Ron Paul defends the libertarian position of individual freedom from an individual as well as a national perspective.  Individual freedom makes sense as long as a society is living under the same set of laws; and those laws protect individual liberty equally for all citizens.  But what if the law protected the liberty of some individuals and not others?  Surely this can be compared to America before civil rights legislation.  Slaves had no acknowledged rights at all and after emancipation, blacks in the south had few rights.  In this sense it is clear that the individual liberty of white individuals was protected while that of blacks was not.  This same argument can be carried out to members of our society who feel themselves subjugated even today, users of marijuana for example.  These members of the society organize with like-minded citizens within the society to attempt to equalize their liberty with the rest of society. 

For a society to possess individual liberty it is clear that all members of that society must also possess the same rights of individual liberty as all the other citizens.  For any citizens who may be subjugated, not possessing the same amount of liberty as other members of the society, it becomes their mission to obtain the same amount of liberty as everyone else, whether this be by force, legislation or some other means.  So as civil rights has attempted to equalize the liberty of black citizens, also members of the society who use marijuana make their attempt at liberty as well.  Some would still hold that things are still not equal due to wealth, political favor, being members of powerful lobby groups (unions).

If a nation possesses some amount of liberty due to the laws of that nation, it does not hold that any nation as citizen of the world holds the same amount of liberty as any other nation and that we can get along with those nations simply by applying that assumption on a worldwide basis.

Nations hold certain amount of strengths as citizens of the world due to economic, military, alliances, and many other conditions.  Some nations, in this respect are subjugated citizens of other nation citizens simply due to these factors.  It is unlikely that all nations will hold the same beliefs at any point in time regarding the individual liberty of other nations.  In fact, we have many examples of nations throughout history attempting to subjugate other citizen nations.

The Romans, the British, the Nazis, and lately the Islamic nations believe that they are superior and rightfully subjugated other nations.  I am not attempting to say that the Nazis and British subjugated other nations for the same reasons, but they were able to exert their military, economic and other advantages over other nations of the world, subjugating those nations and the liberty of those nations as equal citizens of the world.

Just as a subjugated group within a nation takes matters into their own hands to equalize their liberty with other members of that society, nations who are citizens of the world must make the assumption that they are or will be subjugated at any time due to these same reasons and take the necessary steps to ensure that they have the liberties that they expect.  If China for example were to exert their economic muscle and subjugate the liberty of other nations’ citizens are we to sit by and be subjugated?  We probably would, like oppressed minorities within our own nation, take a stand to equalize our nation within the citizens of nations and again maximize the liberty of our nation compared to others.

For these reasons, it remains important to be ready, even though we may be a leader among nations at the moment and enjoying the amount of liberty that we allow ourselves.  Other nations are trying to not just equalize the situation but subjugate us and lessen our liberty.  Our own President also seems to believe that we have too much liberty in relation to other nations and is trying to lessen our liberty to equalize things.  So forces both internal and external to our nation are trying not only to equalize our liberty but to subjugate our own cherished liberty to other nations.  Not to prepare for this eventuality is naïve.

Disclaimers:

The views, opinions, positions or strategies expressed by the author and those providing comments are theirs alone, and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, positions, policies, or strategies of The Libertarian Defense Caucus or any individual Caucus member thereof.

 Editor’s Note: Please give a warm welcome to our newest member of The Libertarian Defense Caucus; Michael E. Fournier.

The LNC understands that the LDC is a potent force in the libertarian movement and must be directly engaged.

The Caucus wishes to express its gratitude to LNC Chair Hinkle for participating in the discussion.

The dialogue, between National Co – Chairman Bjornson and LNC Chair Hinkle follows, in slightly amended form, for editorial clarity.

(MH) indicates Mr. Hinkle’s responses. (K) indicates Mr. Bjornson’s responses.

MH) Believe it or not, we don’t have everyone’s email address. 
We only have them when members and supporters give them to us.

(K) The Obama 2012 campaign managed to amass a large collection
of e-addresses. Surely libertarians can do better. All membership
forms should include a request for e-address, and online membership
applications should require them. Charge extra for snail mail.

LP News should be available online at no charge.
There should be an opportunity to comment on what is posted.

(MH) It’s perfectly clear that LP members do disagree on
foreign policy and everything else.

(K) Most political disagreements relate to foreign policy.
We disagree on fact and ideology.

To a lesser extent, abortion. Almost all other disagreements
have to do with how radical or personality.

(MH) Why don’t you think that’s clear?

(K) Because you speak as if your position were self-evidently
the only libertarian position. As if no other could possibly be
consistent with the NAP. Surely, you’re not admitting here that
you realize yours is just one possible position, that you are
acting on behalf of that one faction and not the whole libertarian
movement?

