Bob Barr is at it again.

For a brief period of time Bob Barr pretended to be a libertarian so that the desperate Libertarian Party would nominate him and fellow con man, Wayne Root, as their national candidates. That was the absolute low point for the LP ideologically and one that can only be made worse if they nominate Root again.

One of Barr's campaigns, when in Congress, was to bash Wiccan. Of course, he was most famous for being the author of the viciously antigay Defense of Marriage Act. Barr had argued that the US military shouldn't allow individuals to practice Wiccan beliefs. He says he later rethought the matter and decided that being Wiccan doesn't necessarily mean one is bad for the military. But he says he was always worried "just how far such tolerance should extend." Yep, Bob, wouldn't want too much tolerance around, would we?

I wish Barr would get a life. I won't say get a wife, he's had three, hence his desire to protect marriage so badly.

Now Barr is whining that the US Air Force Academy "has taken the notion of religious tolerance to a new level." What is Barr saying by calling religious tolerance a "notion?" A notion is fanciful idea, or a whim. It's just an opinion and not a very serious one. Barr dismisses tolerance of the religion of others to be just a "notion."

The Air Force Academy, allowed some of the Pagans who attend there, to set up an outdoor worship site. Paganism, is a earth religion. Sure, it's silly, but no more silly than the other beliefs that are widespread. Pagans at the academy used to hold worship indoors and prefer the outdoors so the Academy accommodated them. Barr is outraged.

Barr wrote a column attacking this notion of tolerance. He launched an attack on the Academy by defining Pagan in his own way. He says a Pagan is someone who has "little or no religion and delights in sensual pleasures and material goods." This is just not an accurate portrayal of the Pagans at the Academy. Actually I think this version of "pagan" makes a lot more sense myself.

Barr then bitches about "being commanded by an officer who practices hedonism as a religion." But again, this isn't Paganism. Barr's entire attack is based on a false interpretation of the religion that these folk are practicing. Barr says, of their religion,"this truly is hilarious." Sure it is. Religion itself is hilarious.

A con man claims to have peep stones, gets visited by an angel and says he given golden plates, that is hilarious. It is also Mormonism.

People claim to worship a god-man, who was born of a virgin, died but rose from the dead. This is hilarious. But it is Christianity.

Some claim, that the god-man gave them wafers and wine but these things magically turn into the actual, physical body and blood of the god-man, which his followers are supposed to eat. Hilarious, and a tad bit gross, but this is Catholicism.

All of it is a bit silly, if you ask me. But, if the magic wafer eaters can have services at the Air Force Academy I don't see why people worshipping around a circle of stones should be denied the right to practice their beliefs.

Tolerance doesn't mean you have to like it. But Barr seems to be implying that these Pagans shouldn't even be allowed in the the military. Or perhaps he just wants a Don't Ask, Don't Chant policy for them. Barr says that if he were in the military he'd "be more than a little worried about following" a Pagan into battle. Personally, if I were going into battle I'd have a slightly different priority about what things would worry me, and the religious fantasies of others, wouldn't be very high on the list. The Paganism of the commander seems no worse to me than if the commander were a Baptist, a Catholic, or a Mormon.

All of them practice things that seem absolutely hilarious to me—come on, baptism for the dead! I find the non-religious, hedonist who likes the material world and pleasure, a lot more palatable than that.

Thomas Jefferson, someone Bob Barr should study, put it well: "It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

When it comes to practitioners of earth-based religions, it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. If anything I prefer these Pagans to Catholics, Baptists and certainly, to Mormons. After all, these Pagans aren't engaged in any concerted campaign to impose their religious beliefs on the rest of us. I can't say the same thing about the three sects that I just mentioned.

Photo: Barr with his most recent wife, I think, but I haven't checked lately.

Why did the weasel cross the road?

The (formerly) Libertarian Party nominated conservative Bob Barr and the promise was that Barr would do substantially better than previous LP candidates. That Barr didn’t have the ability to do better was indicated by the necessity of a series of dirty or corrupt tactics used by his campaign and his top supporters.

With so many people unhappy with the status quo it should have been a good year for the LP. Normally LP votes go up when the presidential race isn't’ close. When it is close people fear voting for a third party. So with voter dissatisfaction so high, with the race clearly favoring one candidate over the others, the LP had a golden opportunity to increase their totals.

Barr didn’t do particularly well. He has not even received 500,000 votes nation wide. LP candidate Ed Clark, who was actually a libertarian, received 921,128 votes. In 1996 LP candidate Harry Browne received 487,798 votes which is 1,761 more than Bob Barr got with his conservative campaign. While Barr’s vote total may inch up slightly as more results come in there is nothing in his campaign to applaud. He was a dismal failure.

The LP sold out principles in order to put this Republican carpetbagger on its ticket. The trade-off was supposedly going to be principles for votes. Nominate Barr, and his buffoonish vice presidential candidate, and the LP would be taken to new heights. They talked about a $30 million campaign and massive increases in votes. What they got was a campaign that didn’t live up to what the LP did 28 years ago.

The strategy of the Barristas was slightly different than what they said it was. Their goal was to punish the Republican Party for not nominating a far right nutter. They weren’t out trying to support the LP which is one reason they ignored LP activists. They were out to get the GOP in the belief that, if they were the margin of difference causing the GOP to lose, then that party would revert to Barr’s conservatism. They didn’t even manage to do that. Why did the Georgia weasel cross the road? He didn’t, he got run over before barely stepping foot on the pavement.

Note: Apparently the sell-outs who pushed Barr seem to have forgotten something. The reason the LP was founded was to promote libertarian ideas not to win votes. If vote totals are the goal then they should have nominated Obama and they could be crowing about a major victory. What made the LP the party of principle was that it put principles above vote totals. With Barr they put vote totals above principles and ended up with neither.

Hurricane Bob leaves destruction in his wake.

When conservatives took over the Libertarian Party the promised that their candidate, Bob Barr, would practically walk on water. He's sinking faster than any other candidate in recent LP history. They promised that Barr's selling out of libertarian principles would attract swarms of dissatisfied conservatives to vote LP -- as if the real goal of the LP was merely the increase of votes and NOT the increase of liberty. Apparently none of the promised benefits are materializing.

The Barristas told the LP that their candidate could raise funds. He certainly raised millions when he was showering the money on Big Government Republicans just prior to his nomination. But he is still below $1 million raised for his own campaign. This is hardly path breaking funding. Other, lesser known LP candidates, have done better.

Instead of doing the hard work of a campaign Barr engages in court room stunts. When a church held a forum with Obama and McCain it was Barr who sued them to try to force his way into a church forum -- something no real libertarian would do. No tax funds were involved so it was private and Barr's actions were inherently statist -- no surprise there. Now he is trying to push a law suit to take McCain and Obama off the Texas ballot with the silly idea that he believes, that if successful, he will win the state. He won't succeed.

But while he was playing court room games in Texas his campaign was neglecting other states and losing ballot status there. It was recently announced that the LP will not be on the ballot in Connecticut -- though party officials are now scurrying to try to appeal the ruling that they didn't have enough valid signatures for ballot status. Barr's campaign is putting the LP in fourth place when it comes to ballot access with Nader on the ballot in 49 states and Barr only managing 44 states -- the worst LP showing for some time. Even the lacklustre Michael Badnarick campaign managed ballot access in 48 states. Harry Browne managed 50 states. Andre Marrou managed 50 states, Ed Clark managed 50 states. Certainly when it comes to ballot access Barr has managed to undo decades of progress.

We were told by the Barristas that running an Right-wing Republican would attract a large number of unhappy conservatives and thus Barr would set new vote records for the Libertarian Party even if they were voting for a libertarian. And we were told that one place we would see this would be the Georgia race where Barr could actually tip the race their in Obama's favor. That was the goal, of course, the election of Barack Obama. The far Right in the GOP, which is where Barr is most comfortable, wanted to punish the Republicans for not anointing someone they approved of. Barr's goal was to punish the Republicans not build the Libertarian Party -- he doesn't give a damn about the Libertarian Party.

But even the Georgia race isn't living up to Barr's promises. Barr isn't taking enough votes away from McCain to punish him and change the race in Barr's own state. The latest Rasmussen poll shows McCain with a comfortable 11 point lead. As for Barr they say: "Libertarian candidate Bob Barr, who served in Congress as part of Georgia's Congressional delegation, receives very little support from voters in the state." That's Barr, the more you know him the less you support him. The smarmy little weasel isn't going anywhere. He has the most name recognition in Georgia and he will be lucky to actually poll 3% there. I suggest he'll get less than 2% and this will be his stellar state. It's all downhill from there and the incline will be pretty steep.

