The power culture in DC ignores the Constitution because it is in their best interest to do so. Perhaps our founders were stupid for expecting a unit of law-making force and power (the government) to remain restrained by a document (the Constitution) that those (the citizenry) who are bound by the laws are supposed to enforce. No, it’s not perfect, but it has worked, more or less, for over 200+ years. The big question of the current generation seems to be how do we keep it from slipping away completely? Will America be America in 10 years? The writing on the wall says ‘no’, but it is our duty to do everything in our power to change that writing to say ‘yes’.

Michael Maresco has done more than most in this effort. Last week he completed his most recent journey across America via bicycle in an effort to raise awareness about America’s road from freedom to fascism. To me and many others he is the ultimate liberty hero. People like Michael give me hope. Please check out the site dedicated to his ride. Read through his travel log, look at the pictures, and be inspired by what you witness. He shows us all what is still great about America through the people he met and the places he’s seen. See LibertyRider.com.

Now a quick note on the name of this web site. I want to make it clear that I never intended to be dubbed THE Liberty Maven. I’ve been called that and I get uncomfortable every time it happens. The truth is that the domain name was available when we (Mike Miller and I) were trying to come up with a name for the site and it sounded good, so we got it. The intent of the name is to let everyone know that it is they who need to become liberty mavens. Having a country of liberty mavens is the goal. That goal may not be attainable, kind of like the “pursuit of happiness”, but always reaching for it is the important thing. I also want to thank you for continuing to read Liberty Maven. We don’t thank our readers enough. It is because of you that the site still exists and remains a passion for me and our other contributors. Thank you.

Now let’s talk about money bombs and 2010 elections. Peter Schiff needs to be  shown some love in the form of monetary contributions to his exploratory committee. If he’s going to run against Chris Dodd he’s going to need a lot of money. In light of that various freedom loving people have pooled together for a week long money bomb event dubbed the Schiffathon. It culminates with the money bomb day on August 7th. Check out www.Schiffathon.com for details. There is no better candidate to unseat Dodd than Schiff. Please show him that he has our support by donating on August 7th. His campaign website is www.SchiffForSenate.com. If Schiff should decide not to run all exploratory donations will be refunded.

Ron Paul’s son Rand is also readying himself for his own Senate campaign in Kentucky. He stated all along that if Jim Bunning were to not seek re-election then he would run. Well, this week Bunning announced he would not be seeking re-election so that obstacle is out of the way. I imagine we’ll find out fairly soon that Rand has officially joined the race. At this point it is just a formality. His primary opponent will be establishment-loving Republican Trey Grayson who has raised over $600k for his own exploratory committee. Rand has raised over $160k.

All eyes are going to be on Rand Paul’s own money bomb on August 20th, his father’s birthday. The goal is $1 million, which would be an amazing feat. If that goal is met it would likely cause a lot of press, probably even national press. It would also immediately make Rand Paul a formidable opponent of Grayson to more than just the Ron Paul faithful. Please pledge at RunRandRun.com to help him toward the $1 million. Rand Paul’s campaign site is RandPaul2010.com.

People always wonder, “what can I do to help bring change to DC?”. Well, donating to both Peter Schiff and Rand Paul is a great start.

And now some random thoughts, quotes, and tweets:

• The size of government keeps getting blown up like a balloon that people think will never pop. People are wrong.

• The government paid me to do it, but I worked for the Constitution. – Judge Andrew Napolitano

• Those who surrender Liberty for goverment health care deserve neither. – @RUQRU on Twitter

• Did you hear the good news? We’re in the middle of a jobless recovery. Apparently, it’s similar to a cropless harvest. – @aristoddler on Twitter

• Socialism turns innovative dazzling dreamers into lazy apathetic cynics. Capitalism makes dreams possible.

• It’s time to “Clockwork Orange” Congress. Make them deathly ill when they attempt to vote for more spending.

• Liquidity is a lot like liquid, it’s a lot easier to spill than to un-spill. – Peter Schiff

• If the government program you’re proposing is really such a good investment, why is it that only the government is willing to make it? – Harry Browne

And my own favorite quote of the week:

• Some people say Libertarians want anarchy. But anarchy is what we have now. Our cities aren’t safe, our schools are centers of violence and the politicians have turned the rule of law into a chaotic web of regulations and mandates. Libertarians want to restore order by removing the destabilizing influence of government. – Harry Browne

Have a freedom-filled weekend!