[concerning online conventions]

(MH) That’s an intriguing idea.  …
However, there is the social aspect of meeting people at a
convention that would be missing in a wholly online meeting.

(K) We could still have educational conferences,
with speakers, training sessions, and fun activities.
The business of the party should not be limited to
those with a factional agenda and willing to spend
time and money to remake the party in their image.

(MH) But, the idea of some sort of online debate or
discussing regarding hot issues of the day, isn’t a bad one.

(K) We did have that, on the LP website.
However a former LP director eliminated that in the 2006 election
cycle, claiming he didn’t have time to moderate. However
they didn’t ask for volunteers who could have helped.

(MH) That’s interesting, because I see just the opposite. 
It’s the hawks that seem to be driving those that favor peace out of the LP.
Wayne Root is a prime example of a hawk that’s driving people away from
the LP.

(K) If what you say were true, then please explain why the chair
of the LP [you] appears to be a cheerleader for just one faction–
categorical non-interventionism. While Wayne has adopted a
moderate foreign policy, less hawkish than mine. I’m willing to
work with doves and foreign policy moderates, because I
realize a candidate reflecting my views might tilt the election
away from the lesser evil of the two major candidates. The LP
should selectively field either hawks or doves, depending on
circumstances and what we want to achieve.

Wayne did not receive a majority vote and non-interventionists
continue to drive hawks away by speaking as if theirs is the only
possible libertarian position. At the St. Louis convention,
I voted for Wayne, and when he lost, I voted for you, because
you presented yourself as a moderate who could smooth out
differences between factions. Alas, you disappoint.

(MH) BTW, perhaps you’d better define “libertarian hawks” for me. 
Frankly, the terms puzzles me.

(K) Here you imply, categorical non-interventionism is required
by the non-initiation-of-force principle. However, “intervention”
is not the same thing at all as “aggression”. Check standard
dictionaries and you will see how these words are defined
by literate people and society generally. As distinguished
from a special language invented by a small cult of historical/
philosophical/ideological illiterates.

(MH) Kevin, are you ignoring the fact that the U.S. through
out the duly elected leader of Iran and imposed a dictator,
the Shah of Iran?

(K) I am not a spokesperson for the US government,
past or present. I disagree with both your evaluation
of the alleged facts, as well as US policy.

In any event, you said Iran “has attacked no other country
in over 200 years.”. Now you are changing the topic.
I’m talking about what you said in your communique,
not what you are saying now in private. In what article
did you get that figure, 200 years? I ask, because another
anti-interventionist claimed that Iran had not attacked
anybody in 2000 years. [A bit difficult to do, since
the modern Iran government is not at all the same
government as the Persia of 200 or 2000 years ago.]

Surely, you are not sticking to your position,
that Iran has not committed any aggression at all?
Let us say, since the 1979 revolution, which created
the government we know as “Iran”.

(MH) I don’t teach, because I like working for myself. 
I like being my own boss.

(K) Your posture is that of a teacher, come to bring
knowledge and moral compass to the world.

(MH) …you have to be a democrat to get a teaching job in California.

And join a union that’s destroying the economy of California.

(K) Surely that would be a small obstacle for a man of your
scholarly achievements, who knows with such certainty what
Iran has done and not done in the last 200 years. Libertarian
scholar Jan Narveson has taught with me at liberty camps in the
former Soviet Union. He was able to teach at Stanford without
being a Democrat or joining the state union. Victor Davis Hanson
has also taught at Stanford without encountering those problems,
but from your comments you appear to have not read him.

(MH) I’m not sure what you mean by military isolationism,
but if you mean that soldiers should uphold their oath of office
to defend and protect the United States, then yes. I guess I’m a
military isolationist. 

(K) I see–so, yours is not just the only possible libertarian
foreign policy, it is also the only constitutional one? Wouldn’t
that make all other foreign policies illegal? What a solution to
the pesky foreign policy debate–put the hawks in jail!

(MH) You’re probably right [about EMP]. 
And you also probably know that Iran doesn’t have that capability.

(K) I see–so, the US should wait until Iran gets nukes to remove
their nuclear bomb capacity? Or should we just accept Iran getting
nukes?

(MH) BTW, which nation is the only nation to use nuclear weapons
on civilian targets?

(K) First, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military targets,
and taking them out saved millions of lives, American and
Japanese, that would have been lost in an invasion. Had
we not deposed the Japan regime, they would have acquired
nuclear weapons and many millions of Americans would
have died. Possibly neither of us would be here today,
if our parents had been incinerated.

