The Fall of Wall Street's Banks

It now appears that the mortgage and housing crisis is hitting the fan big time. Merrill Lynch, the pro-corporate welfare, pro-state banking and mortgage powerhouse which has been in financial turmoil simply by teetering on bankruptcy, has now been sold to Bank of America for approximately $50 billion in an effort to avert another financial meltdown -- a debacle that has been plaguing the housing, financial, and mortgage industries for quite some time. This comes at the same time that another government-subsidized financial juggernaut Lehman Brothers is looking to bankruptcy protection over its failure to secure a buyer. All of this comes on the heels of Obama and McCain collectively agreeing to a bailout of Freddie Mae and Freddie Mac, another powerhouse that's been on the verge of financial collapse as well.

With Obama and McCain agreeing to "save" Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Merrill Lynch being placed under another government-subsidized banking entity, and Lehman Brothers filing for bankrupty protection, isn't there any wonder that corporatism (or fascism, if you really want to call it) allows allies in the financial and political sectors (including the Republican and Democratic camps) to rob from the poor and give it to the rich? Talk about reverse income redistribution at its worst!

With friends (that is, collusions between government and its politically-connected firms like Bear Sterns, Lehman Brothers, and Merrill Lynch) like those, who needs enemies?

Here's the New York Times piece on the fall in its entirety:

September 15, 2008
After Frantic Day, Wall St. Banks Falter
By ANDREW ROSS SORKIN
This article was reported by Jenny Anderson, Eric Dash and Andrew Ross Sorkin and was written by Mr. Sorkin.

In one of the most dramatic days in Wall Street’s history, Merrill Lynch agreed to sell itself on Sunday to Bank of America for roughly $50 billion to avert a deepening financial crisis, while another prominent securities firm, Lehman Brothers, said it would seek bankruptcy protection and hurtled toward liquidation after it failed to find a buyer.

The humbling moves, which reshape the landscape of American finance, mark the latest chapter in a tumultuous year in which once-proud financial institutions have been brought to their knees as a result of hundreds of billions of dollars in losses because of bad mortgage finance and real estate investments.

But even as the fates of Lehman and Merrill hung in the balance, another crisis loomed as the insurance giant American International Group appeared to teeter. Staggered by losses stemming from the credit crisis, A.I.G. sought a $40 billion lifeline from the Federal Reserve, without which the company may have only days to survive.

The stunning series of events culminated a weekend of frantic around-the-clock negotiations, as Wall Street bankers huddled in meetings at the behest of Bush administration officials to try to avoid a downward spiral in the markets stemming from a crisis of confidence.

“My goodness. I’ve been in the business 35 years, and these are the most extraordinary events I’ve ever seen,” said Peter G. Peterson, co-founder of the private equity firm the Blackstone Group, who was head of Lehman in the 1970s and a secretary of commerce in the Nixon administration.

It remains to be seen whether the sale of Merrill, which was worth more than $100 billion during the last year, and the controlled demise of Lehman will be enough to finally turn the tide in the yearlong financial crisis that has crippled Wall Street and threatened the broader economy.

Early Monday morning, Lehman said it would file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in New York for its holding company in what would be the largest failure of an investment bank since the collapse of Drexel Burnham Lambert 18 years ago, the Associated Press reported.

Questions remain about how the market will react Monday, particularly to Lehman’s plan to wind down its trading operations, and whether other companies, like A.I.G. and Washington Mutual, the nation’s largest savings and loan, might falter.

Indeed, in a move that echoed Wall Street’s rescue of a big hedge fund a decade ago this week, 10 major banks agreed to create an emergency fund of $70 billion to $100 billion that financial institutions can use to protect themselves from the fallout of Lehman’s failure.

The Fed, meantime, broadened the terms of its emergency loan program for Wall Street banks, a move that could ultimately put taxpayers’ money at risk.

Though the government took control of the troubled mortgage finance companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac only a week ago, investors have become increasingly nervous about whether major financial institutions can recover from their losses.

How things play out could affect the broader economy, which has been weakening steadily as the financial crisis has deepened over the last year, with unemployment increasing as the nation’s growth rate has slowed.

What will happen to Merrill’s 60,000 employees or Lehman’s 25,000 employees remains unclear. Worried about the unfolding crisis and its potential impact on New York City’s economy, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg canceled a trip to California to meet with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Instead, aides said, Mr. Bloomberg spent much of the weekend working the phones, talking to federal officials and bank executives in an effort to gauge the severity of the crisis.

The weekend that humbled Lehman and Merrill Lynch and rewarded Bank of America, based in Charlotte, N.C., began at 6 p.m. Friday in the first of a series of emergency meetings at the Federal Reserve building in Lower Manhattan.

The meeting was called by Fed officials, with Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. in attendance, and it included top bankers. The Treasury and Federal Reserve had already stepped in on several occasions to rescue the financial system, forcing a shotgun marriage between Bear Stearns and JPMorgan Chase this year and backstopping $29 billion worth of troubled assets — and then agreeing to bail out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The bankers were told that the government would not bail out Lehman and that it was up to Wall Street to solve its problems. Lehman’s stock tumbled sharply last week as concerns about its financial condition grew and other firms started to pull back from doing business with it, threatening its viability.

Without government backing, Lehman began trying to find a buyer, focusing on Barclays, the big British bank, and Bank of America. At the same time, other Wall Street executives grew more concerned about their own precarious situation.

The fates of Merrill Lynch and Lehman Brothers would not seem to be linked; Merrill has the nation’s largest brokerage force and its name is known in towns across America, while Lehman’s main customers are big institutions. But during the credit boom both firms piled into risky real estate and ended up severely weakened, with inadequate capital and toxic assets.

Knowing that investors were worried about Merrill, John A. Thain, its chief executive and an alumnus of Goldman Sachs and the New York Stock Exchange, and Kenneth D. Lewis, Bank of America’s chief executive, began negotiations. One person briefed on the negotiations said Bank of America had approached Merrill earlier in the summer but Mr. Thain had rebuffed the offer. Now, prompted by the reality that a Lehman bankruptcy would ripple through Wall Street and further cripple Merrill Lynch, the two parties proceeded with discussions.

On Sunday morning, Mr. Thain and Mr. Lewis cemented the deal. It could not be determined if Mr. Thain would play a role in the new company, but two people briefed on the negotiations said they did not expect him to stay. Merrill’s “thundering herd” of 17,000 brokers will be combined with Bank of America’s smaller group of wealth advisers and called Merrill Lynch Wealth Management.

For Bank of America, which this year bought Countrywide Financial, the troubled mortgage lender, the purchase of Merrill puts it at the pinnacle of American finance, making it the biggest brokerage house and consumer banking franchise.

Bank of America eventually pulled out of its talks with Lehman after the government refused to take responsibility for losses on some of Lehman’s most troubled real-estate assets, something it agreed to do when JP Morgan Chase bought Bear Stearns to save it from a bankruptcy filing in March.

A leading proposal to rescue Lehman would have divided the bank into two entities, a “good bank” and a “bad bank.” Under that scenario, Barclays would have bought the parts of Lehman that have been performing well, while a group of 10 to 15 Wall Street companies would have agreed to absorb losses from the bank’s troubled assets, to two people briefed on the proposal said. Taxpayer money would not have been included in such a deal, they said.

Other Wall Street banks also balked at the deal, unhappy at facing potential losses while Bank of America or Barclays walked away with the potentially profitable part of Lehman at a cheap price.

For Lehman, the end essentially came Sunday morning when its last potential suitor, Barclays, pulled out from a deal, saying it could not obtain a shareholder vote to approve a transaction before Monday morning, something required under London Stock Exchange listing rules, one person close to the matter said. Other people involved in the talks said the Financial Services Authority, the British securities regulator, had discouraged Barclays from pursuing a deal. Peter Truell, a spokesman for Barclays, declined to comment. Lehman’s subsidiaries were expected to remain solvent while the firm liquidates its holdings, these people said. Herbert H. McDade III, Lehman’s president, was at the Federal Reserve Bank in New York late Sunday, discussing terms of Lehman’s fate with government officials.

Lehman’s filing is unlikely to resemble those of other companies that seek bankruptcy protection. Because of the harsher treatment that federal bankruptcy law applies to financial-services firms, Lehman cannot hope to reorganize and survive. It was not clear whether the government would appoint a trustee to supervise Lehman’s liquidation or how big the financial backstop would be.

Lehman has retained the law firm Weil, Gotshal & Manges as its bankruptcy counsel.

The collapse of Lehman is a devastating end for Richard S. Fuld Jr., the chief executive, who has led the bank since it emerged from American Express as a public company in 1994. Mr. Fuld, who steered Lehman through near-death experiences in the past, spent the last several days in his 31st floor office in Lehman’s midtown headquarters on the phone from 6 a.m. until well past midnight trying to find save the firm, a person close to the matter said.

A.I.G. will be the next test. Ratings agencies threatened to downgrade A.I.G.’s credit rating if it does not raise $40 billion by Monday morning, a step that would crippled the company. A.I.G. had hoped to shore itself up, in party by selling certain businesses, but potential bidders, including the private investment firms Kohlberg Kravis Roberts and TPG, withdrew at the last minute because the government refused to provide a financial guarantee for the purchase. A.I.G. rejected an offer by another investor, J. C. Flowers & Company.

The weekend’s events indicate that top officials at the Federal Reserve and the Treasury are taking a harder line on providing government support of troubled financial institutions.

While offering to help Wall Street organize a shotgun marriage for Lehman, both the Fed chairman, Ben S. Bernanke, and Mr. Paulson had warned that they would not put taxpayer money at risk simply to prevent a Lehman collapse.