In those early years and up until the economic crisis of last year Ron Paul was brushed off as crazy whenever he brought up the unchecked powers of the Federal Reserve. Once the bailouts began and continued it became politically expedient to be more like Ron Paul. That is, as long as you are talking about economics. On foreign policy Ron Paul is still apparently crazy for firmly believing in non-intervention.

I am not alone among the Ron Paul faithful when I say that I’m very tired of reading articles with any of the following labels attributed to Ron Paul:

While everyone else is celebrating the “4th of July” I’m celebrating Independence Day. On this Independence Day I’m celebrating by remembering the man that spoke with my voice before I knew what my voice was. Browne wrote an article on July 4th, 2003 (3 years before he died) called, “Uncelebrating the 4th of July“.

The article sums up perfectly how I feel about Independence Day right now. As was so often the case, Harry Browne was years ahead of his time.

I remember around that same year (2003) I was one of those libertarians that supported the Iraq war. I was a libertarian-in-progress or maybe some today would have called me a “Wayne Allyn Root” libertarian. I wrote an email to Harry Browne giving him my opinion about the war and asking him what he thought of my reasoning. He didn’t think much of it.

I was surprised to get an almost immediate reply from him. I wish I saved it but I remember it very well. He more or less told me that he respected my opinion but he disagreed. He was always very considerate even in disagreement. He reminded me a lot of Ron Paul that way. He went on to tell me that he was sorry I didn’t see it his way and that in the future I would likely come around to his way of thinking. Needless to say, I did.

So on this Independence Day I will watch the fireworks and look beyond them to the stars and think of Harry Browne. I will then look into the eyes of my children in the hope that I will still be able to teach them what freedom truly means in an increasingly unfree world.

Please take time on this libertarian holy day and think about our Founding Fathers without prejudice. Think WWTFFD? Would they support government health care? Would they support Cap and Trade? Would they support government-run automobile companies? Would they support using taxes to prop up private industry? For that matter, would they support taxes at all?

You know the answers. Now honor our Founders by acting accordingly.

Harry Browne’s “Uncelebrating the 4th of July”:

Unfortunately, July 4th has become a day of deceit.

On July 4, 1776, the Continental Congress formally declared its independence from Great Britain. Thirteen years later, after a difficult war to secure that independence, the new country was open for business.

It was truly unique — the first nation in all of history in which the individual was considered more important than the government, and the government was tied down by a written Constitution.

It was the one nation where you could live your life secure in the knowledge that no one would ask for your papers, where you weren’t identified by a number, and where the government wouldn’t extort a percentage of your income as the price of holding a job.

And so each year July 4th has been a commemoration of the freest country in history.

But the America that’s celebrated no longer exists.

Read the rest of Hary Brown’s excellent article here.

The big news this week for liberty-seekers is that Ron Paul’s bill to audit the Federal Reserve has surpassed 218 cosponsors giving it majority support in the House of Representatives. The chances in the Senate are much more in question. Bernie Sanders introduced the same legislation in the Senate. It received its first cosponsor yesterday when the brave Jim DeMint signed on to the bill. There is an effort underway to promote calling each Senator of the Banking committee in an attempt to persuade them to cosponsor S.604. The current target is Robert Bennet (R-UT). More information from Shelly Roche at BreakTheMatrix.com here.

Other news this week…

A shooting occurred at the DC Holocaust Museum from a man being labeled a rightwing extremist by the Left and a leftwing extremist by the Right. Keith Olberman plays “six degrees of separation”, and what comes off to me as a poor SNL sketch, manages to associate the shooter with Ron Paul. Olberman says:

“He switched his website domain on June 1st to a man who shares a phone number with a woman who is listed as a Michigan coordinator for the former presidential candidate Ron Paul. Who is at least nominally, a Republican.”

Why not just accept the tragedy for what it is instead of jumping into the blame game? The Left is not at fault. The Right is not at fault. The gun is not at fault. Blame belongs solely with the man that pulled the trigger. As much as those on the Left and the Right think they can control other people’s lives it just isn’t true. Freewill still exists. If you are going to play the blame game, stop cheating!

David Letterman caught a bunch of flak from the Right about a joke he made about Sarah Palin’s daughter that some labeled a “rape” joke (including Todd Palin). I find the outrage ridiculous. Letterman is an entertainer. If you don’t like his humor, turn the channel and be done with it.