Second, do you really suppose that Iran having nukes is
just as bad as the US having nukes? Do you really believe
that? Seriously?

I don’t favor the current system of weapons acquisition.
I accept that weapons are necessary in an imperfect world,
and expect to pay for them instead of hoping they will
miraculously materialize.

(MH) If the U.S. is attacked, I’m not a pacifist.

But, if it’s a nuclear threat that you think is the real threat,
how does have tens of thousands of foot soldiers in Iraq
and another 125 countries around the world help?

How about bring them home and defend the United States?

(K) I don’t favor US policy. That does not mean, I’m crazy
enough to have all US troops withdrawn to within US borders.
Because then, US defense costs would skyrocket, as we would
be forced into the position of passively defending every possible
target (civilian, political, and military) 100% of the time. Instead
of striking at enemy centers of power abroad, at a time and
place of our choosing.

(MH) Clearly, I and our founding fathers, who warned against
foreign entanglements, knew a little bit about foreign affairs.

(K) So now you are channeling the founding fathers?
OK, then please tune in to Thomas Jefferson, who created
the US deep water navy and intervened abroad to squelch
Barbary Coast pirates, who were taking US ships and
sailors hostage, holding them for ransom.

Kevin Bjornson
Libertarian Defens Caucus
www.defendliberty.net

Disclaimers:

The views, opinions, positions or strategies expressed by the author and those providing comments are theirs alone, and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, positions, policies, or strategies of The Libertarian Defense Caucus or any individual Caucus member thereof.

By National Co – Chairman Kevin Bjornson

In regards to recent discussions of the Libertarian Defense Caucus endorsing in the GOP primary, I was thinking Mitt Romney might be the best bet. He is good on Israel.  He is more electable than Newt Gingrich; and if elected, more competent. 

I believe Romney’s support for Israel is sincere (probably because he identifies Jews as a persecuted minority like Mormons), and he has called for standing strong against Israel’s enemies.

Unfortunaely, both Gingrich and Romney oppose medical marijuana, but Gingrich really believes what he is saying and would radically escalate the War on Drugs; while Romney might change his position once elected and has not called for an escalation.

This is relevant to foreign policy, because the War on Drugs subsidizes Islamism through the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Gingrich has taken a number of Rockefeller positions and is left of center on domestic policy. His personality is not suited to management, and is prone to over-evaluate his intellectual abilities. Where he is wrong, he is strong; where he is right, he is weak. He is prone to harshly judge others for the same behavior to which he is prone.

Unfortunately there is no viable alternative to Romney for the GOP nominee.

Wayne Root told us at last summer’s Liberty Camp-Georgia that he would not run this year so that he does not take votes away from the GOP nominee. If Obama wins again, or the GOP candidate messes up, Wayne is open to running for the 2016 GOP nomination.

Since the Libertarian Defense Caucus is loosely affiliated with the Libertarian Party, 
I think we ought to also endorse Gary Johnson for the LP nomination. He won’t take many votes so isn’t likely to do much harm, while still representing the LP respectably. 

Kevin Bjornson lives in Seattle.  He joined the Society for Rational Individualism in 1968 and the Libertarian Caucus of YAF in 1969, and has served in numerous capacities in the Libertarian Party of Washington.  Currently he serves as co-chair of the Libertarian Defense Caucus.

Disclaimers:

The views, opinions, positions or strategies expressed by the author and those providing comments are theirs alone, and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, positions, policies, or strategies of The Libertarian Defense Caucus or any individual Caucus member thereof.

Those caucus members endorsing other presidential candidates, those members opposed to a Romney presidency, or those who are not endorsing any candidate, may compose their own piece and submit it to the caucus editorial board.

As Morton Blackwell says  ”You don’t win elections with your principles.  You win elections for your principles”.
 
This past weekend the Pragmatarian wing of the Libertarian National Committee did a good job of redirecting the priorities of the Libertarian Party in the direction of electing Libertarians to public office, as compared to our 40 year history of mostly macho flashing our way to 3% of the vote in Congressional elections.
 
Over the next 5 years, myself and a number of other Libertarian Party activists are going to try to elect as many Libertarians as possible to local, mostly non-partisan offices.  We will be using our State Legislature and Congressional candidates as RINO killers in general elections.
 
 
  Scott Lieberman is a distinguished Regional Alternate,  Libertarian National Committee ( California ). He is also a distinguished member of The Libertarian Defense Caucus.
 
 Disclaimer:

The views, opinions, positions or strategies expressed by the author and those providing comments are theirs alone, and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, positions, policies, or strategies of The Libertarian Defense Caucus or any individual Caucus member thereof.

