I’m inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt in part because power-hungry manipulators are not likely to seek out the LP as their vehicle.

It’s just disgraceful the way Barr is trying to ride the coat tails of the Ron Paul Revolution as if he deserves anywhere near the same respect and trust. His shilling trolls are relentless and disrespectful towards Ron Paul and his supporters on all the forums. No thanks.

Chuck Baldwin doesn’t leave a bad taste in my mouth like former CIA member Barr and his neo-Libertarian party, so I’ll be choosing him since Ron Paul will not be an option.

for the short term Election ‘08 vote, i remain convinced the best thing we can do for liberty with our vote is to support Bob Barr.

Barr is the loudest pro-LIBERTY vote message to the Federal & State governments, including the major parties, thus also serving to help the Republican Liberty Caucus and Democratic Freedom Caucus reform efforts.

Barr will be on the ballot in most states. Chuck Baldwin will be a write-in, and therefore will receive a fraction of the pro-LIBERTY vote.

Barr’s polling potential could possibly launch him into the Presidential debates, which would surely shake up the status quo Socialist/Fascist authoritarians far more than did Perot.

as similar in other states, if either Bob Barr or Mike Munger (for NC governor) takes at least 2%, the Libertarian Party will remain on the NC ballot for next election without needing a burdensome petition drive — that, in and of itself, is another victory for liberty.

regardless of concerns over his libertarian conversion, how could voting for anyone other than Bob Barr send a stronger pro-LIBERTY message in Election ‘08?

remember, the objective here is not to win an election, but to send the loudest pro-LIBERTY message to DC we can to get those anti-Constitutional bureaucrats nervous!

this is a MAJOR window of opportunity for the greater liberty movement — i pray my fellow pro-LIBERTY rEVOLutionists will not blow it!

bernard baruch carman

Just as Lew Rockwell briefly summarized the first part of Wayne Root’s article, you briefly summarized Wayne Root’s neocon rant.

Wayne Root is clueless about what motivates terrorism. In the 1980s, Ayatollah Khomeni tried to foment attacks against America using the exact arguments that Wayne Root summarized in his article. He failed; the Muslim world could have cared less. It took Osama bin Laden to whip Muslim fascists into a frenzy. Bin Laden’s anger about America’s foreign interventions worked like a charm; everybody and their brother wanted to be suicide bombers.

Yes, we must be strong against terrorism. Twice since 9/11, Ron Paul has proposed legislation involving Letters of Marque to hire what amounts to corporate bounty hunters in order to hunt down, capture, and kill terrorist leaders such as Osama bin Laden. The cost of doing this would be a tiny fraction of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. At the same time, Ron Paul wants to bring home troops from around the world to defend our own borders rather than inciting anti-Americanism around the world. The former head of the CIA’s Osama bin Laden unit has clearly indicated that Ron Paul’s plan is the only one that has any chance of stopping thugs like Osama bin Laden.

Wayne Root is delusional if he thanks that the USA can have its cake and eat it too. Endless preemptive war is 100% incompatible with freedom. As Harry Browne and other eminent libertarians have demonstrated, the state *always* clamps down on freedom during times of war. That is why free republics avoid war unless they are attacked by other nations. And when we go to war, Congress must declare war and go all out to win it. We have not done that since World War II.

Congressman Paul was closest, but is no longer available.

Senator Obama is a great speaker but seems to think the government is the answer to all domestic economic concerns, whether authorized by the Constitution or not, whether that transfer of wealth would speed the country to ruin or not.

Senator McCain represents a party which is likely to provide opposition towards a probable Democrat-controlled congress, but seems to think the American military is the answer to all international concerns, whether authorized by the Constitution or not, whether that transfer of wealth from Americans to foreign interests would speed the country to ruin or not.

Mr. Barr espouses mostly libertarian principles, but is mostly unproven in his change of heart.

I don’t yet know enough about Mr. Baldwin, but an initial read of the issues section of his website may put him in the lead for me.