Bank of America CEO Ken Lewis testified today that the Fed strong-armed BofA into purchasing Merrill Lynch:

June 11 (Bloomberg) — Bank of America Corp. Chief Executive Officer Kenneth Lewis told Congress he decided to proceed with the takeover of Merrill Lynch Co. after regulators said they might remove management and because his company’s future was “intertwined” with Merrill’s fate.

If this turns out to be true it amounts to extortion and the guilty (Bernanke and co.) should be punished.

And as always we close with some random thoughts and quotes from the week:

• The gangster Al Capone had Eliot Ness. The banksters at The Fed have Ron Paul.

• The Fairness Doctrine is unfair. The Patriot Act is unpatriotic.. more oxymorons from the morons in government.

• “Bipartisan” is a dirty word on healthcare. Give me gridlock or give me death!

• When the government’s boot is on your throat, whether it is a left boot or a right boot is of no consequence. – Gary Lloyd

• Irony: The first African-American President of the U.S. enslaves citizens of all colors with socio-fascist policies.

• When the government borrows money your children become nothing more than collateral.

• Republicans campaign like Libertarians and govern like Democrats. – Harry Browne

• It’s 11pm, do you know what your government is doing?

And lastly, my little pun of the week:

• Dr. Ron Paul will prescribe pills for your Fed-ache!

That’s it for this week. Don’t forget to continue to call Senators about supporting S.604!!!

A Libertarian’s New Year’s Resolutions

by Harry Browne

1. I resolve to *sell* liberty by appealing to the self-interest of each prospect, rather than *preaching* to people and expecting them to suddenly adopt my ideas of right and wrong.
   
2. I resolve to keep from being drawn into arguments or debates. My purpose is to inspire people to want liberty — not to prove that they’re wrong.
   
3. I resolve to *listen* when people tell me of their wants and needs, so I can help them see how a free society will satisfy those needs.
   
4. I resolve to identify myself, when appropriate, with the social goals someone may seek — a cleaner environment, more help for the poor, a less divisive society — and try to show him that those goals can never be achieved by government, but will be well served in a free society.
   
5. I resolve to be compassionate and respectful of the beliefs and needs that lead people to seek government help. I don’t have to approve of their subsidies or policies — but if I don’t acknowledge their needs, I have no hope of helping them find a better way to solve their problems.
   
6. No matter what the issue, I resolve to keep returning to the central point: how much better off the individual will be in a free society.
   
7. I resolve to acknowledge my good fortune in having been born an American. Any plan for improvement must begin with a recognition of the good things we have. To speak only of America’s defects will make me a tiresome crank.
   
8. I resolve to focus on the ways America could be so much better with a very small government — not to dwell on all the wrongs that exist today.
   
9. I resolve to cleanse myself of hate, resentment, and bitterness. Such things steal time and attention from the work that must be done.
   
10. I resolve to speak, dress, and act in a respectable manner. I may be the first libertarian someone has encountered, and it’s important that he get a good first impression. No one will hear the message if the messenger is unattractive.
    
11. I resolve to remind myself that someone’s “stupid” opinion may be an opinion I once held. If *I* can grow, why can’t I help *him* grow?
    
12. I resolve not to raise my voice in any discussion. In a shouting match, no one wins, no one changes his mind, and no one will be inspired to join our quest for a free society.
    
13. I resolve not to adopt the tactics of Republicans and Democrats. They use character assassination, evasions, and intimidation because they have no real benefits to offer Americans. We, on the other hand, are offering to set people free — and so we can win simply by focusing on the better life our proposals will bring.
    
14. I resolve to be civil to my opponents and treat them with respect. However anyone chooses to treat me, it’s important that I be a better person than my enemies.

— Harry Browne

Harry Browne

Harry Browne is our latest Liberty Hero. Check out our growing list of liberty heroes here.

Browne ran for President twice on the Libertarian Party ticket, once in 1996 and again in 2000. Sadly, he passed away in 2006 and was paid tribute by Ron Paul. No doubt Harry Browne is looking down on America shaking his head saying, “I told you so.”