“Terrorism” is the deliberate targeting of civilians for political purposes.
Terrorism is always unjustified, no matter what the purpose or political goal.

Yet the Norwegian government justifies terrorism against
Israelis, while not wanting to be on the receiving end.

 ”Collateral damage” means, civilians who are inadvertantly killed or hurt
because they are in the vicinity of a war target. Collateral damage is inevitable in any armed conflict, whether invasion, defense against invasion, or rebellion.

Western militaries generally do not target civilians. During WWII, cities with military value were targeted, and many civilians died.

Though that technique has been out of favor for many years,
and collateral damage has decreased over the years as targeting and technology have improved.

Americans during the Revolutionary War did not target British
civilians or Americans with Tory sympathies. After the war,
there was no inquisition of Tories. In contrast, the French
Revolution did have a reign of terror after the monarchy
was overthrown. Edmund Burke, the father of modern
conservative libertarianism, supported the American but
denounced the French revolution.

Burke’s “Vindication of Natural Society” was an anthem
for humanism and liberty, pointing out that the two are
mutually reinforcing. As Burke pointed out, most wars in history were triggered by religious differences. Later, Ayn Rand pointed out (in Faith and Force: Destroyers of the Modern World),that faith and force are mutually reinforcing and natural allies.

The Christian Crusaders, whom Anders (in his video) held up as role models, were Christian terrorists. They sacked Constantinople,enabling the later conquest by Muslims; and attacked non-Christians generally, without regard to their individual guilt or innocence.

Fortunately the Renaissance and Enlightenment have moderated
Christian terrorism; unfortunately a similar process has not
occurred in Islam.

Later, Burke did seem to presage Austrian economics in his
deference to the utility of tradition. Such traditions have evolutionary value, and no one person or small group may safely overthrow the habits of thought and action that developed over centuries.

The inevitably of collateral damage does provide empirical
support to this caution against radical or revolutionary change brought about at bayonet point. Most governments exhibit a degree of aggression, from tax theft to over regulation to outright campaigns of extermination. Resources are limited, and human nature is similarly limited. The harm caused by any particular government ought to be weighed against the harm caused by invasion or revolution.

The bizarre case of Anders Breivik does raise the question,
are the evils of the Norwegian govenrment sufficient
to warrant revolution? And if yes, what type of revolution?

Anders was allegedly vexed over Muslim immigration and
multi-culturalism in Norway. Of course, in Saudi Arabia
and most parts of Dar al-Islam, there is no such multi-culturalism.

Rather, there is Islamic mono-culture. So, to favor multiculturalism in areas where Islam is not dominant, while tolerating mono- culturalism where Islam is dominant, creates a one-way ratchet.

Once an area has been conquered by Islam, it can never change course.

While in areas not yet conquered by Islam, non-Islamic culture dies by
a thousand cuts–induced by high rates of Muslim-on-infidel aggression, including welfarism, theft, rape, assault, and murder. Which explains how previously non-Islamic Egypt, Syria, Turkey, etc., now have (close to) Islamic mono-culture.

Just to give you a taste of what Norwegians are forced to deal with, about 80% of all rapes and virtually 100% of stranger-rapes there are Muslim-on-infidel. Muslim immigrants tend to not assimilate, and social costs in education, health, and welfare are much higher than for natives.

There are some restrictions on free speech in Norway,
but if you’re careful, you can still criticize Islam. The Wilders trial in Holland seemed to draw a line, you can criticize Islam but not Muslims as a group.

Norway is generally free, relative to the rest of the world.
In any event, disgruntled Norwegians are free to migrate to
Iceland, as a few brave Norwegians did 1000 years ago. 
So no, revolution in Norway is not justified. Even if it were, that still does not justify the massacre of teenagers at a Labor party political training camp. Those students have not yet committed aggression, and not all will do so.

Similarly, Anders’  car bomb outside the Prime Minister’s
office caused death and injury to nearby civilians and and
destruction of their property. The greater the collateral damage, the higher the bar ought to be before revolution can be justified.

If Anders had limited his direct action to a few government
officials directly tied to aggression, there wouldn’t have
been such an outcry. Confronting them on the street,
one-on-one, wouldn’t have been very difficult.

So much for the ostensible motivations for Anders’ terrorism. Now let us examine his real motivations.

A few have noted the apparent inconsistency of justifying an
attack on mostly native Norwegians, by criticism of Muslims.
True, the Labor party is pandering to Muslims by allowing
them to immigrate in large numbers, and subsidizing them to court their votes. That the Labor party was his primary target,does seem to belie his alleged focus on Muslims.

