers throughout the state. The threshold for participation is 10%, zo it appears that neither Shafto nor Glass qualified. However, with Rick Perry refusing to debate and legal issues surrounding a one candidate debate, Glass may just be strong enough to serve as a substittute. Other downballot statewide races were also polled.

• Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst is leading Linda Chavez-Thompson 41 percent to 26 percent. Libertarian Scott Jameson has the support of 5 percent, and the Green Party’s Herb Gonzales Jr. has 1 percent. Undecided respondents account for 27 percent.

• Attorney General Greg Abbott is leading Democrat Barbara Ann Radnofsky 43 percent to 26 percent, with Libertarian Jon Roland pulling 5 percent. Undecided voters represent 26 percent of the total.

• Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson leads Democrat Hector Uribe 35 percent to 25 percent. Libertarian James Holdar is at 7 percent, while 34 percent are undecided.

• Agriculture Commissioner Todd Staples leads Hank Gilbert 33 percent to 26 percent. Libertarian Rick Donaldson has 8 percent, while 33 percent are undecided.

• In the only open seat on the statewide ballot, Republican David Porter leads Democrat Jeff Weems 33 percent to 25 percent, with Libertarian Roger Gary the favorite of 6 percent and Art Browning of the Green Party attracting 2 percent. Undecided voters make up 34 percent of the total.

The comptroller’s race, in which no Democrat filed against incumbent Republican Susan Combs, wasn’t included in the poll. She’ll face Libertarian Mary Ruwart in November.

The strongest Green Party performance is in the open Railroad Commissioners Contest with 2%. For the Libertarians, their strongest numbers are found in the Agriculture Commissioner’s race with 8%. It appears that when a Green candidate is in the race, the Libertarians exhibit a slight drop in support.

In addition, it appears that the Libertarians are stronger down-ballot than in the gubernatorial race. This is not surprising; even though Glass has run the most visible campaign of any statewide Libertarian candidate this cycle, White and Perry locked in a competitive race. This causes voters to  fear “wasting” their vote on Glass at the expense of letting a less-preferred candidate win the race. These are the strongest numbers the Texas LP has ever received in a statewide race with both Republican and Democrat opponents.

I just posted the following article at LibertyforAll.net.  You can read it in its entirety at  at http://www.libertyforall.net/?p=4752.  Enjoy!

“Since the FDA only has jurisdiction over compounds involved in ‘interstate commerce,’ they have no jurisdiction over our kitchens—yet.  Should my client lose this case, however, the FDA will have set a precedent to invade the privacy of our homes.”

- Attorney Nancy Lord, M.D.

Daniel Smith is between the proverbial “rock and a hard place.”  For the last couple of years, he has been selling “MMS Professional,” a high-quality sodium chlorite solution used to purify water. He has also been selling citric acid, a food acid similar to that found in lime or lemon juice.

Daniel also sold books, CDs and DVDs produced by others that explained how mixing sodium chlorite and citric acid produce chlorine dioxide, a chemical commonly used to purify water.  Chlorine dioxide also is an effective mouthwash (Compendium of Continuing Education in Dentistry Vol.21, pp. 241-248, 2000).

The books, CDs and DVDs claim that chlorine dioxide, when ingested at appropriate doses, may kill the parasite that produces malaria, as well as other disease-causing bacteria and viruses, such as the ones that are responsible for hepatitis, typhoid, MRSA, pneumonia, bronchial infections, and perhaps even HIV virus associated with AIDS.  The material claims that there are over 75,000 documented cases of chlorine dioxide’s effectiveness against malaria alone.

In these days of high medical costs, a potential antiseptic that is inexpensive and can be made at home is certainly noteworthy.  Safety studies with chlorine dioxide, undertaken in the 1980s because the compound is widely used in municipal water treatment system, raised no red flags (Environmental Health Perspectives Vol. 46, pp. 57-62, 1982). The FDA is concerned because chlorine dioxide, taken in excess, can cause diarrhea and dehydration.  These are side effects that many FDA-approved drugs have, as well as over-the-counter Vitamin C and magnesium.  Presumably, a person faced with such symptoms would simply decrease their dose.

So why is Daniel being threatened with the possibility of criminal charges and years in prison?  The FDA claims that Daniel was “marketing a new, unapproved drug with labeling.”

Read rest of article at http://www.libertyforall.net/?p=4752.

The judgment notes that stock certificates allegedly issued for the purchase of Cannex Therapeutics, LLC by Cannabis Science, Inc., f/k/a Gulf Onshore, Inc. cannot be produced and cancels those certificates. The judgement further decrees that:

The Purchase Agreement and Control Shareholder Agreements are rescinded and cancelled, nunc pro tunc to the dates of execution, for any and all purposes.

Readers of IPR will recall (see previous stories here, here and here) that Kubby’s departure as CEO Cannabis Science, Inc. took place amid various claims and counterclaims — he claimed he resigned due to improprieties on the part of other company officials, the board claimed that he was fired under a cloud; CSI claimed to have purchased Cannex, Kubby claimed to have never received the shares he was entitled to for that purchase; etc.

Perhaps most importantly, CSI claimed ownership, due to the purchase, of intellectual properties developed by Kubby for Cannex. Kubby, along with fellow 2008 Libertarian Party presidential nomination candidate Dr. Mary Ruwart, has continued to develop those properties and has since filed patent applications on one or more of them.

This judgment seems to substantially support Kubby’s version of events, and to give Cannex clear title to the products and processes he’s developed.