Hurricane Bob swept into the LP and it blew away a lot of infrastructure that was built up over decades. It knocked down the principled positions of the LP and it hurt many of the leading activists over the years. The conservative coup leaders talked about rebuilding the area and that "aid" would come sweeping in from the loony Right. As in the case of Katrina it didn't materialize. All that happened was a lot of destruction. I have concluded that is a good thing as the Libertarian Party is the wrong tactic for spreading liberty and ought to die. But the people who betrayed party principles to secure Barr's nomination actually think political action will work. These shinning stars ought to hang their head in shame as they have done more damage to the LP in a short few months than anyone or anything in the past.

The Barristas in the LP sold out principle. They engaged in some pretty dirty tactics. They lied, they misused offices they held, and they acted like the gutter politicians they seem to admire. They took the party to new lows and some of them continue to act this way, especially a few from California. And in the end they will have done vast damage to the party they claim to support. Perhaps they really do love the LP and love liberty. If so, then Oscar Wilde put his finger on it:

Yet each man kills the thing he loves
By each let this be heard,
Some do it with a bitter look,
Some with a flattering word,
The coward does it with a kiss,
The brave man with a sword!

Some kill their love when they are young,
And some when they are old;
Some strangle with the hands of Lust,
Some with the hands of Gold:
The kindest use a knife, because
The dead so soon grow cold.

My first election projection.

Here is my first projection as to how I think the presidential race will turn out. Obviously there is a lot of time left and anything can happen. But, if things remain pretty much as they are, I am estimating that John McCain will handily beat Barack Obama.

The red states are those that I believe will favor McCain and the blue are those that will favor Obama. I do not believe that Florida will be a close state this time. And I doubt that Ohio will be tight either.

If we compare this year’s projection to the 2004 results here are the major changes I am seeing. The Democrats will pick up Iowa and New Mexico, with 7 and 5 electoral votes respectively. But this gain of 12 electoral votes will more than be offset by their loss of Michigan with 17 electoral votes. In the electoral college the Republicans will do better in 2008 than they did in 2004.

The bad news in this election is that either McCain or Obama will win. However, given that I don’t see the Democrats losing control of the House or the Senate. Since that is the case the least bad situation overall is a Republican president. Gridlock is the best government we can expect, keep the bastards at each other’s throat and they don’t have time to grab our throats.

In regards to the (formerly) Libertarian Party my projections are dismal. Bob Barr won’t do particularly well. His actual vote totals will be well below what his campaign had been projecting. The LP sold their soul to win votes and I doubt they’ll actually succeed in doing that. I suspect that the upside for Barr would 1.5%. I think it more likely he’ll score under 1%.

His problem is manifold. Ron Paul won’t endorse him and Barr has pretty much insulted Paul and alienated him through his antics and those of his underhanded staff members. Barr has alienated large numbers of LP activists and members with his unlibertarian positions and compromises. And his ability to raise funds has been very poor.

Just because he and Richard Viguerie could manage to squeeze a majority out of the Denver LP convention doesn’t mean he can get the LP faithful to rally to his cause. If anything his shying away from the Libertarian label in his own campaign has pretty much pushed Libertarians away. If you go to Barr’s campaign web site the main page doesn’t have the word libertarian anywhere on it.

Personally I think that is good. Barr is no libertarian so he shouldn’t call himself one. But some of the really nasty types in the LP, who yearned for power and Starrdom, tried to push the bullshit that Barr would increase name recognition for the LP. He could have -- of course the problem was that the LP brand would be associated with the petty conservatism of Bob Barr and not with libertarianism. Barr partially solved that problem by abandoning the libertarian label in his own campaign. But then most of Barr’s main campaign staff are not even remotely libertarian themselves.

In the end the Libertarian Party managed to create huge divisions by promoting a smarmy little career politician, abandoned core principles, and alienated its core supporters. All the party got in return was a smirking little candidate. Barr has all the appeal of a pit viper and is as cuddly as a cactus. What he has managed to do is get a lot of Libertarians talking about whether they will vote for McCain or Obama on purely strategic grounds.

I doubt that any of the Third Party candidates will do particularly well. I especially hope that the theocratic thugs in the Constitution Party do as badly as possible. I emphasize that anyone who says they have much in common with the Constitution Party or their leader Rev. Chuck Baldwin, is not even remotely close to being a libertarian. And I don’t care if they do come from Lake Jackson either.

PS: If you want to enlarge the electoral map above just click on it.

Judge does what LP should have.

U.S. District Judge David Carter did what the LP should have done -- told Barr no. Carter refused to order the Saddleback Church to include Bob Barr, of the formerly Libertarian Party, in a forum they were hosting.

In an unprecedented move for a "libertarian" Barr attempted to use the courts to force the church to include Barr. Barr certainly has broken "new ground" on what it means to be a libertarian on numerous issues. Not long ago he was calling on the federal government to bail out the Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac companies with taxpayer funds.

While one should applaud Judge Carter for making the right decision one should not applaud too loudly. Carter ruled as he did for all the wrong reasons. He said that halting the forum would "deny the other candidates the opportunity to be heard and would deprive the public of an opportunity to see the candidates and hear their views."

A church is a private organization. It has no obligation to invite candidates to "be heard" not must give the public "an opportunity" to see candidates. It may invite, or not, anyone to speak, for any reason. And it is within its rights to admit any one it wishes or deny them attendance. The "public" and the "candidates" have no rights in this matter, as the judge seems to imply, as that would mean they have a right to take control of the property of a church to use it for their own purposes. There is one reason that the church has the right to keep out Barr, a right the LP should have exercised, that is the right to associate freely, on its own property, with whomever it wishes and to refused admission to anyone it wishes.

Barr's campaign argued that they should be admitted because the church did not release objective criteria for being included. What an ass! There is no objective criteria necessary for a church to exercise control over its own property and determine who it will, or will not, allow to speak in its sanctuary. This is libertarianism 101 and Barr is flunking -- again!

Cry-baby Barr threatnes to sue church.

How far away from libertarianism does Bob Barr have to go before Libertarians realize they have handed their party over to a scoundrel? How many excuses will they make for his conduct before they give up and admit he was the Libertarian Party's biggest mistake.

Here is the latest unprincipled position taken by Mr. Barr -- unprincipled for a libertarian that is. I guess you can say he is being true to his principles.

The big fundamentalist church, Saddleback Church, in California, is holding a forum where they have both John McCain and Barack Obama speaking. Crybaby Barr is bitching because he wasn't included. Barr's fellow conservatives, who run his campaign, have been trying to put pressure on the church to include Barr in the forum.

Campaign manager Russ Verney, who is not a libertarian either, sent out a campaign email saying:

Yesterday, I reported to former Congressman Barr that we’ve exhausted every avenue. I told him, “We’ve had calls placed to Pastor [Rick] Warren from very powerful leaders from the left and the right, we sent in our personal request, and placed numerous phone calls that have not been returned. You are not going to be included.

“Our only option left is to threaten to file an temporary injunction as our attorney’s believe they are in violation of the law.”

Bob responded by saying, “No, don’t threaten to do that … Just do it.”

As you read this, our attorneys are filing an injunction against Saddleback Church to include Bob Barr in their forum this Saturday.

The Atlanta Jounrnal-Constitution called Barr's actions "an odd thing for a Libertarian to do -- asking a judge to determine whom a church should invite into its sanctuary."

Even someone who doesn't know what a libertarian is supposed to be would know this is entirely unlibertarian. Actually this is not just unlibertarian it is anti-libertarian. Of course, this isn't the first time the media has actually had to inform Mr. Barr about what it is libertarians believe.

Barr's first instincts are always statist. He doesn't comprehend principles, just politics. It then takes education to get him to change his position. His first instinct, after 9/11, was to support the Patriot Act. Only later did he figure out he was promoting authoritarianism. He did the same with his disgusting Defense of Marriage Act. Barr is a natural statist NOT a libertarian.

Just in case someone from Barr's campaign actually reads this, which is unlikely as they seem to spend little time understanding libertarianism, let me spell out the principles. Saddleback Church is a private organization. They are entitled to invite anyone they wish to speak in their church. They are also free to deny speaking rights to anyone they wish. Mr. Barr is attacking the concept of private property and freedom of association. He is also attacking freedom of religion.