At this moment, the two candidates who come closest to supporting my interests in liberty, limited government, and responsible monetary policy are Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin. Senators Obama and McCain simply do not come close (especially with regard to monetary policy). I won’t abstain from voting for president, so for me, it’ll be either Barr or Baldwin.

If another reader finds Barr unacceptable, I can understand that position, but would ask who he supports as an alternative.

I just read the full post from Root’s site the Rockwell partially copied. Root is very harsh on the Islamic extremists, and wants a strong anti-terrorist program for the US, but that in no way makes him a neo-con.

If wanting a strong anti-terrorist program makes you a neo-con then many libertarians and most of the country are neo-cons.

“It’s tough for me to find an issue where Ron Paul and I disagree. We’re both fiscal conservatives. We’re both for limited constitutional government. We both would cut the size and scope of the federal government. We both support States’ Rights and would solve most issues on the state and local level.

It is not our duty to nation build.
It is not our duty to install democracy around the world.
It is not our duty to risk our troops’ lives and waste billions of taxpayer dollars to prop up foreign governments.
”

* “Barr is a co-sponsor of H. Res. 197, ‘Stop U.N. Gun Ban.’”

* “Barr supports H.R. 2615 ‘Stop National Medical ID and the Patient Privacy Protection Act.’”

* “Barr is a leading defender of civil liberties. He introduced legislation that forces the National Security Agency’s Project ECHELON to provide a full accounting to the Congress of their covert monitoring of millions of phone calls, faxes, and emails.”

* “He led the fight against National ID Card proposals and introduced legislation in 1998 to check the federal government’s abuse of wire-tapping laws — including the use of roving wiretaps — and also opposed governmental interception of cellular phone calls.”

* “He introduced legislation to mandate that the federal government issue ‘Privacy Impact Statements’ every time it issues a new rule or regulation.”

* “He was a chief sponsor of a law to limit abuses of the civil asset forfeiture statutes.”

* “He fought against OSHA regulations and to limit small business vulnerability to frivolous labor litigation.”

* “He is a board member of the National Rifle Association, and a staunch defender of the right of Americans to own and use firearms. He has introduced and sponsored legislation to block litigation against gun manufacturers for the acts of their customers and to limit any background checks and mandate they be conducted ‘instantly.’”

* “Barr has succinctly advocated the principle that while criminals must be punished to the full extent of the law, their civil liberties must be protected with even more vigor.”

* “He is a staunch defender of American sovereignty and opposes the executive branch’s overzealous use of our military abroad he even filed suit against President Clinton’s war in Kosovo without congressional approval.”

* “He is a fierce critic of the United Nations — and to a lesser degree NATO — and has consistently supported efforts to withdraw U.S. membership from the United Nations.”

* “He co-sponsored a committee amendment to withdraw the U.S. from the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.”

* “Since his first day in Congress back in 1995, Barr has tirelessly fought to eliminate the Internal Revenue Code, supported the “flat tax” proposal, and consistently supported passage of a constitutional amendment requiring a two-thirds supermajority of Congress to raise taxes.”

* “He was an early supporter of lowering the capital gains tax and recently he introduced legislation to provide tax credits for educators: public, private, and home school.”

* “More than any other member of the Georgia delegation, Congressman Barr has parted with the Republican majority to vote against bloated “pork barrel” spending.”

* “He has continually fought the unconstitutional [McCain/Feingold] ‘campaign finance reforms.’ Defending our fundamental rights, he has filed a lawsuit to prevent implementation of the recently passed legislation.”

Talk? Positions? Rhetoric? Meaningless. What about some actual PROOF or one single vote Barr has cast backing up what he “says” he believes in?

Some of us weren’t born yesterday, so take your arguments somewhere else — maybe over to the Obama side, where they seem to love empty rhetoric with an appalling record that contradicts everything that comes of their mouth.

The cult of personality observation has merit too. Myself, I agreed with Paul on almost everything policy wise, but his delivery and charisma left something to be desired. I fear that some people really liked the rough-around-the-edges delivery more than the message. Honestly, hearing Barr talk to the media is music to my ears without the cringe moments I had with Paul.