His biography on his website describes him perfectly: Harry Browne was an American free-market Libertarian writer and the Libertarian Party’s 1996 & 2000 candidate for President of the United States. He was also a well-known investment advisor for over thirty years, author of “Harry Browne’s Special Report” — a financial newsletter published from 1974-1997, author of 19 books and thousands of articles, Co-founder and Director of Public Policy of the libertarian Downsize DC Foundation, host of two weekly network radio shows — one a political and the other a financial show, host of an ETV (internet-based television) show called “This Week in Liberty with Harry Browne” on the Internet based Free Market News Network, a consultant to the Permanent Portfolio Family of Funds, and a popular inspirational public speaker.

Harry Browne’s campaign book, “Why Government Doesn’t Work“, is right up there alongside Ron Paul’s manifesto as the two best campaign books of all time.

For my money, he had a way of speaking that made you understand libertarian principles better than anyone. Lew Rockwell summed up the essence of Harry Browne’s abilities in an article following Browne’s death.

He was exceptional as a public speaker during the campaigns. No matter whether the topic was taxes, education, states rights, war and foreign policy, or the drug war, he took the right position and explained it in a way that allowed anyone to see his point of view. He changed minds, and stuck to principle the whole time. Harry was not tempted to sell out his message for the sake of more votes. He didn’t trim or compromise. His energies were spent trying to think of ways to make the core message more marketable and understandable.

Below are a few quotes from Harry Browne

“I am running for president because it is obvious that no Democrat or Republican is ever going to stop the relentless growth of the federal government. …only a Libertarian is going to set you free.”

“The government’s War on Poverty has transformed poverty from a short-term misfortune into a career choice.”

“The Bill of Rights is a literal and absolute document. The First Amendment doesn’t say you have a right to speak out unless the government has a ‘compelling interest’ in censoring the Internet. The Second Amendment doesn’t say you have the right to keep and bear arms until some madman plants a bomb. The Fourth Amendment doesn’t say you have the right to be secure from search and seizure unless some FBI agent thinks you fit the profile of a terrorist. The government has no right to interfere with any of these freedoms under any circumstances.”

And finally a quote that encompasses the economic disaster of 2008/2009:

“The free market punishes irresponsibility. Government rewards it.”

Amen Harry. We miss you, but your message carries on.

reason: But you’d enjoyed the Paul movement (or moment)?

Jillette: I was just thrilled! I love it when people are seeing a point of view that they’ve never seen before. I had people coming to me and explaining RP’s positions in a way that I couldn’t explain them. I loved that! I love listening to somebody talk about liberty so much better than I ever had. I am such a believer in marketplace of ideas. What troubles me most about politics is this feeling that you shouldn’t waste time with anyone but the frontrunners. The fact that we had this little glitch in the system, that people might listen to somebody else who wasn’t at the top of the polls, it just fills me with such incredible joy to think about it. There were people who considered me a nut for not going with one of the two major party candidates who were, all of a sudden, supporting Ron Paul.

The thing is, I don’t think any of libertarian ideas are very far out of actual spirit of our culture. The reason I use the word “nut” positively is that I think a lot of people really do believe in libertarianism, and small government, and they just need to be told that it’s OK. Paul found ways to say talk about it. I don’t think winning or even running a good race was that important. I don’t even think the million-dollar fundraising days were important. What was important was people being able to say in their own words stuff I agree with about individual rights. I think we need somebody that has charisma and clarity to make people think that’s ok. I have always, like the singers and songwriters of country western music, identified with the losers. A lot of people are not like that. A lot of people watch the Olympics to see people pick up medals.

If you’ve never seen Penn and Teller’s Showtime series called “Bullshit!” I can’t recommend it enough. Below is a fine example of their work on flag burning and the Bill of Rights.

I lobbied for Bob Barr to get in the race once Ron Paul officially dropped out. I’ve been critical of both Paul and Barr where I felt criticism was due. Clearing away all of the minutiae and focusing on the two all encompassing campaign questions I consider for each candidate, Bob Barr is the last one eliminated.

Those questions are: Do you have a mathematical chance of winning? Do you support individual liberty? The first weeds out the riff-raff and the second usually weeds out the rest. The last candidate to be eliminated wins my vote, therefore I fully and officially endorse Bob Barr for President of the United States.

Bob Barr is not perfect. No candidate is. For my money Harry Browne came pretty close back in 1996 and 2000. But this is 2008 and Barr is the best of the better candidates on liberty. He is better than McCain and Obama on civil liberties, foreign policy, and a whole host of other issues. He is better than Chuck Baldwin because he is not a protectionist on trade. He is better than Ralph Nader because he is not anti-business.