Had this been a state-sponsored event it would be different. But this is an entirely private affair. As such Mr. Barr has no right to attend. He can ask, he can beg, he can even advocate boycotts and nasty letters. But the moment he goes to court he has stabbed libertarian principles in the heart. But that is pretty much true to form for him.

Mr. Barr has also confirmed that he will sspeak to the bigots who run the Minutemen at a national rally they are holding. Disgusting, but typical Barr. And not long ago he made a pilgrimage to Colorado Springs where he tried to suck up to the fundamentalists who run Focus on the Family.

End it, don't mend it.

The dour Bob Barr once again shows his true colors by calling for a taxpayer funded bailout of both Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, the two government corporations involved in the mortgage field.

Government decided to make it easier for people in risky financial positions to buy homes, as opposed to renting. When other government policies sent the economy into a tailspin one result was that property values declined. This means that a lot of not-so-well-off individuals, who were induced by the government to buy property, now have mortgages on property that cost more than the property is worth.

The political classes wanted to encourage people who couldn’t afford property to buy it anyway. And now those people are hurting because of those stupid policies. The problem here is that any bail out will just encourage future malinvestment.

Bob Barr, the Libertarian (in name only) presidential candidate wants the taxpayers to be forced to bail out both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Barr starts out trying to sound libertarian. He always does that just before gutting principle and sounding like your typical unscrupulous, unprincipled politician. He acknowledges that any bail out would be taking “taxpayer money” since government has no money of its own. But since government intervention in the markets caused the problem he says government must bail out the industry.

He wants a new government program to bail out the old government program. “I think, though, that, if we -- we have some -- some temporary line of credit -- and I think it’s important to do this through the Congress, so Congress understands and has a stake in this as well.”

That statement indicates how corrupted Barr’s thinking is with the polictics-as-usual mentality. He wants a temporary credit line. As Milton Friedman noted, there is nothing so permanent as a temporary government program. Secondly, what kind of moron actually thinks that Congressman “have a stake” in the programs they pass?

Congressmen don’t care if the programs work. They do care if they attract votes. And that is what Barr cares about. He is not standing up for free markets because promising a government bail out is good for the political bottom-line -- getting votes. The Libertarian Party, at the behest of the sell-outs in the national office, traded principles or appeal. They want votes not liberty.

Barr exemplifies the worst of the political mentality and he sounds just like the typical Republican. They always say that they support free markets but, of course, the current issue is an exception and government has to get involved. So they propose another temporary program in the hope of using it to secure more votes for themselves on election day.

This sort of compromising, Big Government mentality is precisely what we’d expect from Republicans. Apparently now the Libertarian Party is desperately trying to play the same game. But here is the reality. They are amateurs at political game playing. All they had to offer the public before were principles. Now they have no principles and instead want to manipulate the system to buy votes. But their amateur status tells me that they can’t really deliver the goodies.

The Libertarian Party has let the creepy Bob Barr push them into a corner where they can’t play the political game particularly well but neither can they offer the voters a principled stand on the issues. There simply is no reason for the LP to exist. At this point it exists only to sap the libertarian movement of energy and resources making it a liability not an asset. End it, don’t mend it. And in this case this applies to Fannie Mae, Freddy Mac and the Libertarian Party.

Libertarian skunks, Barr and Root, in action.

The Benedict Arnolds in the Libertarian Party have done their dirty work. Now the LP is officially under the control of warmongering neocon types. At least the top of the party’s ticket is dominated by such pond scum.

Your blogger was recently at the Freedom Fest shindig in Las Vegas, hence the absence in blogging for awhile. While there I witnessed two individuals I know to be libertarians attempting to talk to the Republicans who are now the LP’s candidates: Wayne Root and Bob Barr.

At one point I saw Marc Victor, an attorney and sometimes radio talk show host stand-in, speaking to Barr. Admittedly Barr makes my skin crawl so I didn’t pay much attention and the noise in the room was sufficient that I couldn’t hear the conversation. But when Marc saw me he can over and recounted the gist of the conversation.

Marc had recently seen Barr on television where Barr was dismissing the long-held libertarian position of legalizing drugs. That didn’t surprise me since Barr is a conservative and not a libertarian. But Barr has the blind LP party leaders with their noses in his pigpen so they pretend the man is something he isn’t.

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.

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.

Barr wanted to know what he could say to win the conservative’s vote in November. That very question is unprincipled implying that Barr will say whatever is needed in order to win the votes of voters, provided of course, that the voter isn’t actually a libertarian. The conservative said he didn’t want to waste a vote on Barr but was unhappy with McCain. Barr’s reply was enlightening.

He told the man, “Well, we can’t let them just keep ruining our party.” McCain is a Republican. So the only party that Barr can be referring to is the Republican Party. Barr stills sees himself as a conservative Republican not as a libertarian.

I argued that the plan by Barr and his conservative handlers like Richard Viguerie was to use the LP and its ballot status in order to try to force the Republican Party toward a hard-core Right-wing position. Barr doesn’t give a damn about the Libertarian Party. He would be happy to destroy the Libertarian Party if he can succeed in pushing the Republicans to the Right. This is the man into whose hands the traitors at the LP national office have entrusted their party.

Treg was dismayed by this and walked away. He later saw Wayne Root and tried to talk to him. Root started to speak to Treg but saw David Friedman, Milton’s son, and tried to rassle up his support. This I witnessed first hand as I had just been speaking with David a minute before this happened.

Root claimed he had the LP presidential nomination for president in the bag for the next four election cycles. Talk about trash leading the blind. Root basically ignored Treg not considering him important enough to talk with.

Treg later mentioned this treatment to Steve Kubby, who apparently thinks that party loyalty is enough to override the odious natures of Root and Barr. He decided to reintroduce Treg to Root in the hopes of patching things up.

When Root learned of the money that Treg had put into Ron Paul’s campaign (a point Treg and I disagree about) he was suddenly interested. He asked: “So what can I say to get you guys behind the Barr/Root team?” I never thought I’d hear an LP candidate selling his principles for votes but then the LP is dead and what now exists is libertarian in name only.

Treg mentioned to Root how Ron Paul “wants us out o Iraq now.” Root said: “That is where I disagree with Paul. Yes, we should leave when the job is done and we should leave with strength, not weakness.”

In one of the pre nomination debates I heard Root telling libertarians that he had learned his lesson about Iraq and that he wanted out Iraq. Of course, at the time, he was telling them what they needed to hear to give him their votes. This is the unprincipled con artist that Root is. His positions are not based on principles but on power seeking. He lied to the LP delegates claiming a conversion on Iraq and then, once he gets their support, he goes right back to his pro-war position.

Root got agitated and stood up to leave. Treg admits he didn’t tape record the event and was recounting the approximate words of Root, but if this is even vaguely what Root said, then it shows how bad a libertarian he is. “America should just let Israel alone, defend itself, and go nuke the heck out of those Iranian cockroaches. Blow ‘em all up... just nuke the place for a thousand years.”

I know both Marc Victor and Treg Loyden. In spite of disagreements we have had on some matters concerning this election I believe them to be honest individuals and that both are telling the truth. I was close enough to see what was happening and it corresponds with their accounts. I also witnessed Barr and Root lying, twisting and distorting their own positions in order to con the Libertarian Party into nominating them. So I have every reason to believe their accounts regarding these incidents.

What both men recount is proof that the amazing conversion of these neocons to libertarianism is all facade and no substance. Root and Barr are still Republicans and both are using the LP as a tool to their own personal ends. The LP has committed suicide by putting two anti-libertarian con men at the head of its ticket. I doubt the LP can survive this and I suggest, that if it does survive, it will be further proof of the innate rot that has contaminated the party.

The two-faces of Bob Barr.

Bob Barr was slippery at the Denver Libertarian Party nominating convention and he’s just as slippery now. One of his great evasions, that fooled a lot of the less observant delegates, was his position on the war on drugs.

The libertarian position has been that the war on drugs is bad policy and does more harm than good. And it is a major infringement on liberty and an impetus for the growth of tyrannical government. It must be ended full stop.

Barr’s position is that of a politician who doesn’t support ending the war on drugs but doesn’t want to piss off too many Libertarians on whose party he has to rely. So Barr gives an evasive answer that makes some really dense libertarians think he is now against the war on drugs. But, it is also a position which he can use to show conservatives that he doesn’t support ending the war on drugs at all.

