The Libertarian Defense Caucus Proudly Announces Its New Website

The Libertarian Defense Caucus is proud to announce it has a new official website.

(Just click on the post heading to go to the new website)

The members of The Libertarian Defense Caucus will still be tinkering with the final layout and overall design in the weeks and months ahead.

The mission of The Libertarian Defense Caucus remains unchanged. The LDC is the strong defense caucus within the Libertarian Party, and libertarians organizing within the GOP.

This website http://www.libertariandefensecaucus.blogspot.com, will remain active and will continue to be updated. This site will eventually become the LDC's official blog.

Please visit the new website often.

LDC Calls Out VP Nominee Root On His Chronic Foreign Policy Flip Flopping And Hand Gun Hypocrisy

By Kevin Bjornson.

I could understand why Root would swing to the left on foreign policyin order to secure the LP nomination. But now that he is a nominee,why does he continue to say the US shouldn't be involved in war in Iraq?

Even if all Americans were allowed to have firearms (including thoseconvicted under unjust laws), that would only help for personalprotection against armed robbers and other non-governmentalaggessors. The day when militias could be a counter-weightagainst government, or contribute significantly to national defense, are long gone.

If the US military were defeated in the global war on Jihadists,most likely by the kind of withdrawals Root seems to beendorsing, having firearms in private possession does seema rather desperate idea for defense against this threat, don't you think?

(What Follows is the Press Release From The Barr/Root Presidential Campaign).

For Immediate Release:
Supreme Court Gun Rights Decision
Libertarian VP Nominee ROOT Applauds
June 26, 2008 - Las Vegas, Nevada

Wayne Allyn Root, Libertarian Vice Presidential nominee has
announced his support of the US Supreme Court's historic
decision today. Our Supreme Court Justices have decided in
favor of firearm rights for all Americans.
Root, an enthusiastic gun owner himself, believes all law
abiding Americans should have the right to keep and bear
arms to protect themselves, their families and property.
Root stated, “As a Jewish American, I understand the
importance of gun rights. The first thing Adolph Hitler did
before arresting, imprisoning, torturing and murdering millions
of Jews - including my relatives - was to take their guns away.
The right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right of
all Americans. That's why I'm a proud member of the Gun
Owners of America (GOA) and Jews for the Preservation
of Firearms Ownership (JPFO).”
"It's also why I'm a Libertarian"
Root continued, “This decision upholds the precious Second
Amendment of our Constitution protecting the rights of all gun
owners and Americans. As our Founding Fathers intended."
It should now be clear that power-hungry politicians and over-
reaching bureaucrats can't disarm the law-abiding Americans...
No matter where they live, no matter the color of their skin.
As Americans, we all have the same unalienable right to
defend ourselves and our families.
Urban areas with stringent gun control laws have far higher
crime rates, than where rights of gun owners are protected.
Now, citizens of Washington, D.C. will have the same right
to defend themselves as other law-abiding Americans across
this great land.
The Supreme Court has unequivocally stated that power- as
per the Constitution- does not belong to Big Brother, it
belongs to us. We, the American people.
"This proves once again this is the greatest nation in history.
"God Bless America.”
For more information on the views of Wayne Root, please visit:
www.ROOTforAmerica.com or www.BobBarr2008.com

Bob Barr is Not a Libertarian.

I watched the entire C-SPAN television coverage of the national convention. I am disappointed, but not surprised that Congressman Barr captured the presidential nomination. I suspected he would make use of his considerable sway within the LP to obtain the presidential nomination, after the voting went on for several ballots. I would have much preferred Root.

However, I have never been involved in the LP (nor will I ever), so therefore, the Party should nominate whomever they wish, of course.

As a strong McCain -backer, I cannot help but fear what effect Barr's candidacy will now have on the general election. I am fearful that Barr could tip some swing states to Obama. I know for a fact that Obama's team now believes they have a very good chance of capturing Georgia, since Barr has home state advantage and will receive a sufficient amount of votes that otherwise would have gone to McCain. The liberal press will play up Barr's candidacy in an effort to fracture the conservative vote and thereby helping give Obama the presidency.