The message marked a major change in strategy but it remained unclear until at least Friday what would happen. “They were faced after Bear Stearns with the problem of where to draw the line,” said Laurence H. Meyer, a former Fed governor who is now vice chairman of Macroeconomic Advisors, a forecasting firm. “It became clear that this piecemeal, patchwork, case-by-case approach might not get the job done.”

Both Mr. Paulson and Mr. Bernanke worried that they had already gone much further than they had ever wanted, first by underwriting the takeover of Bear Stearns in March and by the far bigger bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Outside the public eye, Fed officials had acquired much more information since March about the interconnections and cross-exposure to risk among Wall Street investment banks, hedge funds and traders in the vast market for credit-default swaps and other derivatives. In the end, both Wall Street and the Fed blinked.

Reporting was contributed by Edmund L. Andrews, Eric Dash, Michael Barbaro, Michael J. de la Merced, Louise Story and Ben White.

Sarah Palin: Bush Has Attempted to "Rid This World of Islamic Extremism"

Or says Palin during her first ABC interview last Thursday.

LNC Rejects "Snubgate"

The Libertarian National Committee (LNC) has rejected to remove Bob Barr from its presidential ticket. Apparently this latest story, which broke on IPR tonight and serves as a response to "Snubgate," pertains to the grassroots move to eliminate Barr from the ticket. However, not a single member of the 17-member body was willing to make a motion to vote on it.

Interestingly enough, LNC At-Large Representative Mary Ruwart (who ran for president on the LP's ticket this year and lost to Barr) presented her resolution calling for Barr to "apologize" to Dr. Ron Paul. LNC Treasurer Aaron Starr, who's leading the "pro-Barr faction," counters that with a resolution of his own -- one that berates Paul, simply because Ron didn't hand his endorsement to Barr and is responsible for "splitting the Freedom Movement."

Neither resolution passed, simply due to a lack of adequate votes.

[H/T to IPR for making this report available.]

Sarah Palin's True Colors

One of Sarah Palin's biggest problems is that she tries too hard to be very libertarian on the issues, but she doesn't even accomplish that very well. Her recent two-part interview that she gave to ABC News' Charles Gibson last Thursday should be any indication to libertarians and even many conservatives about her neoconservative, Bush-esque stands on the issues. At first it seemed as though she was very libertarian on a number of issues, including her past support for the Alaskan Independence Party of which she was a member. Not only that, she stood by its advocacy of secession, which is now a matter of public record.

However, if you dig beneath the surface, you'll find that she's not as libertarian as many "libertarians" like Eric Dondero Rittberg and conservatives like Matt Drudge would like you to think she is. Let's be quite blunt about this. She's a social conservative. Her stands on social and some economic issues are hardly pro-freedom; in fact, they're more statist than ever. Her public opposition to abortion, especially in cases of rape and incest, epitomizes that record of hers and is hardly pro-freedom. Another anti-freedom position of hers is that she opposes gay marriage, simply parroting the typical "traditional marriage" conservative line. If she were truly libertarian on the issue, she would have called for government to get out of the marriage industry at the federal and state levels once and for all. But she doesn't do that; thus, that is where her social conservativism goes off the deep end.

When Gibson asked her whether she could tell the country whether she had "the experience" to not only be vice president but perhaps also be president, she bluntly said:

PALIN: I do, Charlie, and on January 20, when John McCain and I are sworn in, and if we are so privileged to be elected to serve this country, we'll be ready. I'm ready.

This statement alone has raised a lot of eyebrows in the political establishment. The fact that she thinks she is "experienced" to do the job as the vice president is troubling on all accounts. No one is qualified to be president or vice president or even hold any political office for that matter. Her brief record as governor, while hailed by many conservatives and libertarians (because of her libertarianesque positions, although they're not as libertarian as they appear to be) and denounced by many liberals (because of her inexperience and her role as a mother of five children), is substandard and mostly bad. Her problem is not that she has too "little experience," but rather too much experience in government. As a newbie and a McCain acolyte, she's learning the political trappings of Washington and its cronies. Is that someone to look up to? Is that something that you would want to aspire to be?

And what is this "privileged" nonsense? What makes her think that John McCain and she "are so privileged" to rule the United States? There's nothing that is "privileged" about it. She is truly learning the political tricks of the trade here. When she talks about "being so privileged," what she really means is that McCain and she are politically adulated and deified to sit on the thrones of the state. In politics, the term "privilege" is a code word for government worship of the rulers by the ruled. There's nothing truly glorious and sacrosanct about this sentiment. She, along with McCain on the GOP, Barack Obama, and his running mate Biden are looking to be graciousy accepted and welcomed by the ruled via the political tools of campaigning. These candidates are nothing more than wanna-be rulers who are coercively ensuring that voters of all stripes partake in this governmental process of "electing their leaders." Moreover, this is especially when the "leaders" (the pluralized term rulers is more like it) are going to win by default, whether the voters get involved in the political process or not.

And this claptrap about "serving the country" needs to be debunked once and for all. Palin, along with McCain, isn't looking to "serve her country" if and when she's elected to the vice presidency. She's looking to have individual Americans "serve" her. This claim that she would be "serving" the nation is far from the truth. She's simply serving the interests of her special interests and buying votes, while putting on an act to make it look as though she cares about "serving" the people. She will impose her political and religious will on individual Americans and support McCain's neoconservative doctrine, especially when it's not even discernible from the Bush Doctrine. After all, she blatantly admitted that she was on board with Bush's insane intervention in Iraq and even a possible intervention in Iran, and she's on especially on board with McCain's plan for miring us in the Iraqi occupation for 100 years. Those actions are in direct contrast to a foreign policy of non-interventionism.

Her concession to not having met foreign heads of state is a double-edge sword, politically speaking. On one hand, it is good that she has never met them, because the less politicians get involved in matters of foreign affairs, the better. While diplomacy is better than war, the real libertarian position is scrap our current foreign policy of interventionism and replace it with one of non-interventionism. On the other hand, since she has never dealt with the foreign policy issue, it shows that her naivete is showing. If she pushes for a pro-war policy and carries out McCain's 100-year war, then the United States will be mired in it neck-deep for decades to come. Even her ignorance on the Bush Doctrine is unsurprising but inexcusable. There's no reason for her not to be aware of what that policy is and how deleterious it has been to our country.

Moreover, her support for the war in Iraq, while not a surprise, is unjustifiable. Her comments to her church's congregation that national leaders are sending our sons and daughters "on a task from God" to Iraq are heavily theocratic. This zealotry coming from her is indicative of the ideological influence coming from the Religious Right base of the GOP. She posits that she is borrowing from what Lincoln said in a similar fashion:

Sir, my concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God's side, for God is always right. -- Abraham Lincoln.

But Lincoln was talking about the country being on "God's side," not the other way around. He was merely speaking about the War Between the States in a ponderous fashion -- that is, whether the Union should be "on God's side." (Not that Lincoln was innocent, as he, with strong support from the Union, nationalized the railroads and shut down enterprises, including newspapers, that didn't agree with him on the War.) However, this entire talk about the "task from God" is seriously a distraction, because it focuses too much attention away from the real issue: government too much in our lives, in our economy, and in the Middle East and the entire world.

Besides, her fundamentalist religious views have no place in government as much as govenment has any place in the church. Such collusions seriously weaken and harm the separation of church and state. Doesn't she get that at all?

Even her opposition to marijuana, even for medicinal use, showcases her anti-libertarianism on a strong note. (Guess what? She tried and didn't like it, although she did inhale it.) While she was right on refusing to use state monies to complete the construction of the Bridge to Nowhere at a price tag of $398 million, she hypocritically supported the funding initially before Congress pushed for the funding and then came out against it. She didn't even try to "marketize" (truly privatize) the airport to which the bridge would have connected and the ferry boat system, which made access almost impossible. How are any of these stands libertarian at all? They are typical of a staunch social conservative Republican. She even supported taxing windfall profits of oil companies that were looking to do business in Alaska. That's hardly libertarian at all. Plus, the allegation that she fired a Wasilla librarian for removing books is a serious charge. (Even that controversy might not necessarily help McCain and the ticket, but it's a very strong possibility.) However, it shows that government should not be funding libraries, and they ought to be in the province of the free market, not bureaucrats and politicians.

It's obvious that Palin's true colors have been shining brightly. While it was a good political move for McCain to choose her in order to draw away attention from Obama, the Left, and their cronies from behind-the-scenes and in the media, it was a bad philosophical move, because Palin is not going to be against the establishment. Actually, she is the establishment now. Whatever hopes that "limited-government" conservatives might have had simply have gone up in smoke.

Support Comrade Palin and Neo-America!

Someone is having a ball with illustrating the true nature of Sarah Palin and the "Party of the People." For Party, the State, and the Motherland!!!

[H/T to Charles Featherstone of LRC and Mark of Mark a reformed Patriot from whom I got this pic and information.]

WikiNews Covers "Snubgate"

WikiNews, the populist-controlled free news source which is a division of online encyclopedia Wikipedia and is an alternative to the corporate-controlled mainstream media, has just covered the infamous "Snubgate" affair.

It looks like it's not looking good for Bob Barr and his Republicanesque cretins, is it?

[H/T to Tom Knapp of KN@PPSTER and as IPR's LP correspondent who covered this blurb.]