Barr uses the same “escape hatch” Ron Paul used when Paul was deserting libertarian principles -- that of federalism. When a social issue comes up, which distinguishes a libertarian from a conservative, these conservatives all play the “state’s rights” card. And the bonus is that the politician using this ploy can sound principled in his response while evading principle all together.

In a recent interview Barr was asked about the war on drugs -- as he knows he will be asked over and over. Barr starts out by saying he has “come a long way on the drug war”. The “long way” remark, from a politician, is usually a good sign that he has hardly changed his position at all.

Barr says he came to the conclusion “that it simply isn’t working and we ought to get the federal government out ot it.” Hey, folks! Guess what! Most the real shit that happens in the war on drugs is not the federal government but the state and local governments.

When you hear of some armed thugs breaking into a house at 4 am unannounced and wrongly shooting some grandmother to death because they got the wrong address it ain’t the Feds doing it. It’s your local police.

If we got the federal government out of the war on drugs there would be very little change in the number of people in prison. The SWAT team raids would go on just as before.

Notice that Barr doesn’t say anything about ending the war on drug only about getting the Feds out of the war on drugs.

Barr’s “long way” diversion, to hide his minor adjustment in position worked with this reporter. He says: “But that’s a big switch for you.” Nope, it’s not that big a switch. And when Barr was Fox News not long ago and pressed for being opposed to the war on drugs he made it crystal clear that he’s a “real conservative” and merely wants the war on drugs fought at the state level because it would be more efficient.

One thing about that is true. Barr is a real conservative just not a real libertarian.

Barr adds a bit to his statement on drugs: “It’s obvious to me that the federal drug laws are being used as a club to deny the people of individual states the right to legalize, for example, medicinal marijuana.” So Barr merely wants drug laws decided by the states. He does not want to end drug prohibition. He just wants all the powers to fight drugs devolved to the states.

Barr is not for legalizing drugs. He is for local drug wars.

Many conservatives feel that they have lost their battle to impose Christianist morality on the country from the top down. They prefer, these days, to champion “state’s rights” in the hopes of protecting a number of bastions of social repression. They figure that they lost the Christianist cause in places like New England and the West Coast. But they feel they can turn the old Confederacy into some sort of bastion of moral authoritarianism. But they can only do this if they convince everyone that the individual states have some sort of “right” to deny liberty to the citizens of those states.

This is one reason we will see more and more conservatives rushing to “federalism” and “state’s rights” positions in the marriage debate. The last time conservatives were this hotted up over “state’s rights” was when “Negro revolutionaries” were demanding equal rights against the the “fine, white Christian folk” of the South. Groups like the Klan were orgasmic over the concept of state’s rights.

In fact some of the most extreme racists, in 1958, formed the National State’s Right Party. It was run by the flagrant bigot J.B Stoner and produced a racist publication called The Thunderbolt, edited by Edward Fields. The party basically fell apart when Fields started spending most of his time promoting the Klan. Fields later became involved with the Council of Conservative Citizens (formerly the White Citizens Council). This was the group that had Barr as a featured speaker at their conference.

When “race mixing” was perceived as a threat the bigoted Right championed “state’s rights” as a mean of stripping people of the right to marry a partner of a different race. “Activist judges” overturned those laws as a violation of individual rights. Conservatives favored violating individual rights. And they favored it at the state level only because they knew they couldn’t get it at the national level.

When the moralistic Right has had the chance to impose their stilted morality on the nation they have certainly tried to do so. They tried it with Ed Meese’s campaign to ban erotica. They tried it with federal marriage amendments. They try it with nationally funded abstinence campaigns. They are not against centralized control they just have had very poor results with it. But they know that backwaters like Alabama will long favor social repression long after the rest of the country entered the Age of Enlightenment. They want to preserve those areas as a memorial to the Dark Ages.

The libertarian, in contrast, argues that individuals have rights and that no level of government, federal, state or local, has the right to violate the rights of the citizens. It may be stupid to use heroin but it is your choice and you are responsible for the consequences. That is libertarianism. Blather about getting the “federal government out” of an issue is only libertarian if you are also trying to evict the state and local governments from that domain as well. Barr’s position is classic conservatism and utterly unlibertarian. It is not another variation of libertarianism. It is, however, another version of statism.

But ever since Ron Paul got away with this sort of crap the bar has been lowered and lowered some more.

Barr, of course, used the same logic when he answered about his writing the odious “Defense of Marriage Act”. He says that the most important part is the part that allows “each state [to] decide ... to impose its own definition of marriage....”

Again, the strategy of this sort of law twofold. It acknowledged that the attempt to ban gay marriage nationally had failed. And it realistically argued that the only way to stop equal marriage rights for same-sex couples was to protect the “state’s right” to “impose its own definition of marriage...”

I still wish some reporter had the brains to ask Barr the right questions. For instance, does he think that the state of Virginia had the right to arrest Mildred and Richard Loving, in their bedroom because they were an interracial married couple? Surely, if the state’s have this right to “impose its own definition of marriage” on people then it had the right to claim that the Lovings were not legally married and were in violation of the marriage laws of Virginia.

One of the great moments in the history of the Supreme Court was when it overturned the laws against interracial marriage. And Bob Barr would repeal that tomorrow. His view is that Virginia did have the right to do this to the Lovings. Does Mr. Barr really want to tell the American public that his version of “libertarianism” would permit laws which turn interracial married couples into criminals?

Now supposed he doesn’t say that. What if he says the decision in the Lovings case was correct. Then by what principle does he continue to defend the right to states to ban same-sex couples from having equal marriage rights? Is there a principle or is there merely some antigay attitudes?

In his interview Barr again defended this alleged rights of the fifty states to violate the equal rights of the citizens. His “libertarian” view is that if one state bans gay marriage then other states don’t have to recognize that relationship under the “full faith and credit” clause of the Constitution. Ah, that was the justification behind Virginia’s arrest of the Lovings.

The Lovings were not married in Virginia. They got married outside the state of Virginia. They later returned to Virginia to live and were then arrested for violating Virginia law. Virginia refused to recognize, as valid, any interracial marriage from outside the state. And that is what made the Lovings subject to arrest. Somehow, in Barr’s view that sort of thing is fully consistent with libertarianism. That clause, he said, still “has validity and I still support.”

I find this sort of argument the least satisfactory of any. It is inherently two-faced. To libertarian audiences Barr can pretend he is supporting individual liberty because he doesn’t want the federal government taking away freed. But when he talks to anti-freedom conservatives he can play up how they will still have the right to strip people of their rights at the state level. It is the perfect solution for a politician as it allows him to be all things to all men. But is inherently unprincipled. And for that reason they have to insist it is actually a moral principle. That is how politics works.

"Libertarian" Barr panders to racists and bigots.

This blog has argued that the reason Barr, Viguerie and other conservatives were trying to take over the (formerly) Libertarian Party was to turn it into a vehicle to attack the Republicans for nominating McCain. They want to strip votes away from McCain on the Right so that he will lose. This, they hope, will bring back the dominance that the far Right previously held in the party, but which they lost out to the neo-cons.

In other words their goal is NOT to build the (formerly) Libertarian Party but to use the party as a means of taking over the Republican Party. The LP is but a tool for their use, which shows the naivety of those Libertarians who argued that having Barr lead the ticket “would build the party”. Of course to accomplish that goal Barr can’t really run as a Libertarian. He doesn’t want the libertarian vote, he wants the conservative vote.

And one result is that we know have the spectacle of a Libertarian candidate playing up immigrant-bashing to pander to the racists that permeate the Right.

Barr just sent out a fund-raiser using “border security” as the key. Border security is the current Right-wing hysteria, the crisis that they use to try to terrify people into supporting them. Terrify the public with some monster and you can rally the villagers into a mob that you can run in front of so as to pretend you are the leader. And, since Barr has not been hesitant to climb into bed with open racists in the past, this sort of pandering comes naturally to him.

Barr sent out a fund-raiser for his campaign about the “crisis” of “BORDER SECURITY”. (Capitalization his own -- it’s scarier that way.) And he trashed the somewhat decent “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” bill that the racist Right managed to defeat a year ago.

Now, please note that Barr is playing a dishonest game of bait-and-switch. He starts out talking about the “crisis” of border security and then conflates that with being anti-immigration. The bill in question did not loosen up border “security” but tried to fix the immigration system that the conservatives have broken one piece at a time. In fact the reforms would have helped solve the “security” issue.