I also continue to question Barr's libertarianism. The National Review wrote a piece by its editorial board warning libertarians about Barr's congressional record. You should read the piece on our website in another article.

Also articles such as this one from moderate libertarians have raised questions in my mind about whether the former Congressman is truly a convert to libertarianism, or perhaps, and more likely, a political opportunist.
http://www.theprometheusinstitute.org/politics/blogarchive/94-blog/658-bob-barr-libertarian-presidential-candidateis-this-a-joke#comments

Congressman Barr is not a supporter of the Iraq War, nor is he even a strong supporter of the Afghanistan War. He is always very vague about his Afghanistan position. He insists that the United States should not engage in nation building anywhere in the world, including Afghanistan. Our operations in that nation remain more counter-terrorism than nation building, particularly along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. Was the United States supposed to allow brutal Afghan Warlords to seize control of various spheres of influence throughout Afghanistan? Would such a scenario have been better than the toppled Taliban?

These are all questions strong defense libertarians, indeed all libertarians, should be asking of Congressman Barr in the months ahead. Any individual may change his or her mind when presented with contrary information that forces them to re- evaluate their earlier position. However, the former congressman has changed his mind on so many fundamental, core beliefs, that it is not unreasonable to ask the former congressman if he has changed his beliefs out of principle , or rather out of political expediency? As he is now the presidential nominee for The Libertarian Party, this author hopes this questions are asked of the former congressman.

This writer is unable to endorse Congressman Barr because of his opposition to the war in Iraq. For me, this is the most important issue for the upcoming presidential election. I have supported the war since its commencement, and now that the CIA is reporting that Al - Qadea in Iraq is at long last, "decimated", I see the Iraqi people only now beginning to feel the light of liberty.

Senator John McCain is this writer's candidate. I find him courageous, trustworthy, and firmly grounded in a world that is swirling around us. I would trust him with my life, and while as a moderate libertarian I do not concur with many of the Senator's social issues, I would not hesitate to trust my life in the hands of Senator McCain. I believe with all my heart and the deepest of my convictions that Senator McCain would be a president who would secure the blessings of liberty for my future children, and their children.

I wish Congressman Barr the best, and hope he brings attention to libertarian policies in a nation thirsting for them. I simply do not believe he is in possession of the moral character nor courage I believe to be necessary for the President of The United States.

By Ryan Christiano 2008. All Rights Reserved.
The author may be contacted via e - mail at buzzy@student.fdu.edu

Skip This Barr - A National Review Editorial Questions Bob Barr's libertarianism

Skip This Barr
By the Editors

Some candidates make themselves ridiculous by running for president over and over: Stassen, Buchanan, Keyes. Others make themselves ridiculous by running at all. Enter former Republican congressman Bob Barr.

He has announced his candidacy for the nomination of the Libertarian party, which holds its convention this weekend. Barr served four terms in Congress in Georgia before getting trounced in a 2002 primary fight against Rep. John Linder sparked by redistricting. This is not a natural path to the presidency. The American Civil Liberties Union hired him as a consultant after 9/11 and he’s been expanding on a libertarian streak he had in Congress — and shedding his otherwise orthodox right-wing views — ever since.

The point of a candidacy like Barr’s is at least to highlight and defend a worldview. But Barr has never been a particularly effective spokesman for his views, even views that were long-held. The new Barr is a non-interventionist anti-government purist committed to a thoroughgoing civil libertarianism. In Congress, he voted for the Iraq war, an early version of the prescription-drug program, and the Patriot Act. As the Cato Institute’s Daniel Griswold has pointed out, he voted with protectionists to secure the interests of cotton farmers and the textile industry in his district.

The old Barr was a scourge of illegal drugs. He was a member of the Speaker’s Task Force for a Drug-Free America and authored the Barr amendment, which blocked implementation of a voter initiative to legalize medical marijuana in the District of Columbia. Last year, he signed on with the Marijuana Policy Project to work to repeal his own handiwork, explaining that the expansion of governmental powers after 9/11 had transformed his view on the war on drugs.