Movement Launched to Remove Barr and Root from LP Presidential Ticket

It seems that there is an enormous amount of pressure to remove LP presidential nominee Bob Barr and LP vice presidential nominee Wayne Allyn Root from the LP ticket, in the aftermath of Barr's stand-up of Ron Paul at his press conference. This pressure is being used to push LNC members to "un-endorse" Barr and Root and either replace them with alternatives or keep the ticket empty. Many proponents of this move are justifying it by saying that this is the only way the LP can be saved after the disastrous snub that Barr handed to Paul last Wednesday morning.

On a grassroots note, an activist has launched an online petition that calls for the removal of Barr and Root from the Party's ticket.

This is what the petition says in its entirety:

We, the supporters of freedom and liberty hereby petition you to immediately remove Bob Barr as the Libertarian Party nominee for President of the United States. Furthermore, we request that he not be replaced by the current vice presidential nominee Wayne Allen Root, but by another, less divisive candidate.

This request is not made lightly, but with much seriousness. The actions, track record, and history of Bob Barr has divided libertarians and other liberty leaning individuals across the nation.

WHEREAS the primary goal and purpose of the Libertarian Party is and has always been not conservatism but liberty,

WHEREAS Robert Barr has, not only refused to participate in the 10 September 2008 press conference of Rep. Ronald Paul of Texas and the Campaign for Liberty but has deliberately sabotaged this event with a false RSVP,

WHEREAS Robert Barr's campaign has simultaneously called for Rep. Ronald Paul of Texas to be its vice presidential candidate and called him a thief, demonstrating either gross incompetence or a deliberate attempt to undermine the drive for liberty,

WHEREAS refusal to participate in a promising avenue for the enlargement of the party and the advancement of the cause of liberty is not in the best interests of the Libertarian Party, and

WHEREAS the Libertarian Party was not founded and does not exist for the aggrandizement of Robert Barr,

WE THE UNDERSIGNED hereby affirm that we are registered voters in the several United States of America, and do petition Robert Barr to step down from his position as candidate of the Libertarian Party for President of the United States; we do petition the Libertarian Party to renounce its support of Robert Barr's candidacy for the office of President of the United States; or both.

The Death of the Bob Barr Campaign Part II

The fall-out from the infamous Barr "no-show" at Ron Paul's press conference Wednesday morning is gaining momentum. And it's getting down-right ugly. It serves Bob Barr, Russ Verney, Shane Cory, Mike Ferguson, LP Acting Executive Robert Kraus, LP spokesman (and recent college graduate) Andrew Davis, and all the other cronies working on behalf of and supporting the Bob Barr Campaign for President.

Andrew Davis, another Barr backer, opined on the ruckus. He said that Barr didn't want to share the stage with "with people like McKinney." In his original yet brief statement, Davis wrote:

The real question is why Bob, who is a major player in this election, want to be on stage with people like McKinney, who stands against everything the LP does, and Baldwin, who is barely on enough ballots to have a statistical chance of winning.

Barr is not a minor party candidate. Barr is a major player this year.

He is holding his own press conference right now.

The good news -- at least for Ralph Nader -- is that Davis left him out, having no unkind words for him. Gee, the LP certainly picked a winner to be its spokesman, now didn't it?

Paul backer Don Rassmussen even reported:

I just sat in stunned silence as Bob Barr blatantly lied to the national press corp (or the half dozen members that bothered to show up). He stated that he had not committed to attend this press conference. This is patently false. He was fully committed to attend until 30 minutes before when Russ Varney called Jesse Benton and said that Barr was out. This man has not one ounce of integrity in his body.

Adam Kokesh stood up during the press conference, denounced Barr and withdrew his support. Several others in the room quickly followed. Great job Adam!

I asked Barr Communications Director Shane Corey after the event why they pulled this stunt and was told to go f*** myself.

So how is this looking for Bob Barr in the grand scheme of things? Not well, quite frankly. Arthur Torrey, an anti-Barr presidential elector, went on record, saying that he would substitute Barr for LP presidential candidate George Phillies, who will be on the ballot in New Hampshire and Massachusetts. In his announcement, he stated:

I have sent the following message to the Mass. Secretary of States Office and the attorneys representing our side in the litigation concerning the substitution of Barr/Root for Phillies / Bennet. Essentially it means that if I have anything to say about it, Bob Barr will NOT be on the Ballot in Mass. I am deleting some addresses, otherwise it is as sent…

To whom it may concern;

I am one of the Presidential Elector Candidates for the Libertarian Party of Massachusetts (LPMA). As such I feel that it is necessary and appropriate that I express my feelings concerning the ongoing litigation concerning the right of the LPMA to substitute the names of the National Libertarian Party nominees for President and Vice President for those of George Phillies and Chris Bennet whose names currently appear on the LPMA petitions for the offices.

I wish it to be known that as a Presidential Elector Candidate, while I support the RIGHT of the LPMA and it’s electors to make a substitution, I am no longer willing to do so in the case of Bob Barr and Wayne Allen Root. I will NOT pledge to vote for Barr / Root in the event that their ticket wins the vote in Mass. and I will NOT sign any agreement to authorize the substitution of their names on for those of Phillies / Bennet on the presidential ballot.

This decision is due to actions taken by the Barr / Root campaign subsequent to this litigation being filed and, in my opinion, does not impact the basic facts of this case. While it is very true that there are considerable differences between Barr / Root and Phillies / Bennet as the Secretary of State alleges in the defense document, this is properly a matter for the members of the Libertarian Party to decide, not the Secretary.

I firmly believe that the basic circumstances of the case, which are that the LPMA initiated its petition drive with Phillies / Bennet under the advice of the Secretary of States Office that *IF* the LPMA desired to make a substitution, then this would be permitted. It is manifestly unfair for the Secretary’s office to change the “rules of the game” in the middle of the petitioning process.

As both a voter and taxpayer I would pray that, while I do not support substitution in THIS instance, the Court will see fit to rule that the electors have the right to substitute a candidate if they so choose, and direct the Secretary of State to develop fair and consistent rules for doing so. This would help to avoid the trouble and expense of future litigation on this topic.

Thank you,

ART
–
Arthur Torrey
LPMA Operations Facilitator
LPMA Presidential Elector, who will NOT vote for Barr!
Town Meeting Representative
Speaking only as myself unless otherwise indicated!

The fall-out is reaching mass proportions. Chris Brunner of the LewRockwell.com Blog
conveniently tore Barr into pieces, stating:

By committing to attend Congressman Paul's press conference only to declare minutes before hand that "it just isn't worth it." This is according to Don Rasmussen, Events Coordinator of the Campaign for Liberty.

Bob Barr has been slamming Dr. Paul publicly since he won the formerly-libertarian party nomination, but this seems to have offended more Ron Paul supporters than anything he has done so far.

For those who don't know, Barr spent much of his life jailing people on behalf of the federal government for possessing substances that the state disapproves of, before recently "seeing the light". Even since his supposed revelation, he has praised the troop surge, argued for intervention in Iran and South America, advocated a national sales tax, and voted for the PATRIOT Act twice. This just scratches the surface, of course.

With that said, it's probably for the best that he didn't show up today.

It just keeps getting worse for Barr. His campaign manager Russ Verney spewed some venom at Paul and his supporters, claiming that the Campaign for Liberty "was not about promoting a liberty agenda; it was about promoting a man" and that President George W. Bush "incredible leadership as he stood atop a fire truck amidst the rubble of the twin towers to rally America," even as he compared it to the "leadership" provided by Wayne Allyn Root for illegally offering his VP spot to Paul. Here's the entire text of his letter for reprinting:

Dear Friend,

Before I move forward with an important report for today, I would like to recognize and remember the 2,819 men and women who lost their lives seven years ago. As a result of the attacks of September 11th, Americans came together, setting aside differences in order mourn our shared losses and assist our neighbors in need.

May we never forget . . .

In times of crisis, strength in leadership requires boldness of character, clear direction and firm resolve. As we witnessed after the attacks of September 11th, President George W. Bush showed incredible leadership as he stood atop a fire truck amidst the rubble of the twin towers to rally America.

While the quality of leadership is rare enough, principled leaders are few and far between. Those who do appear to posses the traits necessary to lead, for reasons only known to themselves, frequently choose not to stand on principle.

Yesterday, our vice presidential candidate, Wayne Allyn Root, offered to step aside to allow Congressman Ron Paul an opportunity to serve on the presidential ticket of the Libertarian Party and move the agenda of Liberty forward.

On the surface, a simple offer was extended. In fact it was principled leadership at its finest.

Wayne Allyn Root showed his deep commitment to the principles of our cause. Without hesitation or regard to the effort, time and personal funds he has committed to the issues of freedom, smaller government, less taxes and the Libertarian ticket, Wayne offered to step aside to allow another leader to step up.

I could not be more proud of his actions and selflessness.

As America is hurling towards crisis on many fronts, we need principled leaders like Bob Barr and Wayne Allyn Root. We have no time to waste on anything other than spreading the message of smaller government, less taxes, and more personal freedom issues across this nation.

That brings me to my next point.

Today our campaign is being criticized by a few people for my decision to not attend a press conference sponsored by Ron Paul’s political action committee. I thought I would take a minute to explain to you why I made that decision.

It became evident to me after meeting with Ron Paul’s staff that this media event was not about promoting the liberty agenda; it was about promoting a man. That’s not what we’re in this for.

After rumors were spread in advance of the news conference that Bob Barr was dropping from the race - just to hype the event - I became even more hesitant to attend. Those tactics were unacceptable and when asked about it, Ron Paul’s staff simply smiled and said it would attract the press.

When I was provided a copy of Ron Paul’s prepared remarks just hours before the start of the planned news conference it became clear to me that the message Ron Paul intended to deliver was essentially to scatter the votes for the liberty agenda to the four winds.