That which makes Bob Barr imperfect for some makes him perfect for others. The fact is that Barr has an anti-libertarian voting record and that eliminates him in the eyes of some. I view his voting record as a scarlet letter. He can’t hide his record, but he can repudiate it and express regret and remorse as he has done.

It is high time my fellow liberty seekers join me in saying the following to Bob Barr:

I forgive you Bob Barr. I believe in redemption. There is no better man to kill the beast than the man who has lived in the beast’s belly. I will vote for you on November 4th and support you for as long as we both fight for maximizing individual liberty and minimizing government control in the days, weeks, months, and years to come.

[NOTE: This is my individual endorsement and may not reflect the views of other authors at Liberty Maven]

From the Associated Press:

WASHINGTON – The government is expected to take over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as soon as this weekend in a monumental move designed to protect the mortgage market from the failure of the two companies, which together hold or guarantee half of the nation’s mortgage debt, a person briefed on the matter said Friday night.

Some of the details of the intervention, which could cost taxpayers billions, were not yet available, but are expected to include the departure of Fannie Mae CEO Daniel Mudd and Freddie Mac CEO Richard Syron, according to the source, who asked not to be named because the plan was yet to be announced.

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and James Lockhart, the companies’ chief regulator, met Friday afternoon with the top executives from the mortgage companies and informed them of the government’s plan to put the troubled companies into a conservatorship.

It seems our push towards some weird tasting flavor of socialism and/or fascism is increasing lately at an alarming rate. Are people too lazy to be outraged? As Ron Paul shouted in one of the debates during his campaign, “I MEAN WHAT IS GOING ON HERE?”

Later on in the story is this gem:

Fannie Mae was created by the government in 1938, and was turned into a shareholder-owned company 30 years later. Freddie Mac was established in 1970 to provide competition for Fannie.

Shouldn’t it be obvious to people by now that that U.S. government fails in just about everything they set out to do? The late great Libertarian Harry Browne discussed this in Reason Magazine back in 1998.

“Anytime you turn anything over to the government, you transform what was a commercial, medical, social, safety, financial, or military matter into a political issue — to be decided by politicians like Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich, Teddy Kennedy, and Jesse Helms. And guess how they make their decisions?

Conservatives recognize that government is incapable of eliminating poverty, discrimination, smoking, drinking, and many other supposed ills. But when the target is crime, foreign dictators, pornography, drugs, abortion, cloning, or any other item on their menu, government is suddenly transformed into Superman. Just allocate enough money, and the problem will be solved. And if the problem isn’t solved, that’s proof that not enough money was spent. Transpose the menus and you get the definition of a liberal.

Libertarians, however, know that government doesn’t work — even when it tries to do something we want. Government is coercion — pure and simple. Every government program involves forced activity, forcible prohibition, and/or forced financing — or else it wouldn’t be a government program. And there’s no way to make force efficient or benevolent; it’s just force. Thus libertarians are continually looking for ways to take functions — any functions — away from government, because they want to reduce government force to the absolute minimum possible.”

Ron Paul and Bob Barr are right today just as much as Harry Browne was back then. I think Harry had a knack for being more persuasive with his libertarian argument than Barr or Paul do today.

1. Although some polls put Bob Barr in the 6% range in June, all polls now put him in the 1-2% range.
2. Measuring up to Ron Paul’s, Barr’s fundraising is comparatively non-existent.
3. Barr has “failed to win over the party faithful”, and has failed to adequately explain his support of unconstitutional bills in his past.

I agree with him on the first 2½ points, but when he and other people continue to say that Bob Barr has done nothing to alleviate the concerns of those who question his part, I strongly disagree.  In every interview I’ve seen where people question his past support for the Patriot Act, the Drug War, etc., he has admitted his mistake, and explained how he seen the light and actually worked hard to reverse these things.  What else can the man do?  Only time will tell whether or not he is sincere or just being political expedient, but that’s not part of this argument.  Bob has worked tirelessly for the past 5 years against the Patriot Act and it’s successors, FISA, and has even joined up with the American Civil Liberties Union and the Marijuana Policy Project in support of medicinal drug use.  What else can the man do to alleviate concerns? If you simply choose not to trust him, that’s one thing.  But to say that he’s done nothing is simply ludicrous.

Thiessen concludes by predicting Barr will get less votes in November than Badnarik’s 397,000 in 2004, which I feel is quite astonishing.  I certainly hope this won’t be the case.