We don’t begrudge anyone the right to change their views, and applaud Barr’s change on medical marijuana. But on the war on terror, he’s simply wrong, opposing laws that have updated and rationalized the government’s powers to counter terrorism, and doing so while balancing respect for constitutional liberties with the need for public safety. Barr has resorted to the most demagogic arguments against the laws, including hysteria over the “library search” provision of the Patriot Act.

In a close presidential race, every vote is important. The press is speculating that Barr could be John McCain’s Nader. We doubt it. It will probably be Barr’s fate to be ignored, and those libertarians who care about the credibility of their cause should be glad of it.

Which Bob Barr is Running for President

John Nichols Tue May 27, 10:03 PM ET
The Nation -- Statements made by political parties, especially around the time of their nominating conventions are, necessarily, suspect.

So what should we make of the Libertarian Party's latest pronouncement?
Noting the nomination of former Georgia Republican Congressman Bob Barr as the party's 2008 presidential candidate, the Libertarians declare: "Republicans and Democrats have good reason to fear a candidate like Barr, who refuses to accept the 'business-as-usual' attitude of the current political establishment."

Perhaps.

Republicans, especially, fear Barr.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, a fellow Georgian who never got on with Barr, says, "Bob Barr will make it marginally easier for Barack Obama to become president. That outcome threatens every libertarian value Barr professes to champion."

The conservative Washington Times goes further, suggesting that, "Republicans, both publicly and behind the scenes, are saying that a Barr run could... sink Mr. McCain's Republican candidacy in the general election."

This may be the case.

But the key word here is "may."

The extent to which Barr poses a real threat will depend on the sort of campaign he mounts. At this point, even Libertarians remain unsure of what to expect from their new nominee -- and relatively new party member. (It was only after the 2006 elections that Barr officially left the GOP for the Libertarian fold.)

To be sure, a former congressman with a fiery speaking style, some maverick credentials and the ability to attract a crowd is a catch for a small party that has struggled in recent years to gain the attention and presidential votes that it seemed to be better at winning a quarter century ago. (The party's record-high national vote up to this point came in 1980, when nominee Ed Clark took almost a million votes and more than one percent of the total turnout.)

Barr is more prominent than recent Libertarian nominees. In fact, he is a good deal better known as he accepts the party's designation this year than the previous Republican congressman turned Libertarian nominee, a fellow named Ron Paul, was at the time of his 1988 run on the Libertarian line.

Barr is not without some libertarian -- or, at the least, constitutional -- credentials. Toward the end of his tenure in the House, when he joined California Democrat Maxine Waters in challenging the worst excesses of the Patriot Act, Barr showed a willingness to break with both big parties on some important civil liberties issues.

But Barr, the bulldog battler for the impeachment of Democratic President Bill Clinton back in 1998 and 1999, never quite came around -- as other principled conservatives such as former Reagan administration lawyer Bruce Fein did -- to actively supporting moves to hold Republican President George Bush to account.

For all his bluster -- and his acknowledgment that Bush had broken laws -- Barr could never muster the independence to call for the impeachment of a Republican president.

That was because, until rather recently, Barr struggled with the question of whether he really wanted to make a clean break with the Grand Old Party, which had never been all that good to him but where he had made his political home for decades.

The decision to join the Libertarians marked that formal break.

But Barr has yet to decide whether he will run as as a hybrid Republican-Libertarian or as a genuine "pox-on-both-their-houses" Libertarian. The uncertainty about whether the former Republican had really made "the switch" troubled many committed Libertarians -- especially those who describe themselves as both "big-L" and "small-l" adherents of the party's traditional views regarding government.

Barr has softened somewhat on drug-policy issues, for instance, but he was once one of the most over-the-top advocates in Congress for big-government interventions to tell Americans what drugs they can consume recreationally or medicinally (an ardent advocate for militarizing the "War on Drugs" as recently as 2002, he was a a member during his days in the House of the Speaker's Task Force for a Drug-Free America), what medical treatments they could utilize (he was one of the most ardently anti-choice members of the House), who they could marry (he authored and sponsored the Defense of Marriage Act) and how they could worship (he once proposed that the Pentagon bar the practice of Wicca in the military).