His remarks not only encouraged anyone listening to support any one of four candidates, he also applauded ‘non-voters’. To me encouraging people not to vote is not principled leadership for the Liberty agenda.

I made the decision that attending that news conference was not consistent with Bob Barr’s principled leadership for the Liberty agenda.

Once I informed Ron Paul’s staff of my decision I was rudely informed that my decision would have permanent ramifications, I was personally threatened and Bob Barr was politically threatened. That’s a far cry from principled leadership.

One thing that did occur as a result of yesterday’s events is a clear separation of certain factions. Up until now, we have been dealing with two groups, those who want to advance the issues of liberty and those who have been drawn into a cult of personality.

There are those who support a specific politician and then there are those who support the liberty agenda regardless of standard-bearer.

Bob Barr, Wayne Allyn Root and the Libertarian Party stand for the issues of personal freedom and responsible government. As they have proven, both Bob and Wayne are willing to lead or follow for the advancement of our issues.

Now is their time to lead.

As we move into the final 50 days of the campaign we are in place to make a strong impact on the future of our country.

At the end of the day, the number of votes cast in support of the Liberty agenda in the General Election will influence the national political agenda of the next four years.

If we do our jobs, work hard and give us much as possible until Election Day, our voices will be heard and our agenda of smaller government, lower taxes, more personal freedom and government accountability will be on the table for years to come.

I appreciate your commitment and dedication.

Sincerely,

Russ signature

Russell Verney
Campaign Manager

LewRockwell.com columnist and blogger Anthony Gregory exhibited his disgust towards Verney's statement, calling it "a bizarre accusation." Here's Gregory's post from the LRC blog about this:

In a statement today, the Barr campaign manages to attack Ron Paul yet again (while somehow finding an excuse to praise President Bush for his "leadership" on 9/11). They say that Ron Paul's meeting yesterday was all about promoting himself, and yet it was also supposedly about "scatter[ing] the votes for the liberty agenda to the four winds." Bah. Barr would be very lucky to get 1/4 of Paul's supporters to vote for him. The Barr campaign release also attacks non-voters.

This is really amazing. The same campaign that was willing to praise Jesse Helms, Al Gore and now George Bush, a campaign that has flip-flopped on global warming, gay marriage, the drug war and other issues, is now attacking the most popular libertarian activist movement in modern history, and attacking Ron Paul the person for caring more about himself than spreading the message of freedom – perhaps the most bizarre accusation one could make.

When Barr first got the nomination, I predicted he would not break 700,000 votes, despite hysterically optimistic estimates of millions of votes. Now, I would be somewhat surprised if he got more votes than Michael Badnarik.

Even Tom Woods, a Rothbardian, a Misean, and even a writer and blogger for LRC and the Mises Institute and author of The Politically Correct Guide to American History, attacked Verney, calling his statement "sheer stupidity." He wrote:

Bob Barr's campaign manager, Russ Verney, sure is funny: "Today our campaign is being criticized by a few people [my emphasis] for my decision to not attend a press conference sponsored by Ron Paul's political action committee...." A few people, probably just those who are part of what he calls a "cult of personality" around Ron Paul.

How can this be topped for sheer stupidity?

As for attending vs. not attending, hasn't Barr (who was recently booted from the ballot in West Virginia) encountered some of the same frustrations all third parties do, and like a decent man wouldn't he want to join them in standing up against that kind of treatment? What am I missing?

Iraq Veterans Against The War member and independent blogger Adam Kokesh, who was at Bob Barr's press conference lambasting the LP presidential nominee and was nearly silenced by Barr campaign manager Russ Verney, described his experiences at the conference with the following:

I attended Ron Paul's press conference yesterday expecting Bob Barr to be there. It was going to be as close to an endorsement as Barr could get from Paul. I almost came with a sign that said "Veterans For Barr." Boy, am I glad I didn't.

Ron Paul had decided to throw some of his now considerable weight behind the electoral issues that marginalize third party candidates and got all four major third party candidates to endorse a four-point platform that included libertarian positions on foreign policy, privacy, the national debt, and the federal reserve.

When I think of the freedom movement, I think of it as broadly as possible. Everyone who thinks the government is too big, too intrusive, too burdensome, and not representing our will abroad with the current interventionist foreign policy is part of the freedom movement. We are a diverse group, and we do not need to be uniform in all of our beliefs to be unified against a government that is out of control. What Ron Paul did was put that down into four points of agreement and got a team united behind them in a very powerful way. It may not have been as dramatic as some people were hoping, but it was beautiful. Our founders would have recognized the importance of what Paul was doing, or as Benjamin Franklin said, "We must all hang together or most assuredly we will all hang separately."

Bob Barr just had to ruin it for everyone for his own selfish reasons. He had agreed to the platform, and agreed to be at the event, only to withdraw thirty minutes before it happened. There was an empty seat for him on the stage. Paul was gracious and kind, saying things like, "if he can make it," but behind the scenes he was angry and hurt.

I went to Barr's own press conference right afterwards still giving him the benefit of the doubt. I had hoped that he had a good reason for not being there that I was not aware of. Maybe he would say he had a personal issue. But instead, I sat there and listened to him prattle on about Ross Perot and getting votes and forcing policy issues and "principled leadership." Then he asked Ron Paul to be his VP.

I was fuming. I had reservations about Barr before publicly endorsing him, but I even offered my support in a letter that was delivered through the LP staff which was ignored by the campaign. I thought his transformation was genuine and that it was a powerful sign for the LP to elect a newcomer, as if to say "we will embrace anyone who comes around to our principles." Unfortunately, we picked Barr instead. He has since shown himself to not fully comprehend or endorse the philosophy, having praised the troop surge, argued for intervention in Iran and South America, and advocated a national sales tax. He has also run as far from the LP as possible, and there is still no link to the LP on his website. His lack of willingness to work with other people on key issues (issues any true libertarian would be passionate about) is very revealing.

I raised my hand and stood up to speak when Russ Verney acknowledged me. Maybe he realized who I was when I did not claim any press credentials, but he interrupted me and tried to get me to sit down. One of his staffers actually got up and stood next to me, looking like he was ready to carry me out. I guess he realized that was not a good idea. I ignored him and pressed on, despite Verney's continued interruptions. I don't remember exactly what I said, but what I was trying to say went something like this:

"What Ron Paul was doing today was taking leadership on some issues that I know you agree with and your lack of willingness to be a part of a team and work with others on these issues is telling. You have spoken a lot just now about leadership and unity, but it is clear you care about neither, except when you are the leader, and people are united behind you. Good leadership includes good followership and today, you showed your lack of both, and a complete lack of integrity. I am retracting my endorsement."

The freedom movement is bigger than any one party, and any one leader. The revolution of which I speak is a revolution of values, of political culture, and of the understanding of the responsibility of being a good citizen. When that happens, it will be reflected in our political system one way or another, be it through the Republicans, Democrats, Green Party, Constitution Party, or an independent candidate. As a moderate libertarian, I still believe that the Libertarian Party will be the mechanism by which our movement will come to fruition and I will remain an enthusiastic lifetime member. More than the party or any one candidate, I am committed to this movement, my country, and my principles.

***

I have signed a petition to have Bob Barr removed from the Libertarian Party ticket. Please click here and sign this petition to join me in this effort. Please forward this to everyone you know who cares about the future of this movement and the Libertarian Party.

***

Russ Verney is full of crap. Click here to read his response to the events of the last day in which he praises Bush's leadership, exploits 9/11, and claims that Ron Paul's press conference was "about promoting a man." Maybe their campaign strategy goes something like, "Screw liberty, screw the issues, screw the principles of the party of principle. If we can just get enough votes this year, we can get Bob back on the ticket in four!" He was right about Wayne Allen Root though: it was gracious of him to step off the ticket for Ron Paul, but of course if Barr gave a crap about the movement, he would have offered Ron Paul the top spot on the ticket.

Andrew Davis issued a statement on the LP's news server, speaking out against a thirty party alliance. The entire blog reads as follows:

Third-Parties and the Philosophy of Liberty
posted by Andrew Davis on Sep 11, 2008
Perhaps it is the acrimonious environment of a two-party system, or simply a "strength in numbers" struggle that makes strange bedfellows among third-party candidates in today's politics. Whatever the cause, third-party candidates often reach out to others for support and assistance in the mutual struggle against the tyranny of the duopoly. Be it in pooling resources, or simply an extra hand in meeting ballot access requirements: Third-parties are a band of political outcasts struggling for a right to compete for the votes of American people, the same as Republicans and Democrats.

This semblance of unity, of overcoming political differences in the pursuit of greater competition in elections, is certainly something to appreciate and encourage. Third-parties alike face the monstrosities of corrupt ballot access requirements in their attempt to place candidates on the ballot, and it is only natural for de facto alliances to spring up in this pursuit.

In many cases, these political competitors can even find common ground in their political positions, such was the case with the recent Libertarian, Green, Constitution, and independent party endorsements of a quartet of issues compiled by Republican Congressman Ron Paul. Such a consensus is rare in partisan politics, and the willingness of these candidates to come together represents a refreshing change of pace from the refusal of Republican and Democrats to address the issues that Americans face.

Though a positive step in politics, there is a hidden danger in attributing too much worth to this showing of solidarity among political parties that differ so greatly. An oppressive two-party system presents a clear need for reform and change, but a mutual agreement on issues between political parties is not necessarily indicative of an overall similarity or compromise between parties.