One reason we have millions of people who have crossed the borders illegally is because legal options don’t exist. Instead of pushing millions of people who want to work into illegally crossing we ought to be finding ways for them to enter legally. That would reduce the ability of the actual bad guys from hiding themselves among the millions who cross.

Consider how a real terrorist, who wants to cross illegally, would think. He’d find that its much easier to cross where tens of thousands of “decoys” are also crossing. If he crosses with five others his chance of detection is higher than if he crosses with 5,000. The conservatives, by shutting down legal entry, have actually made it easier to true criminals to enter illegally. Conservatives like to quote the law of unintended consequences but somehow they delude themselves into thinking it only applies to laws proposed by the Left.

Barr tries to scare people into donating to his unlibertarian Libertarian campaign by claiming there is a lack of “border security.” As we have seen that is rubbish. The government has ratcheted up the Big Brother methods necessary to “secure the border” significantly in recent years.

Just as Barr proved to be an easy patsy for the Patriot Act, scare the shit out the man and he caves in on liberty, he is proving to be a patsy for the Big Brother anti-immigration campaign. Exactly how does Mr. Barr think his anti-immigrant, border security, ideas will get implemented.

It won’t come about by making people more free. After terrorism the “border” scare is the main issue that is being used to justify massive state interventions into civil society. Barry rolled over for Bush and now he’s rolling over for the bigots. And when Barr roles over, for some reason, it is civil liberties that get screwed.

Of course, ten years down the road Barr can always have a conversion and apologize for his “errors” -- if it is convenient for his political career.

Barr paints McCain as evil, not for the many issues where McCain deserves to be attacked, but for one of the few issues where he is more libertarian than not --- immigration reform.

Barr’s entire letter was filled with lies, borderline bigotry, fear mongering, and calls for government action. It sounds just like the garbage that the far Right has been pushing for years. What it didn’t sound like was anything remotely resembling libertarianism. This is the sort of rot that the sell-outs in the LP have foisted on the party. Barr’s actions are understandable -- he’s just a sleazy politician. But what excuse do his point-men in the LP have for their disgusting, slimy actions?

What Barr’s letter has done is destroy the lie that he was spreading around in Denver that he would campaign as a libertarian. He isn’t.

Now, Barr will get more votes than the typical LP candidate and the morons will cheer that saying it vindicates their choice. But then running Hillary Clinton would have gotten even more votes if you catch my drift. Selling out libertarianism and pandering to the bigoted Right would win more votes. What it won’t do is further the cause of liberty but hinder it. The Libertarian Party has gone over to the dark side and deserves to die.

In defense of Mr. Barr -- partially.

My regular readers better sit down for this one. Okay, its a computer screen so you are probably sitting anyway but I want to warn you: in this post I will defend Bob Barr. At least I will partially defend Bob Barr against the lunatic John Lofton.

Lofton is a fanatical theocratic Right-wing type who somehow duped Barr into doing a recorded interview with him. The one thing I appreciate about it is that this experience, no doubt, will help show Barr the dangers of hanging around religious nut cases.

Lofton was upset that Barr had said he like Ayn Rand. Rand was a “militant atheist” in Lofton’s words. Notice how these froathing-at-the-mouth fundamentalists call anyone they don’t agree with “militant”. Gays, feminists, atheists, liberals, etc., don’t exist in their minds -- only militant gays, militant feminists, militant atheists, militant liberals.

Barr seemed genuinely baffled by Lofton’s persistent and weird questioning. And that is at least a good thing. If Barr actually understood Lofton’s points then I’d be far more worried about him than I already am. I knew what Barr was getting at. I was once one of those crazed god-botherers like Lofton. I got over it. He hasn’t. Now with advanced aged Lofton has moved on to a combination of rampant senility and theologically-induced silliness. In other words, he is incoherent to most normal people and Barr never quite comprehended Lofton’s point.

Barr kept asking if Lofton wanted to talk about religion instead of politics. Well for theocrats there is no difference. Lofton wanted to know Barr’s theology because, in his view, you can’t have “good” politics unless you are bleating Biblicist like himself.

Barr is no atheist, a point against him in my books, but a Christian. He answered and said he was a Methodist but that didn’t satisfy Lofton. Lofton wanted a full fledged endorsement of the Westminster Confession. He is a Calvinist reconstructionist who wants to implement biblical law on the United States. So keep in mind that Barr is, in fact, a Christian. But Lofton then sends out a story on the Christian wire service attacking Barr.

In Lofton’s view Barr’s answer “illustrate perfectly what’s wrong with modern libertarianism -- it is a Godless, bread-alone, don’t-seek-God’s-Kingdom-at-all philosophy.” Now I’ve questioned Barr’s libertarian credentials but compared to Lofton Bob Barr is a flaming anarchocapitalist. On the other hand that doesn’t say much. Even Castro would come out favourably compared to Lofton.

Lofton says that “the tragedy is that Libertarians do not understand that the Lord Jesus Christ is the first and only true ‘Libertarian,’ the author of all real human liberty....” Yawn. Guess what? I also don’t get that “Allah is God and Mohammed is his prophet.” I don’t get Lord Buddha, L. Ron Hubbard, Joe Smith, or anyone else who has imaginary friends who talk to them. I don’t mind so much when these imaginary friends whisper in the ears of these people. Not at all.

What bothers the hell out of me is when they think that the voices they hear give them some sort of authority or right to go around ordering how other people are supposed to live. It is one thing when they hear the voices and another when they pick up the metaphorical sword because their voices want it.

I must say it was amusing to hear social conservative Bob Barr being attacked for not being socially conservative enough. And we should not forget that there are a good number of the theologically insane who want to impose scarlet letters, burn witches and stone fornicators, mystics and gays. Lofton is one of the more bizarre wacko on the Christian Right and that tells you a lot.

I hope more on the Religious Right do this to Mr. Barr because that, more than anything, will drive him away from his lingering conservative ideas. Enough interactions like this and Barr might actually end up a libertarian.

Lofton, by the way, is a fan of the theocratically inclined Constitution Party.

Smells like a Republican.

For the record, I had nothing to do with this video. It seems a lot of people have similar views to my own.



By the way, the New York Times had a short piece by Francis Clines regarding the amazing transformation of Bob Barr from family values zealot to alleged libertarian. Mr. Clines seems as baffled as I do by the miraculous transformation. Mr. Clines writes wickedly:

There are stranger things in politics than Mr. Barr’s metamorphosis, but few more enjoyable to witness for the sheer opportunism that underpins the careers of all manner of politicians from one end of the philosophical spectrum to the other.

Ouch! That had to hurt. But then, the truth often does.

Libertarian Party 1972 - 2008: Rest in Peace.

It is with a heavy heart that I report the death of the Libertarian Party. It was only 36 years old—far too young to die. And while there is some dispute over whether the death was self-inflicted or murder, the death itself was tragic and sad.

Once billed as “The Party of Principle” those principles were sold down the river. On Sunday, May 25, 2008 the principles were abandoned, and the party was last seen gasping for air
before expiring.

This author watched 30 years of his life pass before his eyes -- wasted. Having been a candidate and supporter of the party since 1978 what I saw ended any respect I had left for the LP.

Far Right Republican congressman Bob Barr was nominated for president and the loudmouthed, huckster, Wayne Root, an “odds maker” from Las Vegas, traded with Barr in order to become his running mate. They brought to the LP the sort of backroom deal-making once only seen in the larger, corrupt parties.

It is true that the principles did not die easily, however. On the first ballot conservative Barr was leading Mary Ruwart by just one vote. On the second ballot it was dead even. On the third vote Ruwart was in the lead. And then the “behind-the-scenes” deal of the two neocon infiltrators was announced.

Root, who had sworn he would never take the vice presidential made clear that he doesn’t necessarily mean what he says at all. He got up and announced that he was endorsing Bob Barr. In return Root said that he would be Barr’s vice presidential candidate and in four years time he was promised the top slot by Barr—as if Barr had any authority to make such a promise.

Realize that neither man is a libertarian, both are conservatives. Both endorse foreign interventionism. Root gave $1,000 to the campaign of Joe Leiberman and Barr gave around $100,000 to Republican Right-wing candidates. Almost all of those candidates were on the far Right of the party and advocates of war. The people Barr has supported, for the most part, were the absolute worst among the Republicans—those least likely to respect libertarian principles.