When Barr was booted from Congress in 2002, Libertarians actually ran television ads condemning him as the worst sort of authoritarian.

Now, he's their candidate.

But it was not an easy embrace.

At the Libertarian Party convention in Denver, it took six ballots to actually nominate Barr. He finally beat party stalwart Mary Ruwart (a former presidential and vice-presidential candidate) by the somewhat less than stunning margin of 324-276.

Needless to say, the convention choice did not resolve whether Barr will campaign as a conservative Republican running as a Libertarian, or a real Libertarian.

How Barr resolves this quandary will determine whether the Libertarian nominee is going to present a serious threat to McCain. If he just presents himself as a conservative Republican who has found a friendly ballot line, he won't make much of an impression. When all is said and done, movement conservatives are exceptionally likely to rally behind McCain -- just as they rallied behind George Herbert Walker Bush back in 1988. On the other hand, if Barr enters the fall competition with a campaign message that extends from Ron Paul's renegade run for this year's Republican nod -- which attracted so much internet energy, money and support from young idealists -- he might yet be the menace that Newt Gingrich describes, and fears.

An LDC Presence on Newsvine

I have been very active at the website Newsvine, which allows users to "seed" articles from around the web, as well as write originals. These often lead to very fierce debate, and great exposure. Groups can form and recruit members. Often discussions will lead to hundreds of comments, which can be voted on. The articles themselves can be voted "up the vine" as they gain exposure.

This has been a hugely useful forum for my own agenda--advocating my neoconservative/conservatarian beliefs and my support of Israel and denouncement of terrorism and rogue states such as Iran.

I believe that an LDC presence on Newsvine (a group plus actively seeding/writing members) would be hugely beneficial to the LDC cause.

It's very easy to sign up, and someone (Ryan?) could start a group there dedicated to the Libertarian Defense Caucus. I think the positions of the LDC are important and controversial enough to warrant a great level of debate at the site--and it would be a very useful way to post relevant news to the group.

Just my two cents. If anyone has questions about Newsvine, let me know!

~Erik

Neolibertarianism and the LDC

by E.D. Kain

There are many changes occurring here at the LDC, the most exciting of which is the move of the Caucus toward affiliation with the movement. For those of you who don’t know, Neolibertarianism is basically a denial of the Libertarian Party’s non-interventionist politics. In essence, it is a sort of merger between Neoconservatism and Libertarianism. The way I like to think of it is this: Neolibertarianism is Libertarianism for a Global Economy.

Indeed, one of the most troubling aspects of the Libertarian movement is its refusal to see the modern world and the modern economy for what it is. We cannot, as many Libertarians would have us, withdraw our military from its world-wide bases. We cannot leave our defenses down in the face of a rising Chinese threat, an ever more hostile Russia, and the fact that radical Islamists are going to great lengths to ensure our destruction and the destruction of our allies.

Neolibertarians embrace these facts without sacrificing their principles of individual liberty, freedom, and a belief that most legislation and taxation should occur at a local level rather than at the Federal level. They manage to remain pro-market while also remaining pro-defense. In many ways, the Neolibertarian movement is closely aligned to the Secular wing of the Republican Party. They have been called Republitarians in the past.

In a global economy, we must remain strong internationally. This includes our military might as well as our economic presence. World peace may be a pipe dream–but world security can exist if free and democratic nations chose to enforce it. America, the UK, Israel and other allies must maintain strong defenses to provide security for the world, commerce, and the stability of international relations. This is the spirit of Neoconservatism. Add to this foreign policy a domestic policy advocating freedom above all things, and you get Neolibertarianism.

I hope that the ideals of Neolibertarianism will be reinforced by the activism and publications of the LDC now and into the future.

[Erik Kain is a writer and member of the Libertarian Defense Caucus living in Arizona]