There are very real, and very diametric differences between the Libertarian Party and all of its other political competitors. Agree as they may on issues like civil liberties, war and economic reform, the philosophy of each political party is distinct and unbending. While the Libertarian Party certainly claims no absolute monarchy on all the avenues to freedom, we believe our platform and positions are most consistent with that of the true meaning of liberty in the United States.

This is the philosophy of liberty.

To dismiss this philosophy in the pursuit of consensus is a dangerous trend that third parties must avoid at all costs. To do so, for whatever reason, is to abandon the very core identity of the political party. Just as the soul is the essence of a person, the political philosophy of a political party is the foundation on which its platform is built. While the platforms of different political parties may overlap on some issues, the quintessential philosophy of each is wholly unique.

The maintenance of this philosophy is more important than any political coalition or victory. For without our philosophy, any victory will be hollow, and any coalition empty of meaning.

For every question, there is an answer, and individuals may arrive at this conclusion through many different means; some right and some wrong.

Libertarians may agree with Greens on the need for a foreign policy based on nonaggression, but it is for very different reasons. And Libertarians may agree with independents on the need for ending welfare reform, but again, for very different reasons.

The appeal of banding together with other third-parties may seem appealing on the surface, but such a compromise of the very basic values of the party would be no better than Republicans or Democrats and the compromises they make.

Only in the Libertarian Party is the principle of individual sovereignty, limited government and lower taxation the core philosophy of our beliefs. While we may share some issues with other political parties, we do not share our philosophy. It is ours, and ours alone.

Working with other parties on electoral reform and eliminating anti-democratic ballot access laws is advantageous for all involved; however, at the end of the day, we are still competitors vying for individual votes of Americans. A vote cast for any other political party than the Libertarian Party is a vote the Libertarian Party will not receive, no matter how well intentioned.

The power of a third-party does not lie in coalition building—at least for the true purpose of a political party. By the very nature of politics, political parties are competitors, regardless of ideological congruity or cooperation. Greens, Constitutionalists, Independents, Republicans and Democrats are all competing for the same votes as Libertarians. Coalitions may be beneficial for specific goals, such as electoral reform, or may make for good publicity; however, in the end, the restoration of the Constitution in the United States will come from a single third-party's rise in prominence that keeps the true philosophy of liberty at heart.

The liberty movement needs a single leader, not a nebulous consortium of strange bedfellows.

Trading the tyranny of a major party for the tyranny of a minor party is no desirable end. Only in a libertarian society will people be truly free, and only through the Libertarian Party with its libertarian principles will this society exist. No other political party has the platform or philosophy that would bring it about.

To assume that somehow a coalition of third parties will effect this change is to somehow assume all other third parties will abandon their own philosophies in accepting ours.

If we are not willing, then why do we assume they will?

Agreeing on a handful of issues is far from agreeing on the same basic philosophy of freedom in the United States, and it is only the philosophy of freedom that is truly important. It defines us, and will serve as a template for freedom as it has served in framing the Constitution.

There is only one party dedicated to the principles of the Enlightenment, and those principles that founded the American society: the Libertarian Party. Only through our candidates will true freedom be restored.

Until the philosophies of the other parties change, we must never accept any substitute for the freedom for which the Libertarian Party calls. Working with other political parties on electoral reform is a great idea, but there can be no substitute or compromise in our pursuit of political reform.

The Libertarian Party can never follow the beat of any drum other than its own.

As if the situation couldn't get any worse, LP co-founder David Nolan wrote an op-ed on the NolanChart.com website, observing that the Barr's presidential campaign is over as of yesterday. He urged LP activists not to waste any time to remit money to the campaign, but urged them to support North Carolina's Michael Unger and New Hampshire's Morey Straus.

As of yesterday afternoon, Bob Barr's Presidential campaign is effectively over. There were signs of serious trouble even before yesterday, but his "no-show" at Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty news conference -- followed by an insulting suggestion that Ron should join Barr on the LP ticket in the VP slot -- demonstrated just how out-of-touch the Barr campaign is, and how poor Barr's vote total is likely to be.

In earlier articles here on nolanchart.com I tried to give Barr every benefit of the doubt. I observed that in theory he should be one of the Libertarian Party's stronger Presidential candidates. I opined that while his pronouncements on the campaign trail were hardly hard-core libertarian, they were mostly to-the-point and well stated. I did not support him for the nomination, but I was more or less comfortable supporting him once he became the LP nominee.

Nolan, however, is planning to vote for Bob Barr and urges Libertarians to do the same.

By all means, vote for Bob Barr in November. I plan to, and I urge every Libertarian to do likewise. Whatever vote Barr receives will be seen by most people as "the Libertarian vote" and we want that to be as high as possible. And if you want to campaign for Barr locally, then do so. Print up flyers, put up homemade campaign signs, etc. But do not, under any circumstances, send any money to the Barr '08 campaign. Most of the money will be wasted, and the rest will be spent muddying the waters about what genuine libertarianism is all about.

Because of what Barr did the other day, this has signaled the death of the Bob Barr for President Campaign. The Barr train hasn't been pushed over the edge -- it's gone off the tracks and flipped over the ground. It's now in ruins. No amount of PR spin from the campaign, Barr, and the LP will repair all and any of this. The sensible course of action for Barr is to drop out of the race and apologize to Paul and his supporters while he's at it. The LP needs to forgo running a presidential slate this year and live with the political consequences once and for all. This is the price Barr and the party must pay, as they brought this mess onto themselves. Now it's their responsibility to clean it up themselves.

I agree with everything that Nolan said, except for his urging the LP faithful to vote for Barr. Why do you want to vote for a man who is NOT a Libertarian by any means? What do you hope to gain from this? This will certainly do nothing to help the Party and voter outreach. All of that has been destroyed by the Barr campaign. Any glimmer of hope that was once there is now gone. It's not coming back. Barr is an unprincipled, anti-freedom opportunist who does not care about the message of liberty. He has never seen and does not and will not see the light. That is a fantasy. Let go of it. You are only deluding yourselves if you keep believing it.

If the LP and its supporters had spines, they would drop Barr like a hot potato and forget about the LP presidential race, because there's no reeling back from this mess. Not for the longest time.

The Death of the Bob Barr Campaign Part I

The subsequent fall-out from Bob Barr's "no-show" at Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty press conference yesterday morning continues to mount unabated. Reports from many blog sites, including the Independent Political Report, the Last Free Voice, and LewRockwell.com, are indicating that the Bob Barr for President Campaign is effectively over.

Shortly after Barr snubbed Paul by not bothering to show up at the press conference at the National Press Club in D.C., he tried to put a implausible and lame spin on the uproar via a press release, claiming that he showed "leadership to unify the liberty movement." In the same release, he illegally offered Paul to be his running mate. He notes:

Barr cited Paul's 1987 letter to then-GOP Chairman Frank Fahrenkopf, in which Paul stated that, "after years of trying to work through the Republican Party both in and out of government…[Paul] concluded that [his] efforts must be carried on outside the Republican Party."

Though recognizing Paul's personal investment in the Republican Party and his recent attempts to reform the party from inside, Barr said he disagreed with Paul's strategy. "Better options remain that will carry a message of liberty onto the ballot in November and beyond," Barr stated, adding at a news conference called today at the National Press Club, that "change in politics and public policy in America cannot and will not be done from within the current, two-party system."

Barr continued, "The status quo will not change the status quo' and impact comes entirely from gaining votes in the General Election." That is why Barr said he would remain focused on the Libertarian Party's electoral effort and clear message, and why he invited Paul to join him.

"While you declined my offer to seek the Libertarian presidential nomination many months ago, I ask that you seriously consider this final offer as an opportunity to show true, lasting leadership beyond party politics," Barr stated in his letter to Paul.

Wayne Allyn Root even agreed to step down as Barr's running mate and let Paul have if he accepted the offer. The vice presidential candidate noted in the next following two paragraphs:

Barr's running mate, Wayne Allyn Root, expressed support: "As the Libertarian Party vice presidential nominee, I believe in one thing above all else—principle. There can be no compromise on the ideals of limited government, lower taxes, lower spending, and more freedom for the American people. Those are the principles to which I've dedicated my life. The GOP and Democratic candidates only give lip service—at best—to these ideals and principles. It is only an act at election time every four years."

"I want to end the charade once and for all," Root continued. "I am willing to sacrifice anything to advance the cause of liberty, freedom, smaller government and to enable the American taxpayer to keep more of their own money and property. Understanding Dr. Ron Paul's reputation and name recognition in the freedom movement, I am willing to step aside as Libertarian vice presidential candidate if he would be willing to take my place. I will pledge to work day and night, just as I have as the vice presidential nominee, to support Dr. Paul. I believe this is a wonderful opportunity for the Libertarian and freedom movements. I encourage Dr. Paul to accept Congressman Barr's offer. The campaign is making this offer because we believe there is no sacrifice too large when it comes to improving the lives of the American people and American taxpayers."

When Paul rejected his offer, Barr then decided to opt out of the event and hold one of his own. Even one Paul backer reported that he had never seen Paul "so angry" over Barr's pull-out from the conference. He remarked:

I spoke to Don Rasmussen personally just a moment ago and he confirms everything that’s been reported so far. He has never seen Dr. Paul so angry and is saddened by the possible repercussions of Barr’s actions on the freedom movement. Shane Cory did indeed tell Don to go f*ck himself when he asked Shane why he did this, though he admits that Shane also recited a list of perceived grievences, ie; lack of invitations to events, etc., that led to the decision to eschew Ron’s press conference and stage his own. Don also clarified that Barr did agree to attend the press conference and that Russ Verney’s claims otherwise are lies.