The antiwar Libertarians were duped by both men who had convenient conversions to new positions more satisfying to the delegates. Root entered the campaign a war-mongering hawk. When he ran into trouble with party members he suddenly saw the light and announced a new position.

Barr seemed to hold to his conservative principles. Only two weeks ago he adamantly said he was opposed to ending the war on drugs. Nothing he said this weekend actually changed that but Barr answered questions in ways that made it appear he had. He talked about the failure of the war on drugs for a long time and then said the federal government should get out of the drug war. Of course, he merely wanted the individual states to wage the drug war instead. That part was barely mentioned, making it appear he was more opposed to the drug war than he is.

When Barr arrived in Denver he found a large percentage of delegates sporting anti-Barr buttons —something never before seen at an LP convention. And he had to make some concessions. So he had one of those last second, dramatic conversions. Previously Barr was openly and viciously antigay and he authored one of the most discriminatory pieces of antigay legislation around, the Defense of Marriage Act.

Barr had tried to placate the delegates by pretending that his law was magically libertarian in reality. No one believed him.

Just a few hours before the big vote Barr suddenly announced that he had seen the light and changed his mind on gay marriage. He now said his legislation was bad and he realized he was hurting gay people needlessly and he was sorry. Personally I found him as sincere as a horny teenage boy telling his date that he really loves her and, “of course, I’ll still respect you in the morning.” Often the girl concedes because she wants to believe the promise. And many delegates in Denver wanted to believe the promise as well. I suspect what they will find is that Barr doesn’t actually love them, he used them, and as soon as he can replace them with his fellow conservatives they will find out exactly how screwed they were.

Barr had brought in his own people to Denver, people previously not affiliated with the Libertarian Party. Like him they were conservative Republicans looking for a vehicle to use. And the LP, with its ballot status in numerous states is a prime target for plundering. We have to remember that these dogmatic Rightists have one goal in mind and it isn’t the promotion of libertarianism.

They want to defeat John McCain. While there is little to say in favor of McCain the Far Right doesn’t perceive him as one of their own. He is not theocratic enough, authoritarian enough, or vicious enough to satisfy them. They want to take votes from McCain. And how will they do that? By arguing that McCain is not a “true conservative” and that Barr is. And exactly how will that be sold to the public? Barr will have to campaign, not as a libertarian, but as a Far Right conservative.

How did this revolting coup take place? There are three reasons.

First, over the years the party has recruited from the Right. While the party should have recruited from the Left as well, it didn’t. The party drifted further and further away from libertarian principles as time went by. As more and more conservatives joined the party it attracted more conservatives and turned off those on the moderate Left. To placate these Right-wingers some dubious characters raped the party platform. Many planks were removed or watered down.

Second, some party members just felt that “winning” recognition was more important than seeing the values of liberty spread. The party was started by people wanting to use it to push for liberty. The party was the means to an end. But these desperate individuals reversed things. The party was the end in itself. The goal wasn’t promoting liberty but holding power. They thought that losing an election was worse than losing their principles. Bob Barr took them to the mountaintop and showed them the baubles that politics can offer and they were seduced.

Third, and worse, the party was intentionally betrayed by a cabal of individuals who were mainly associated with the LP National Committee and the LP office staff.

Barr was brought into the party by a bevy of Right-wing, often religiously-motivated, individuals. They first had to raise Barr’s status in the party. They arranged for the national committee member from Georgia to step down from his seat and then had Barr appointed to replace him. So this “new libertarian” suddenly became a national officer almost the same day he joined.

During this time Barr used Right-wing mailing lists to raise $4 million for his political action committee. Very little of that went to candidates, most of it was eaten up by “expenses.” Of the money that was given to candidates, the vast majority went to Far Right Republicans, many of whom used it to campaign against Libertarian candidates. But a tiny percentage of that money, well under one percent, or $12,000, went to the Libertarian Party National Committee. It didn’t go to candidates but to the national committee on which Barr was serving. Apparently that tiny amount was all that was necessary.

Some national committee members started working to stage a conservative coup and they wanted Barr as their candidate. This was done in cahoots with party staff, none of whom had any business engaging in such matters.

One cigar-chomping Right-winger, Stephen Gordon, started a web site, Third Party Watch, which was regularly promoting Barr. Gordon ended up being a paid staff member of the Barr campaign. Before that, he was a staff member at the LP national office.

And it was at this site that the first inklings of a Barr-Root secret agreement, to purge the party , began. When Mary Ruwar announced she was running, both campaigns knew they were in trouble and started to attack Ruwart. They found it quite easy to make it sound as if she was promoting pedophilia. Ruwart has written that children "who willing participate in sexual acts have the right to make that decision as well..." which implies precisely what her opponents say it means. Ruwart contends she was being taken out of context but the context didn't help her case that much.

The man who appears to be the most likely suspect for the attack campaign is Aaron Starr, a Root campaign supporter and a member of the national committee. Starr certainly worked with Root’s campaign manager to get this smear out. It was first spread through the Barr-affiliated Third Party Watch site. Then Root’s managers used material supplied by Starr at the Indiana LP convention to attack Ruwart directly.

After Third Party Watch pushed the attack for a couple of days, the executive director of the party, Shane Corey, without any authorization to do so, put out a press release which was meant to pour gasoline on the fire. Corey misused his office to announce a new party position -- a joint federal-state task force to go after pedophilia. That such activity is already against the law was ignored. That it is entirely a state matter, constitutionally speaking, was also ignored. Corey was basically calling for the federal government to take on a new, unconstitutional power for itself. But the purpose of the press release was to make it appear that the national Libertarian Party was distancing itself from Ruwart. [Nothing said here should be construed as an endorsement for Ruwart, who has proven herself, to this blogger at least, to be vicious and dishonest.]

Many libertarians were upset, especially since Corey had ignored all the proper channels and unilaterally announced a policy decision without an authority to do so. He resigned his position. But don’t feel sorry for him either. He had another position already in the waiting. This reporter has to clarify the exact position but let us say that he was either working directly for Mr. Barr or working for someone very close to Barr, Richard Viguerie. Mr. Viguerie, is a Far Right conservative who was looking to take control of a third party for some time now. And this time it seems he got what he wanted.

In addition, Viguerie suddenly turned up as a last minute speaker at the Denver convention. When I asked around as to why someone who is as unlibertarian as Viguerie was a last minute speaker I was told it was done at Barr’s request. Why only Barr was allowed to appoint speakers at the convention was never answered.

That was not the end either. Remember Stephen Gordon of Third Party Watch. Gordon used his contacts from his time in the LP office to start a libertarian e-mail list company which was then used to promote Barr directly to Libertarians. In addition he started his web site, Third Party Watch for almost nothing. That was the site used to promote Barr and attack Ruwart. And what I’ve now heard is that Gordon “sold” this web site. The man handing Gordon the money supposedly is Richard Viguerie. I wonder if the going price for such betrayal is still 20 pieces of silver. Either way I’d like to know how much money Mr. Gordon got out of Barr and Viguerie. Add that to the $12,000 “contribution” to the LP Nat-Com and we’d have some idea of what it costs to buy a political party.

In addition it seems the national convention was practically run by Barr people. A Republican was brought in to moderate the candidate’s debate—apparently a Libertarian wasn’t good enough. And individuals who were given prominent roles in the convention just happened to be individuals who were also picked to nominate Barr for the office. So after they were given added “importance” by being paraded before the delegates, they ended up giving nominating speeches on behalf of Barr. I am sure they will say it was a coincidence.

Various committees were packed with the “reformers”, all of whom had been working to strip the party platform of measures offensive to conservatives. They not only ended up raping the platform but then making up the Fifth Column supporting Barr at the convention. It seems that being a Barr supporter was enough to give one a prominent role at the cone deck in favor of Barr of course. Perhaps it was all a coincidence?

But, of course, the joint Barr-Root attack of Mary Ruwart, was also a coincidence. No doubt the Root endorsement of Barr was a coincidence as well—perhaps a fluke.

Many in the party were shocked and horrified at what happened. These reformed “libertarians”, many of whom were just recently in the Republican Party, were taking over. Long-time party activists were angry and felt that a coup had been purposely staged. Unity in the party was threatened and some suggested that the vice presidential slot should go to a principled libertarian.