Read the article at NolanChart.com here.

It didn’t take long for me to learn these things. The first presidential election I voted in was 1992. I supported Paul Tsongas in the Democratic primary. I didn’t like Bill Clinton much, but I disagreed with the Republicans the most. So in the general election I voted for Bill Clinton. Between 1992 and 1996 I read “Atlas Shrugged” By Ayn Rand. It changed me. I already had the foundation of a fiscally conservative, socially liberal world view with my support of Tsongas. After reading Ayn Rand and discovering the Libertarian Party and with it Harry Browne, my conversion was complete.

After voting for Harry Browne in 2000 I became disinterested in politics. I voted for Michael Badnarik in 2004, but I never felt the same kinship with him as I had for Harry Browne. In early 2007 I read that Ron Paul may be running for President. I knew of Ron Paul as the most libertarian Congressman, but I didn’t know the details of his positions at that time. After research it seemed I agreed with him on most things with the exception of immigration and abortion. I decided Ron Paul would get my vote.

Then the movement started and I was swept up in it. Probably the single event that did it for me was watching the video of his speech on the floor of the House about a year ago called, “In the Name of Patriotism (Who are the Patriots?)” [VIDEO]. I got chills listening to it. I was amazed to hear such wonderful rhetoric from a politician. The fact he was saying it on the floor of the House of Representatives filled me with awe at his political bravado.

I was skeptical at his reach with the American public, but he certainly struck a chord and his liberty message spread in spite of limited media attention. If the media treated him as a candidate equal to the others I firmly believe his appeal would have been even wider. Unfortunately, to many Republicans he did reach, he was deemed crazy.

Then I heard that Bob Barr may seek the Libertarian Party’s nomination. I had heard that he joined the Libertarian Party awhile ago and thought it was odd. After all, I knew him because of his neo-conservative roots during the 1994 “Contract With America” that was well intended, but never materialized. I did some research and discovered Barr and Ron Paul were friends, worked on legislation together, and agreed on many of the issues.

One of the many things I’ve learned from Ron Paul is that it is about the message, not the man. Bob Barr frames Ron Paul’s message in a pragmatic way: No “New World Order” rhetoric, No “North American Union” rhetoric, No “Globalist Elite” rhetoric, No “abolish the Federal Reserve now” call. The purist wing of the Ron Paul movement looks at this as a negative. I view it as a positive. Using this rhetoric has the power to immediately turn people away from listening to anything else you are saying. How can you spread a message when your target audience is not listening?

People that have been indoctrinated into the “system” their entire lives aren’t going to wake up one day as if they “swallowed the red pill” and believe these things to be true. For the masses it takes a long period of time to undo the years of media and political programming.

Ron Paul’s strategy in the campaign has been to speak to the young people. They are more likely to become true believers than older people. In general the older generations have more cynicism and are more stubborn in their beliefs. Like it or not, to reach them and the masses it takes an incremental approach.

Ron Paul came along and hit people over the head with his beliefs. Some became believers quickly, others resisted and labeled him an insane extremist. That is the political baggage Ron Paul now carries. He himself is unlikely to ever sway those voters that have pigeon holed him as a kook. They just won’t listen to him anymore. To do so would lend him credibility. They are too stubborn for that. Unfortunately, these people make up the majority of the electorate.

Bob Barr enters the race as a kinder and gentler Ron Paul.

Additionally, the purist Ron Paul faithful also have a candidate to support, if they believe as I do that writing in Ron Paul on the ballot is personally satisfying but does little to help spread his message. Chuck Baldwin is that candidate. Having two candidates certainly splits the votes between the Ron Paul movement. I support Barr because he has more potential than Baldwin to reach those that perceive Ron Paul as too extreme. Barr can bring them gently into the freedom fold.

To me, supporting Baldwin does little to help spread the reach of the liberty message. I will ignore the fact that he is not likely to receive the media attention Barr will. Supporting him is philosophically sound, because Baldwin is a bit more like Ron Paul than Barr. He preaches against the NWO and the North American Union, and abolishing the Fed. All good by Ron Paul standards; however, Baldwin’s reach will be to those Paul supporters that lean more on the radical rather than practical side of the spectrum. I believe his reach is limited to a subset of Ron Paul’s current support base plus Constitution Party loyalists.