To make matters worse, Barr held a solo press conference the same time that he was supposed to be at Ron Paul's, where Adam Kokesh, an Iraq War veteran and now-former Barr backer, took angry potshots at Barr for his behavior towards Paul. Barr was even further trashed and denounced by Paul backers who attended his event. When Kokesh identified himself as an "independent blogger," Barr's campaign manager Russ Verney tried to silence him.

But the fall-out gets worse for Barr. Robert Kraus, the LP's Acting Executive Director, wrote a blog entry on the LP's blog, in which he stated that party loyalists should "consider the facts and not rely on blogs for your source of news." Furthermore, he states that he is responding what he claims are the concerns of the LP membership "over Bob Barr not attending Ron Paul's press conference." Not only that, Kraus criticizes Paul and his supporters for the "treatment that LP personnel received today by Ron Paul's staff and the games they have attempted to play over the past year" and even yesterday. Here's the blog post in its entirety:

To our supporters and volunteers
posted by Andrew Davis on Sep 10, 2008
I have been hearing a lot from many LP Members about concerns over Bob Barr not attending Ron Paul's press conference.

However, before you form an opinion, perhaps you may want to consider the facts and not rely on blogs for your news.

First, the Barr campaign met with Ron Paul's staffers yesterday afternoon to deliver the offer of the LP's VP slot to Ron Paul and to discuss the details of the event that Bob Barr was invited to attend. More details were to be submitted to the Barr campaign but did not arrive until nearly 3 a.m. the morning of the event. At 9 a.m. Barr's campaign manager, Russell Verney, informed the Paul campaign that Bob would not be attending however he would still give his backing of the four principles highlighted by Dr. Paul.

Second, read the press release by the Barr Campaign you will see why Bob's own press conference (attended by many members of the press) was so significant:
http://campaign.blog.bobbarr2008.com/2008/09/10/bob-barr-shows-leadership-to-unify-liberty-movement/

Third, as CNN and others reported, Ron Paul's press conference was more about him not endorsing McCain and less about Dr. Paul's non-sanctioning of other candidates running for president.

The Barr campaign chose not to attend in order to make a very valid point, which was expressed, in their following press conference. Bold leadership is needed right now! Scattering support for the liberty agenda to the four winds as Dr. Paul is proposing will not serve liberty.

Ron Paul deserves respect and credit for what he has done over the last year in rejuvenating so many people across this nation, however either him or possibly his staff have made the bland decision to remain ambiguous with their intent and direction for liberty.

Personally, I will say that I do not appreciate the treatment that LP personnel received today by Ron Paul's staff and the games they have attempted to play over the past year. This morning, our volunteer coordinator was rudely ejected from the press conference before it even started. This was followed by Ron Paul staffers and supporters close to the staff disrupting Barr's press conference.

This pattern is something that we never wanted to disclose but holds true to previous treatment where staff members for Paul's campaign tried on more than one occasion to have Bob Barr uninvited from events, including Bob's gracious introduction of Ron Paul at last year's CPAC conference.

I do doubt that Dr. Paul was aware of these antics.

I hope this answers some of your concerns and questions. Our staff, volunteers and the Barr/Root campaign are totally psyched up and ready to work very hard for all Libertarians through November and beyond – including ballot access, in as many states as possible, which will benefit all Libertarian Candidates!

We hope you too will continue to support those candidates that support your views, even if just on a local or state level. Please fill out the volunteer form here if you are: http://www.lp.org/action/volunteer.shtml and please do not forget to donate so we can continue to “send a message” between now and November: https://www.lp.org/contribute.

In Liberty!

Robert Kraus
Acting Executive Director

By responding the way the LP and the Bob Barr Campaign did, both have ensured the Barr Campaign's eventual self-destruction simply by placing all the blame on Ron Paul and none of the blame on themselves. If anything, Bob Barr's pathetic and stupid move has cost him whatever support he's had left in the Party and in the movement.

More to come in Part II. To be continued.

Bob Barr's Insult to Ron Paul Is Not A Surprise

Bob Barr's "no-show" at Ron Paul's major press announcement today this morning has been terribly conspicuous to many Ron Paul supporters who were there at the press conference. This latest snafu has sent shockwaves to the online news sites and the entire libertarian blogosphere all over the World Wide Web. Everyone who had been waiting for Barr to show up along with Paul, Green Party presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney, Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader, and Constitution Party presidential candidate Chuck Baldwin.

Former Libertarian Party Vice Chair Chuck Moulton, a staunch Barr supporter, commented on his candidate's absence on the Independent Political Report. He noted:

Bob Barr continues to find ways to slap the Ron Paul movement in the face and embarrass the LP. Clearly he is in D.C. and at the national press club, since he has his own event there in 15 minutes. It is inconceivable to me that he would be a no show.

Interestingly enough this isn't the first time Barr has pulled a stunt like this. This past July, he was supposed to attend a Ron Paul R3VOLution March, but instead stood up Paul and his supporters by opting to attend Las Vegas' Freedom Festival, where he reportedly was "always accompanied by handlers" to keep away libertarians who would persistently question him on his statist, Big Government stands.

According to blogger CLS (who was also at the event) at his Classically Liberal blog, Marc Victor, a classical liberal attorney and occasional talk radio show host who was publicly at odds with Barr's anti-freedom positions, also attended the festival, in which he used an opportunity to try and question Barr on his anti-libertarian views. Upon describing the entire situation, CLS, in great detail, wrote:

Marc says that when he brought up Barr’s anti-libertarian position on drugs that Barr glared at him and then gave one of his handlers a signal. Barr is always accompanied by handlers whose job is to keep libertarians away from their presidential candidate so they can’t ask him questions about his Big Government positions. A rather large woman, working for Barr then pushed her way between them in order to push Victor off to the sidelines. Barr then turned tail and ran in the opposite direction.

Even libertarian land developer Treg Loyden received the same treatment from Barr's goons when he attempted the same thing. According to CLS:

Another libertarian I know, land developer Treg Loyden was later witnessed by me having a conversation with Wayne Root, the LP’s unlibertarian vice presidential candidate. I called Treg up this evening to ask what that was about. He told me and also pointed me to something he wrote about the experience.

Treg first attempted to speak to Bob Barr, a man Treg now sees as Little Napoleon. Treg too had tried to ask Barr about his anti-libertarian position on the war on drugs. And like Marc Victor, Treg got the same treatment. First, he told Barr that his position on drugs was not acceptable and then waited for Barr to respond. Barr looked at him silently and simply refused to say anything. Barr instead turned away from Treg and started talking to a conservative.

But that doesn't end there. Even Don Rassmussen, who is involved with the Campaign for Liberty organization (CFL), was "deeply disappointed" with Barr standing up Ron Paul. He wrote the following at a Ron Paul forum:

The following reflect my personal feelings and is not endorsed by Dr. Paul or Campaign for Liberty.

I am deeply disappointed by Bob Barr's decision not to participate in today's press conference just as I have been disappointed with the Barr campaign throughout this election cycle.

The idea that he was busy is absurd. I am sitting in the National Press Club right now waiting for his hastily called press conference to begin. This is the same building where Dr. Paul's presser just ended. Barr committed to participate, but had his campaign manager call us minutes before it started to tell us that Bob thinks "it just isn't worth it." I look forward to hearing him explain how breaking a promise to Congressman Paul constitutes a wise campaign strategy.

It is my great hope that the alternative parties will present the American people with quality candidates that offer a real option. Clearly the Libertarian Party has failed to do so. Bob Barr has repeatedly broken his promises to Dr. Paul, showed up uninvited at C4L events, and made statement contrary to Dr. Paul's beliefs while still claiming the mantle of heir to the R3VOLution.

Hopefully, the LP will find a way to reject this candidate without rejecting the idea of engagement in practical politics.

Bob Barr National Field Director Mike Ferguson went on the attack against Ron Paul and his supporters on his Myspace blog by ludicrously claiming that Paul displayed "a complete lack of leadership" and "has, again, blown a tremendous opportunity to lead and advance the agenda of the Constitution, and individual liberty." It's also interesting to note that, in the hours after his Myspace blog was leaked out and published on IPR and other related blogs, Ferguson quietly and swiftly removed his offensive Myspace blog post.

The original blog post hosted on Ferguson's Myspace account stated the following:

From Bob Barr 2008 National Field Director Mike Ferguson:

Earlier today, Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) held a press conference in Washington, D.C. where he said…well, nothing…

He invited Libertarian Party Presidential nominee Bob Barr and independent Presidential candidate Ralph Nader along with the nominees of two small, minor political parties to stand behind him as he encouraged Americans to vote for anyone other than Sens. Barak Obama and John McCain.

Ron Paul wasted the press corps’ time with this press conference. It accomplished nothing and displayed a complete lack of leadership on Paul’s part.

Of the four invitees, only Bob Barr had the sense to skip the event. He held his own press conference, also in Washington, D.C., later in the day.

Among the things in Ron Paul’s statement was a reference to the “principled non-voter”, claiming they are sending a message and should start a “League of Non Voters” to impact the nation and government.

So, in other words, Paul stated that people should not vote for Obama or McCain and should vote for a third party nominee…unless they really don’t want to.

Allow me to set the good Doctor straight: “principled non voters” count the same, and have the same impact on America, as lazy, apathetic citizens who simply do not care enough to get involved and vote. There is no difference between the wannabe political philosopher who refuses to cast a vote “out of principle” and the lazy citizen who chooses to remain ignorant of the issues, the candidates and his or her government.

Keep in mind that some of Paul’s followers have placed his name on the Presidential ballot in two states (Louisiana and Montana). Paul could have kept his name off the ballot in those states by simply requesting that he not be listed as a candidate in the general election, but in an effort in ego, he chose to allow his name to go on the ballot in direct competition with the other candidates he claims to encourage people to consider voting for.