Ruwart did not want to share a ticket with a non-libertarian. Steve Kubby, a previous presidential candidate, who had endorsed Ruwart, said he would accept the VP slot. Ruwart’s delegates were in favor. The delegates who had worked for Senator Mike Gravel also came on board. And the first vote was close. Even many Barr voters thought it would be a good gesture and a way of keeping some actual libertarians in the Libertarian Party.

Barr would have none of it. He got up and made a speech, making it clear that he would not accept anyone but his fellow neocon, Wayne Allen Root. Barr was not interested in a unified party. He was interested in a total coup. That is what his Nat-Com allies wanted, that is what his friends in the national office wanted, and that is what they got. Barr had enough trouble from real libertarians and wanted them gone. One “reformer” had announced on his blog that the goal was to drive out of the party all “anarchists”. Of course by anarchist he meant anyone with a consistent libertarian view -- as opposed to conservatives.

The reality is that Libertarian Party had one thing of value to the Far Right. It likely will hold ballot status in about 48 states. It has little in actual assets, but ballot status in that many states can cost millions of dollars. Barr, Viguiere and the Benedict Arnolds in the Nat-Com, like Starr, wanted that asset for themselves. And they got it -- at least they have it for the moment.

Many of the state affiliates have a large amount of discretion over candidates they will list. It is possible that the many states which supported neither Barr nor Root could refuse them local ballot status. Some are discussing complete disaffiliation.

Some states didn’t give either Root or Barr any support at all. For instance, Root’s home state, Nevada, shut him out completely. Not only wouldn’t they vote for Root but they didn’t even want him as a delegate. Even though he doesn’t live there Root was voting with the California delegation, a delegation where Starr had a lot of influence. Perhaps he arranged for Root to vote as a California delegate. However Root got there, it didn’t seem anyone was interested in finding out why Root’s own state wanted nothing to do with him.

A lot of angry libertarians are looking for ways to take the party back from this interlopers and traitors. I don’t know how successful they will be. Barr’s campaign will attract more intolerant, interventionist, conservatives like himself to the party. The more of them that join the party the more unlikely it will be that libertarians will have any influence in their own party.

Over the next couple of years the real indicator will be the party platform. To prepare for the coup the so-called Reform Caucus had been working to denude the platform of anything that conservatives would find offensive. In other words they wanted a Republican platform. The previous position of support for freedom of choice in abortion was watered down to say almost nothing. One sign of the Right-wing coup will be when that plank becomes explicitly anti-choice.

A second plank that I suspect will be targeted by the Barr-Root cabal will be that of immigration. Both men will start sounding like the Minutemen and other xenophobic Republicans.

Third, expect to see more planks referring to “state’s rights”. Issues like drugs and gay equality will get replaced with calls for allowing the states to have whatever policy they want on this -- regardless of how oppressive. Libertarians previously favored ending the war on drugs and favored full equality for gays before the law. Both those issues will go down the drain. Instead, the planks won’t call for either, but will merely say these are state matters -- and the libertarian position will be replaced by this conservative interpretation.

The best indication that the LP deserves its death is that it was incapable of having a decent candidate. Root and Barr were both disgusting and Ruwart, who would have secured the nomination if Barr hadn't, is flaky and untrustworthy, in spite of her well-acted saccharin tone of voice. This lack of any decent candidate for the nomination indicates the party has fallen a long way since Ed Clark was the LP presidential candidate.

Following the Barr money trail.

The Atlanta Constitution-Journal has an interesting article about the Right-wing ex-Congressman from Georgia: Bob Barr. As you no doubt know, if you have read this blog. Barr is currently trying to pretend he is a libertarian in order to secure the Libertarian Party’s nomination for president. As a lifelong libertarian I’d rather vote for pond scum.

We have previously discussed how “libertarian” Barr has been raising funds which he donated to conservative Republicans, many of whom were running against Libertarian candidates -- so much for his loyalty to the new party he joined. But the Constitution-Journal now raises some serious questions about the money Mr. Barr has been raising from Republican donors. It looks to as if Mr. Barr is running a major scam. That is how it looks to me but then you know what I think of this man.

The Atlanta paper starts out with how Barr is raising funds as a “conservative”. Remember when he shows up at Libertarian events he says he is really a libertarian. Is Mr. Barr lying to Republicans or is he lying to Libertarians. A conservative and a libertarian are not the same thing. Never have been, never will be. So when Barr fund raises to finance conservative campaigns is is showing the world that he is NO libertarian. Now if some of the Barr pimps in the LP would figure this out the party would be in better shape.

The Constitution-Journal notes that since 2003 Barr’s little Political Action Committee has taken in $4.3 million dollars. To quote the film character Jerry McQuire: “Show me the money.” Always show me the money. What happened with it.

Barr gave $110,000 to conservative Republicans running for national office and $81,875 to local conservatives running for office. He gave $12,000 to the National Committee of the LP but nothing to Libertarian candidates. The candidate who got the most money from Barr’s fund raising appeal was Barr himself. He got $10,000. Now this interesting. Barr is raising money for “conservatives” and the biggest donation goes to himself. Barr also used the PAC to pay for him giving speeches in different places. And his son collected $41,000 in salary from Barr’s PAC. Some money also went to fly Barr's most recent wife to an event as well -- perhaps it was when he was promoting his "one man-one woman" marriage concept and discussing why gays are a threat to society.

But what is crystal clear is that of the money raised only about 5% actually went to any candidates. The rest was eaten up by the PAC itself. Would Barr run a presidential campaign the same way he runs his PAC? If so then expect that if he raised $2 million in campaign funds that only about $100,000 would actually be spent on the election. The rest would go to expenses to raise funds. In fact, if he spent the same way, his son would get $1 for every $5 spent on the election.

The Constitution-Journal did try to ask Mr. Barr about what appears to be deceptive fund raising and poor management but told them, “I won’t be cross-examined.”

I’m not saying I want him to spend the money more wisely either. After all Barr is rather Right-wing and very much opposed to libertarian thinking. The people he funded are not the good guys. They are big government, theocratically inclined Republicans. And I guess I’m glad that Barr is wasting most of the funds he raises in order to raise more funds to pay for more fund raising. I certainly don’t want the Statist on the Barr donation list to get more money. But remember that if Barr somehow manages to bamboozle enough Libertarian Party delegates into thinking he is a libertarian and ought to be the LP presidential candidate then he’ll get his hands on the party mailing list as well.

There is already a shortage of funds for good libertarian causes (FEE, ISIL, CATO, Reason, etc). We certainly don’t need a con man like Barr sinking his teeth into the LP fund-raising list and exploiting the same way he has ripped off Republicans.

NOTICE: This blog may be a little quite for the next few days as I leave for Denver for the Libertarian Party convention. Certainly, in my private capacity, I will doing my damn best to see to it that conservative cretins like Barr and Root are not nominated by the Party. If they are then I might have to wear a suicide vest to closing session. : ) I hear they are the chic rage these days. My problem is, where do I find shoes to match?

This is good -- and this is funny.

The California Supreme Court has said that a ban on gay marriage is not kosher. The state constitution guarantees equal protection under the law and this equality was denied by the ban. The court had been considered somewhat conservative so the ruling was not assured.

The ban was immediately denounced by Catholic bishops -- perhaps because age restrictions would still apply as they are equally enforced (even for altar boys). Governor Schwarzenegger said that he would oppose any attempts to overturn the ruling. Conservatives were foaming at the mouth of course. And they immediately started threatening to overturn the measure through a referendum.

But I think that would be a disaster for them. Let us recount a few facts from recent years. One is that when religion-addicts in Massachusetts tried to overturn the measure they had a major problem. After a few of years of gay couples marrying none of the apocalyptic results predicted by the Bible-beaters actually came to pass. Worse yet a lot of people got used to the idea. Even conservatives in the legislature started switching sides on the issue. By the time the signatures were collected to force the legislature to consider a referendum the tide had turned.

Supporters of the referendum had lost their seats in local elections, and with the numbers who had changed their minds, the anti-gay crusaders suddenly found they were in a decided minority. Then the Right-wing loonies tried to push a referendum in Arizona, the Goldwater state, to ban gay marriage. Voters rejected the ban.

Polls have shown that a majority of Californians are comfortable with the idea of same-sex marriage. If I were these sheet-wearing morons I'd squash the referendum idea immediately. A win would be hard going for them, very hard. And a lose in the most populous state of the union would be a major setback. They are better off pretending that the court is "attacking the will of the people" than proving that the people have moved on while the Christianists are still in the Dark Ages.