Because of this split, Barr’s reach to Ron Paul supporters is also limited. The difference is that Barr’s admittedly “watered” down version of Ron Paul’s message is more appealing to the masses. Therefore, it is up to him to bring in new converts. Once in the fold they can be directed incrementally towards the more radical views of the purist Ron Paul supporter.

The problem for Barr though is that the most radical Ron Paul supporters are the most politically active. It is unlikely we’ll see the million dollar money bombs, big rallies, marches, sign waves, and a blimp for Bob Barr. The rallies, marches, and sign waves Barr can do without, but raising a good amount of money is not optional. I will certainly support Barr with donations. I hope those reading this will as well. His campaign needs it.

In business negotiations it is always good to start with common ground and then explore differences. The political world is no different. Bob Barr can be a bridge for disaffected conservatives towards the Ron Paul enlightenment. I took the incremental path towards liberty via Paul Tsongas, Ayn Rand, Harry Browne, and Ron Paul. Barr is offering libertarian leaning conservatives a starting point down a similar path.

Ron Paul offered everyone the red pill for instantaneous realization. Some took it. Many refused. Bob Barr is now offering a purple slow release pill towards that same enlightenment. I hope many who refused the red will swallow the purple. Only time will tell.

Bob Barr’s supporters held the standard “politician” signs we see during every convention and campaign. They represented the moderate pragmatic views within libertarianism. This is a perfect description of Bob Barr’s platform. His positions are my positions, but his positions are closer to my mind than my heart.

I’ve rather happily voted for the Libertarian nominee in 1996, 2000, and again in 2004. I always enjoy when anyone asks me who I voted for because it gives me the feeling of an odd superiority to be able to deny voting for either of the two media darling party candidates. My response was filled with the satisfaction that I didn’t have a hand in causing the mess because I voted for the principled Libertarian.

This year came a conundrum. Ron Paul won my mind and my heart over a year ago with his plain and truthful style, his impeccable history and his almost perfect voting record. It was with great disgust I watched the New Hampshire Primary election returns. I never really thought he would win the nomination. I did have hope he would win at least one primary though. That did not happen, and now he remains in the race, but only to spread his message and give voters an option besides McCain.

I always knew I had the Libertarian Party’s nominee as a choice as my backup plan. But little did I know what a division it would cause. Not only within myself, but amongst those that support Ron Paul. It truly came down to a battle between my heart and my mind. My idealistic heart loved Mary Ruwart’s pure libertarian views. My mind fought with my heart once Bob Barr entered the race.

Bob Barr was not pure. He used to be a Republican. He voted for the Patriot Act. He was a drug warrior. He voted for the authorization to go into Iraq. I also knew that he renounced these votes and claimed he was truly a libertarian, not just a Libertarian with a capital ‘L’. He introduced Ron Paul at CPAC. As a member of the Libertarian National Committee he introduced a resolution that unanimously passed requesting Ron Paul run as a Libertarian should he not win the GOP nomination. Ron Paul declined.

So in the end, the battle was won by my mind. My heart remains true to those radical libertarian ideals, but my mind realizes that to spread the libertarian message it is best to have a candidate who not only represents the message, but is also able to spread that message to the most people. My heart hates my mind for it, but my mind knows that candidate is Bob Barr.

The most votes a Libertarian candidate has ever received was just under a million votes. Bob Barr can exceed that and in doing so can spread Ron Paul’s message to the masses. No, it is not Ron Paul’s complete message, but it is pretty darn close. Barr has little chance of winning, but his name recognition, stature and media savvy can do wonders for the spread of libertarianism, which is in essence Ron Paul’s message. Perhaps enough to make the party a truly legitimate national player in future elections.

Perhaps Barr can open the door for a future “pure” libertarian candidate to be taken seriously in the national discourse. Perhaps not, but isn’t it worth taking the chance?

The Libertarian Party has not ever had this kind of potential. Purist candidates have always been the nominees and the party has faltered when looking at vote totals. Vote totals get attention and the higher they are the more legitimacy there is. Right or wrong that is the reality of politics in America.

At the risk of being presumptuous I believe if Harry Browne were alive today he’d be supporting Bob Barr as well. I’m sure the opposite can be argued, but Browne always had a way to remain pure yet pragmatic to me. I believe he would see a climate ripe for positive growth of the Libertarian Party in this election and embrace it. Since when has a Libertarian Candidate polled at 6% nationally, as Barr has?

And so with apologies to Lennon and McCartney: All we are saying is–give Barr a chance.