Ron Paul has, again, blown a tremendous opportunity to lead and advance the agenda of the Constitution, and individual liberty. Since he launched his Presidential Exploratory Committee almost two years ago, Ron Paul has repeatedly said this campaign is not about the man (him) but about the message (liberty and the Constitution).

Really, Dr. Paul? Your actions belie your words.

If he were truly serious about this being “about the message” and not the man, he would be making sure that the message is resonating far and wide through and during the Presidential campaign.

The Libertarian Party begged him to accept its nomination and continue his campaign through Election Day. He declined.

The Libertarian Party then nominated the only credible pro-freedom candidate in the Presidential race, former Congressman Bob Barr, but Paul refused to support him, saying he is working for freedom within the Republican Party.

Backing Barr would have taken courage on Paul’s part. Instead, today he took a cop-out course of action by encouraging a nondescript “vote third party” message that would water down the impact of the freedom vote. If Americans are serious about sending a message that demands the restoration of our civil liberties, an end to the war in Iraq, a foreign policy that makes sense and solid, realistic economic policies then there is only one option to vote for on November 4th – Bob Barr.

Ron Paul knows that. Instead, he encouraged watering down the vote while maximizing his marketing base for the Campaign for Liberty, his book sales, etc.

After Rep. Paul collected millions in donations from Libertarians, independents and Republicans during his campaign, he has since:

1) Sold his followers a book

2) Had people travel to (or donate to) a march on Washington D.C. that ultimately proved to be too small to even get noticed, much less have any sort of impact

3) Launched the “Campaign for Liberty” and hit up his followers, again, for donations to this organization that has made no noticeable effort to support liberty-minded candidates

4) Sold thousands of tickets to the “Rally for the Republic” in Minnesota, where he then sold t-shirts, more books, vendor booth space, advertising in the programs and a host of other things.

Ron Paul is now in the Ron Paul business – and business is lucrative.

As painful as it is to state the obvious: this campaign by the man is no longer about the message, it is about the money – lots of it. Other than in his pocket and in the pocket of his paid staff, where is all the money going?

No one seems to know for sure.

In a time of economic recession, Paul has found a way to keep going back to the financial well of his followers, creating yet another challenge for candidates who are still running for office at all levels and are unable to raise the funds needed to effectively spread the message of liberty and the Constitution.

I was among the first to donate to Dr. Paul’s Exploratory committee and I also donated to his Presidential campaign. Once he dropped out of the race, though, I did the responsible thing and got behind the only remaining credible candidate, Bob Barr, who is capable of injecting the message Ron Paul claims to want to spread through Election Day and beyond.

America still needs to hear that message and only Bob Barr is capable of taking the message further down the field. Unfortunately, it is obvious that Ron Paul is more interested in making money off the message than helping spread it through someone else. Maybe he is worried that Bob Barr will publish a book and compete for customers.

Thousands of Americans rushed to join Ron Paul’s campaign, myself included. For us, it has always been about the message. We were thrilled to have someone serve as spokesman for the cause of liberty and back a candidate who could leverage his position as a major-party candidate to spread our message to millions through the campaign.

That is why we donated millions of dollars collectively.

Since ending his Presidential campaign, though, Ron Paul has gone from being the hope for America to being a major obstacle to the message of freedom and the Constitution.

By contrast, Bob Barr showed that he is not just talking about and rallying for the message of freedom, he is doing something about the need to put liberty and Constitutional issues front and center in the Presidential campaign.

The Barr campaign continues to pick up steam in the national media and in the polls. People are listening and we cannot miss this opportunity to maximize our reach. The message is still getting out – because of Bob Barr.

Dr. Paul, where is the leadership from you? We certainly did not see any today in Washington, D.C.

Do Paul’s loyal followers, I ask one simple question: Are you serious about continuing to spread the message of Liberty for America?

If so, prove it. Go to www.bobbarr2008.com and sign up for our email updates. Then, look for a MeetUp group in your area – if there isn’t one already, start one. Also, make a donation to the campaign. In any event, get involved in the Barr campaign because this campaign is actually about the message.

Now, since the post was removed, a new post was put in its place, and it now reads the following:

September 10, 2008 - Wednesday

Where did THAT blog go???
Category: News and Politics


Wow...what a day. A blog that typically gets about 25 views per day received over 4,000 in a matter of hours.

The Bob Barr campaign has asked that I remove my blog posting from earlier today, so I have.

That post was written by me and reflected MY views - it was not intended to represent the Barr campaign.

So, feel free to continue to send the email replies, in support or in opposition.

Are we really that surprised that this happened? And, for some interesting reason, didn't we kinda, sorta expect this to happen in the first place?

I'm just as disgusted as any other libertarian and liberty-minded individual about this affair. But, really, I knew something like this would happen, given Barr's hostile attitude towards Paul and the Campaign for Liberty coalition. After all, Barr did recently slam Ron and alienate so many Paul supporters by taking half-statist positions on the Drug War, the War in Iraq, gay marriage, etc. After all, Barr is the one who keeps changing his positions as often as he changes his line of suits and ties.

But this is all a moot point, to be honest. What's done is done. The damage inflicted by Barr and his cronies to the Libertarian Party and the subsequent throwing Ron under a bus are strong indicators that the Barr campaign has never been interested in expressing the message, even especially "opening up the debates" as Barr contended early on in his campaign.

We are, after all, talking about the same Bob Barr who, of all people, claimed:

1. That he regretted portions of the Patriot Act after he supported them, but since has shown no interest in repealing that law, despite his claims to the contrary;


2. That he would repeal the DOMA law (he did say this early on), but then subsequently say that he would only repeal a portion of it;


3. That he didn't support the federal War on Drugs but only supported drug prohibition at the state levels (more of that states' rights claptrap, because the Constitution didn't go so far enough to protect liberty and individuals have rights), but then I think he was merely saying this to buy votes and supports the entire federal program completely;


4. That he was against the bail out of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae because they are "bail outs from hell," yet Barr was the one who initially embraced the bail-outs in his campaign (a point that was conveniently swept under the rug and thus forgotten by the Barr campaign and his sycophants);


5. That Jessie Helms, the former Democrat-turned-GOP senator who croaked on the 4th of July weekend, was, for the most, a great guy and it was too bad that he passed away;
and

6. That Ron Paul would make a great VP candidate on his ticket, which took place hours after he took the political equivalent of a crap on Paul and his supporters.

Oh, and let's not forget: one of Bob Barr's staffers even fired a volley of potshots at Ron the day this entire circus with Bob Barr's political "screw-you" to Ron Paul got off the ground. If that's not a greater insult, I don't know what is.

This is, undoubtedly, the fault of the delegates who, at the Libertarian National Convention in Denver this year, gave their political crown to Barr, all on the hopes that a "credible candidate" was needed to save the Party from the likes of Dr. Mary Ruwart whom they branded a kiddie porn lover. Their mindset was: "We can't have a pedophilia-loving candidate for President to have this ticket, so we'll give it to a candidate who's credible, who's been a congressman, and -- screw it -- who's not even a libertarian. Sorry, Mary -- you lose." Oh, and let's not forget the backroom deal that Barr made with Wayne Allyn Root: "If you support me, I'll make you get a lot of support as a presidential candidate in 2012 and I won't run against you." That was a deal closer right there for Root, and he went with it.

The Party nominated a man to be on its ticket by saying "We know he's not a true-blue libertarian, but who cares? We want more votes than ever, more media exposure than ever, and be taken more seriously than we would be if we had a Ruwart or a Kubby on the ticket." By doing that, they rejected the very core philosophy of an ideological party that has deteriorated into a political mess of epidemic proportions. Besides, the delegates, the campaign and LP supporters, and the membership have made their beds; now they have to lie in them.

Moreover, imagine the PR mess that Barr's campaign has created for the Party and its supporter and member bases. The LP's PR spin machine is in full operation as I write this, but that's not a surprise. This is a political train wreck waiting to happen, and that train has gone off the tracks and flipped over the ground. It's in shambles. There's nothing that the campaign and the Party can do to repair this, but even if they do, it'll be too late for them: the voters will reject them because they know intellectual dishonesty better than the Party and its cronies.

The Party can impose a damage-control operation all it wants, but its days are numbered. That is for definite certain.

Ron Paul to Voters: "Reject Two Party System"

Ron Paul, who is supposed to be giving a major announcement to the media today at 10 a.m., is urging voters to throw their votes to any one of the third party candidates, not Obama and McCain.

My prediction was right on: this is exciting news to date. Take that, Obama and McCain, for both of your socialist and fascist agendas!!

Ron Paul to Make Major Announcement

Ron Paul, according to online news reports, is scheduled to give a press conference to make a huge announcement. According to Market Watch, this media event is supposed to occur at the Ball Room at the National Press Club at 10 in the morning tomorrow.

While I'm not entirely certain of what this big announcement is all about, I predict that Ron will officially call for voters to throw their votes to any one of the third party candidates in a calculated yet sincere effort to get back at the Republicans who rejected him at their boring downsized convention in St. Paul, Minnesota. Thankfully, he had his Campaign for Liberty convention in Minneapolis, so all was not lost.

Not Business As Usual

Former Republican Senator Fred Thompson of Tennessee waxed ecstatic about Sarah Palin at tonight's first night of the Republican National Convention in Minneapolis, Minnesota. In his speech on the convention floor, Thompson praised Palin because she hails from a "small town" and supports "small town values."