I'm almost tempted to sign a petition to put the damn thing on the ballot just because I think the it would lose, gay marriage would be affirmed, and a vote doing so in California would be a major blow to the Theopublicans. They simply can't afford to lose a popular vote on the issue and I think they will.

The Theopublicans knew the tide was turning against them. That is precisely why they tried to enshrine anti-gay bigotry in state constitution's. They wanted a dam which would prevent gay marriage. But those amendments are a temporary wall at best.

Even young Christians aren't lining up with the old farts in the pulpits anymore -- not on this issue. And the young in general are not sure why the presence of gay people sends some adults into a frenzy. (Freud might have some theories but I won't elaborate.)

As a sign of how much trouble gay marriage bans would have in California even the judge who wrote the dissent against the measure started her dissent stating that she wants California to legalize gay marriage herself.

Another problem for the opponents of gay marriage is that are a dying breed -- literally. It tends to be old people who get most hysterical about the issue not the young. And old voters tend to die more than young voters. And young voters who get older tend not to change their views that much as they age. So with each generation the numbers upset by the matter shrinks. It was the same when the Religious-Right predicted disasters if interracial marriage was allowed.

One sign of this shift can be found in that quintessential American television show -- the soaps. Every one of the soaps was losing viewers under the age of 34 -- every one but one. The one in question was As the World Turns. A year ago the soap added a gay plot line of the relationship between Luke and Noah. In one show they kissed and the fundamentalists had fits. The American Family Association wanted a boycott. Ratings went up. More and more young viewers started watching the show. At this point the network found they had another problem. Viewers were getting pissed off that the couple were at arms-length for episode after episode. They started webesites with countdowns of how long it had been since the two had kissed. For the record it was 211 days. Well the drought is over and young viewers have turned a show that was considered for the older crowd into a new young fad.

Now the fundies and farts might claim that Hollywood is cramming that down the throats of the viewers (a phrase they use often in such issues to the snickers of many). But Hollywood can "cram" all they want but they can't force people to watch. And the increase in popularity with the show indicates that a lot of people are no longer as mired in the 14th century as some Georgia tent revivalist.

So what is the funny aspect in this? Anti-gay Bob Barr jumped in and made a statement. Barr is pretending to be a libertarian in order to convince the Libertarian Party to nominate him president. He is the author of the odious Defense of Marriage Act. Barr now pretends "the primary reason for which I authored the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 was to ensure that each state remained free to determine for its citizens the basis on which marriage would be recognized within its borders..." Of course they were already free to do that. So his measure didn't change that at all. The only real change he pushed through was to impose a federal definition of marriage which explicitly denied rights to gay couples in any federal matter.

So even if a US citizen in California legally marries his or her foreign partner the Feds will still deport the partner. Under Barr's law there is no possibility of recognizing the marriage when it comes to immigration. Gee, Bob, what a sweetie you are!

I am not at all convinced that the individual states have the right to violate equal protection before the law. Apparently Mr. Barr would have been just peachy with Virginia cops when they broke into the bedroom of the Lovings, the incident that lead to the Supreme Court overturning bans on interracial marriages. So carting people off to jail for being legally married, as the Lovings were, would be a proper function of government in the world of Bob Barr.

Barr is in trouble when it comes to seeking the Libertarian Party nomination. Some in the party are happy to abandon all principles in order to attract more votes. They are even willing to run non-libertarians as the spokesman for what purports to be a libertarian party. But quite a few Libertarians are no feeling comfortable with the move. There is a backlash against the neo-con and theo-con Republicans who have infiltrated seeking to promote themselves at the expense of the party. Only time will tell what they will do.

Libertarians might want to take some advice from Mark Twain. Twain wrote to William Dean Howell, in 1884, "A man's first duty is to his own conscience & honor——the Party & the country come second to that, & never first... the only necessary thing to do, as I understand it, is that a man shall keep himself clean, (by withholding his vote for an improper man), even though the Party & the country go to destruction in consequence."

Photo: the famous kiss from As the World Turns. If you missed the story of Noah and Luke fans have all the clips at Youtube. So far the network is smart in not demanding they be pulled down. It is the Youtube clips that sent them all those young viewers that are boosting their ratings and advertising dollars.

Bob Barr lies about libertarians while funding Republicans.

Right-wing bigot Bob Barr continues his campaign of lying to the public as to what it means to be a libertarian. This time the Village Voice questioned Barr’s bigoted anti-gay legislation and asked him how he justifies his statist legislation with seeking the Libertarian nomination. Barr answers by lying about what libertarianism is about.

He says that the positions he took in Congress, to strip gay couple of any rights at the federal level, “was based on the principle of federalism.” There are two aspects to his disgusting legislation. One said that no state need have to recognize the rights of gay couples to marry. The other mandated that no federal agency is allowed to grant any rights to gay couples that it grants to straight couples.

He continually downplays the aspect of his legislation that actually had an impact -- stripping gay couples of any rights in regards to anything federal -- including the right to have their life partners immigrate to live with them. Barr’s law demands that gay couples be treated as second class citizens in their own country. That is bigotry, raw and plain. And it is not even federalism, it was the imposition of bigotry into the federal legal code. It was an open attack on gay couples and it is not forgiveable since Barr himself sees nothing wrong with being a bigot.

Next Barr twists libertarianism by saying that his bigoted law is “a fundamentally sound, libertarian-oriented position on federalism.” Barr might be excused for being wrong simply because he has no idea what libertarianism is about. After all he is not now a libertarian and never has been.

Libertarianism has position about the rights of individuals in relationship to one another. It also have positions about rights of individuals in relation to the government or the state. But libertarianism per se says nothing, absolutely nothing, about the relationship of one government agency toward another.

A libertarian might be a federalist or might not be. But what a libertarian does say is that no government has the right to violate the rights of individuals. That includes the fifty states. Barr’s position is that the states do have that right. That is conservative, power-politics. That is statism. That is another form of the “divine right” theory of political entities--be they the king or the legislature--to regulate the lives of people.

Barr’s position is merely that he prefers to have a different level of government violating rights. The Libertarian view is that no level of government ought to violate rights. Barr’s view is not a variant of the libertarian view -- it is the polar opposite of the libertarian view.

Libertarians might argue over whether or not the state should exist at all. And they might argue over what form government should take if it did exist. But you can’t be a libertarian and say that government has the right to violate individual liberty and rights. Barr is not defending individual rights. He is defending the power of specific government entities to violate rights. He is an advocate of state power, just as Hillary or Bush or Obama is. His difference is merely over which state entity weilds that power. Libertarians argue that no state agency, at any level, is morally permitted to violate the rights of individuals. Barr does not share that view.

Barr gives a little spiel about how since 9/11 he has reconsidered his position on “government control in certain areas”. What he has basically said, however, is that he wants that control transferred to the states. He is not against the war on drugs. He has made that clear. He wants states enforcing drug laws and has actually argued that this will be more efficient.

What is a more efficient war on drugs? Or more precisely what is a more efficient war on drug users? Would it be more arrests? More no-knock dawn raids? More people in prison? This alone makes it clear that Bob Barr is a fraud.

At the same time Barr is pretending to be a big Libertarian he is channeling funds to Republican candidates around the country. How many libertarians know that? Barr is actually helping fund Republican candidates running against Libertarian candidates.

While Libertarians in states like Montana, Florida, Colorado, Alabama, Connecticut, Oregon, Pennsylvannia, New Hampshire, Maryland, Georgia, Minnesota, Idaho, Arizona, Virginia, South Carolina, Nebreska, North Carolina, Texas and Ohio have been working to try and build a Libertarian Party there, Bob Barr has been sending cash to their opponents. He has been donating money to campaigns aimed to influence voters to NOT vote Libertarian but Republican instead.

And many of the recipients of Barr’s cash are the most Right-wing, anti-individual liberty type of Theopublicans you can imagine. Many of them are Southern Christianists associated with the Religious Right. This includes people who repeatedly take anti-libertarian views on the major issues. Barr continues to fund Big Government Republican candidates while asking Libertarians to fund him.

Barr says he is a Libertarian and a libertarian. His views show he is not a libertarian. And his continual support of Big Government Republican candidates in 19 states shows he is not a Libertarian either.

Photo: As a reminder of Barr's ugly politics I illustrate this article with the photo of him speaking to a conference of white supremacists and anti-semites. What a lovely campaign photo for the Libertarian Party to use if they nominate him. Should I wear my sheets to the party convention?