In his long-winded speech, he blurted:

[Palin] is from a small town, with small town values, but that's not good enough for those folks who are attacking her and her family.

Then he said the following:

Some Washington pundits and media big shots are in a frenzy over the selection of a woman who has actually governed rather than just talked a good game on the Sunday talk shows and hit the Washington cocktail circuit. Well, give me a tough Alaskan governor who has taken on the political establishment in the largest state in the union -- and won -- over the beltway business-as-usual crowd any day of the week.

Really? Isn't she the same governor who:

• Opposes abortions, even if a raped mother seeks to abort her unborn child simply


• Opposes the legalization of marijuana, even for medicinal purposes (she tried it once but hated it)


• Supports creationism in the public schools and claims that she won't use a religious litmus test on political candidates running for the school board


• Refuses to marketize the ferry system after she correctly and courageously wouldn't provide state funds to complete the outrageous not-so-completed Bridge to Nowhere in her home state of Alaska


• Went after the oil companies by slapping a windfall profits tax on them (not a conservative position by any stretch of the imagination)

And

• Wanted to dole out $100-a-month tax-supported energy debit cards for customers who were overcharged by the energy companies

Watch the following video about Thompson's comments, and you'll see what I mean:

The Pregnancy of Sarah Palin's Daughter Bristol

Apparently Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin's daughter Bristol is with child...out of wedlock.

This may not bode well for many conservatives who still have their doubts about McCain, even though they have praised the Alaskan governor for her populist half-fiscal conservative, mostly social conservative policies.

Here's more on the story:

Sarah Palin today came face-to-face with the hard reality of the media examination she will undergo as John McCain's running mate when she was forced to confirm that her unmarried school-age daughter was pregnant.

The revelation immediately renewed questions about the extent to which Palin, Alaska's governor, and relatively unknown before McCain announced her as his vice-presidential choice on Friday, had been vetted.

Other disclosures today included that her husband, Todd, was arrested for alleged drunk driving 20 years ago and, more recently, she hired a lawyer to represent her in a state ethics probe.

The investigation is over when she dismissed the public safety commissioner, Walt Monegan, after he refused to fire her brother-in-law, a state trooper, who divorced Palin's sister.

Palin, the vice-presidential candidate and new star of the Republican party, was in St Paul, Minnesota, today to rally Republican convention delegates after being dispatched by McCain last night. The Republicans are trying to salvage their convention, which has been disrupted by media attention switching to Hurricane Gustav. All convention activities were cancelled for Monday except for essential business.

Palin, soon after her arrival, was caught up in questions about her private life. In response, the McCain campaign team issued a statement on her behalf stating that her 17-year-old unmarried daughter, Bristol, is five months pregnant. Palin, who campaigns on a Christian, anti-abortion ticket, said Bristol and her partner planned to marry: 'We're proud of Bristol's decision to have her baby and even prouder to become grandparents.'

The fact that her daughter is to marry and have the baby blunted negative reaction among the party's social conservatives worried about sex before marriage. The news could even help consolidate the image of Palin and her family as typical of the average American home.

The emergence of details about Palin's life, partly after reporters landed at her home town, Wasilla, in Alaska, raised concerns about whether the usual vetting had been dispensed with due to McCain's impulsive choice.

McCain's team insisted today he had known about the pregnancy, the drunk driving charge and the ethics probe before offering Palin the job.

The man who carried out the vetting, Arthur Culvahouse, told Associated Press that all the potential problems uncovered in interviews with Palin had now been made public. 'I think so. Yes. I think so. Correct,' he said, insisting there had been a 'full and comprehensive' vetting.

But it emerged that McCain sent a fresh team to Alaska after he made the announcement on Friday, a move that raised questions about how thorough the initial vetting had been.

On the pregnancy, a McCain spokesman, Steve Schmidt, said the senator's view was that this was 'a private family matter'. He added: 'Life happens,'
Mark Salter, a McCain adviser, said the pregnancy had been announced to rebut rumours from internet bloggers that Palin's son, Trig, born in April with Down's syndrome, was a child of Bristol's. 'An American family,' Salter said.

The appointment of Palin is intended to mark a change in strategy by McCain. Having concluded it was not enough to challenge Barack Obama over his lack of foreign experience and to push his own narrative as a Vietnam war hero, he has been hoping to appeal to the working class and lower middle class, and believes Palin has the right credentials for attracting blue-collar workers.

With the absence from the convention of McCain and the US president, George Bush - who had been scheduled to make a prime-time speech last night at the convention but went instead to Texas to be on hand for the Hurricane Gustav emergency centre - Palin, Laura Bush and McCain's wife, Cindy, led the push to raise delegates' spirits.

The president's wife, who appealed from the podium for help for hurricane victims rather than make a politically-tinged speech, acknowledged delegates' frustration over the cancelled first day of the four-day convention. 'I know they're disappointed they're not going to get to have the programme tonight, but everyone understands it, everyone is thinking about everybody all across the Gulf coast,' she told CBS television.

All but two hours of the conference were cancelled today. A cocktail party planned for tonight, named Spirits of Minneapolis, was renamed Spirits of the Gulf Coast, with a fundraiser present to help bring in cash for the the American Red Cross hurricane effort.

The Republicans are hoping to resume normal business today . As long as they can manage to have three full days of prime-time viewing, finishing as planned on Thursday night, they believe they can secure enough media attention to judge the convention a success.

While Hurricane Gustav reminded the public of the failure of Bush to deal with the devastation of New Orleans by Hurricane Katrina in 2005, McCain's campaign team sought to turn the storm to their advantage. The cancellation of the first day of the convention sent out a message that McCain cared, contrasting with Bush's seeming indifference straight after Hurricane Katrina.

McCain said on ABC News that he was frustrated at the loss of part of the convention but added: 'This is just one of those moments in history where you have to put America first.'

The hurricane diverted media attention from the Republican convention, with almost all of the anchor journalists from the main networks having flown out to New Orleans.McCain is hoping he can get back media attention for Palin's speech tomorrow and his own on Thursday. Rick Davis, a McCain adviser, said decisions would be taken on a day-to-day basis.

McCain's Pick for Woman VP Not As Libertarian As Her Sycophants and She Make Her Out to Be

This latest hubbub over McCain's pick of Republican Alaska Governor Sarah Palin for Vice President has certainly made the entire 2008 race somewhat more interesting, in light of the fact that it's more of a response to Obama's pick of Biden as his running mate.

Palin has been deemed by many conservative and libertarian Republicans to possess an identical maverick streak that many see coming from McCain. As a pro-lifer, she claims to be in favor of "free market capitalism," hunts, and fishes. But, despite the fact that "libertarians" like Eric Dondero Rittberg branding Palin a "libertarian Republican," the woman governor of Alaska isn't as libertarian as her sycophants and she make her out to be.

For example, Palin, just prior to her election to the governorship in late 2006, campaigned on education, public safety, and public transportation, making them cornerstones of her administration. Interestingly enough, on her gubernatorial website, in the issues section of her website under the issue "Gasline," you will find the following disclaimer:

I am a conservative Republican, a firm believer in free market capitalism. A free market system allows all parties to compete, which ensures the best and most competitive project emerges, and ensures a fair, democratic process.

Let's re-read the first half of the first sentence again:

I am a conservative Republican...

She's not a libertarian folks. She's a "conservative Republican." She's a pro-war, pro-tyranny, and anti-freedom vice presidential pick. There's nothing consistently libertarian about her.

How is this, you ask? Let's take a good look at her short gubernatorial record:

1. While she pushed for an ethics bill (strongly libertarian, but futile as well) and jettisoning some pork bills that called for further wasteful spending of tax dollars at the state level but were supported by her fellow Republican colleagues, she did refuse to use state tax dollars to provide funding for the Alaskan Bridge to Nowhere (that would have connected one of the state's islands to another for the purpose of providing access to one of its airports). While the $398 million bridge was abandoned and Palin did the right thing by not authorizing state tax monies to finance it, she did not even consider the option of marketizing (a true alternative to "privatizing") the ferry system to the private sector so that the market could provide better access to the airport without the government contracting it to private enterprise or even subsidizing it or both. How is that libertarian?


2. While she rightfully opposed her fellow Republican United States Secretary of the Interior Dick Kempthorne's decision to place the state's polar bears on the Endangered Species list, she used taxpayer monies in the form of a lawsuit to stop the naming. How is that libertarian?


3. While Palin publicly supported drilling in the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), she did support and help pass a windfall profit tax on oil company profits and formed a sub-cabinet full of government advisors to "address" global warming (now called "climate change") and "reduce" CO2 emissions in the state. How is that libertarian?


4. She pushed for a state tax-funded $100-a-month energy debit cards for Alaskans in reponse to high gas and energy prices and proposed state tax-funded grants to electrical utilities in order for them to pare down their customers' monthly rates. How is that libertarian?


5. She supports imposing creationism alongside with evolution in the public "government" schools, even though she said that she wouldn't use religion as a "litmus test" to select any public candidate for appointment to any government school board. She never mentions getting the government out of the schools. So how is this libertarian?


6. She opposes legalizing marijuana, even for medicinal use, despite the fact that she tried it once and never liked it. How is that libertarian?


7. Finally, she opposes gay marriage, which means she supports keeping the government in the marriage business (when it should be out of it once and for all). How is her position on that libertarian?

While there are plenty of other anti-libertarian views that she holds, she may be slightly better than, say, Senator Joe Biden, because she holds some libertarian views, but that's not saying much in the grand scheme of things. Overall, she's not libertarian, and any "libertarian Republican" who thinks that she is a libertarian and is qualified for public office needs to have his/her head looked at.