Both Anders’ parents were staunch Labor party members.
His father actually worked for Labor governments,
as an economic analyst in their embassies. His father
left the home at Anders’ age one. This means, Anders
parents were not good role models for a successful
male-female bonding and stable family life.

Anders had no success getting girlfriends, despite his
good looks and ability to raise substantial sums of money.
Like some other “martyrs” about to die, he hired call-girls 
shortly before his attacks.

He even mused about self-castration, in order to prove
bona fides to Al Qaeda, from whom  he would obtain
WMD with which to attack Norwegians. Getting help
from Jihadists to slaughter infidels, is not what counter-
Jihadism is about.

His use of steroids and posing in a Seals-type outfit,
complete with machine gun, does seem over-the-top macho.

Anders imagines the good that Hitler would have done,
had he not been anti-Jewish. Anders praises various
neo-nazi groups, some of whom have de-emphasized
their traditional anti-Jewishness. That’s an easy switch to make, 
now that 6 million European Jews have been eliminated.

Anders main resentment is against the Labor party.
His purported ideological justifications don’t add up.

Anders misquoted J. S. Mill, which indicates he got the
quote from a “famous quotes” website and not from actually reading On Liberty. He claims to like pro-industrial Ayn Rand, but plagiarizes from the Unabomber’s anti-industrial manifesto. He endorses both the Christian Crusaders and firmly atheistic Rand; selfless martyrdom, but also anti-altruistic Rand. And so on.

His anti-Jihadism is another mask, like his Freemason
outfit and his police uniform. He didn’t graduate from college,but claims college degree equivalency through self-study. His sexual and intellectual insecurities have led him to cover up his own inadaquecy in those departments.

Just as policemen should not be maligned because
Anders wore their uniform, neither should libertarians
or anti-Jihadists feel he is one of us. 

Disclaimer:

The views, opinions, positions or strategies expressed by the author and those providing comments are theirs alone, and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, positions, policies, or strategies of The Libertarian Defense Caucus or any individual Caucus member thereof.

Our Friend John Hospers Passes Away

I have sad news to report…John Hospers, the very first Libertarian Presidential candidate in 1972, has passed away. John was 93. Because of our close friendship, I was asked to announce his death to the LP and his many fans and supporters.
 
John passed quietly away in his sleep, on Sunday morning June 12 without pain and suffering, of natural causes. He died only 3 days after his 93rd birthday.

He was a true friend of individual liberty and freedom.

A sad day for all. But a devastatingly sad for me, because John was a true friend to me as well. I spoke to John often. He was a trusted political advisor and confidant. And in his last years, when he was in the hospital, his friends always asked if I could cheer him up with a call. I came to enjoy those calls. John was my personal “Tuesday with Morrie.”

He was the sweetest man alive, and a very loyal friend of mine. He will be greatly missed by all. The Libertarian movement has lost a pioneer and hero.

I send my condolences to the Hospers family.

And I wish a lifetime in heaven for John.

God Bless,
Wayne Allyn Root

Disclaimer:

The views, opinions, positions or strategies expressed by the author and those providing comments are theirs alone, and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, positions, policies, or strategies of The Libertarian Defense Caucus or any individual Caucus member thereof.

The principles of natural justice (Jus Naturale) are discoverable through
conscience and reason. This natural law applies to all natural persons,
in all places and for all time. The world will choose between natural
law and sharia law.

We know through observation that all existing governments are flawed.
Created to protect rights, these guard dogs often revert to wolf-like
behavior, stealing from and assaulting those they are supposed to
protect. This means, all existing governments should be reformed
or replaced. Yet there are not enough resources to do all that needs
to be done, all at once.

Not all governments are equivalent. Some are worse than others.
Governments that are reforming toward freedom, should be applauded,
rather than overthrown. Governments that are most threatening,
should be top of the list for abolition.

Bad people who reform, should be applauded for their good actions.
If instead they were punished for not coming close enough to good,
that would tend to push them away, back toward evil.

Gadhafii decided to dismantle his nuclear weapons program after
he saw Bush depose Saddam over that very issue (among other
issues). He also paid blood money to atone for his previous
terrorism. One of his sons even studied Austrian economics.
These kinds of good actions earn him respect and a seat at the
table of nations, with diplomatic relations and trade.

In contrast, the mad mullahs of Iran, after a temporary pause
about the same time (after the Iraq invasion), are proceeding at
full speed in pursuit of nuclear weapons. The Iran government
is more powerful than Gadhaffi’s, and currently supports an
extensive network of terrorists, including agents helping to
kill American soldiers in Iraq.

The crazy dicatator of N. Korea kills millions of his own
people in a government-induced famine, due to their extreme
communism and international isolation. Yet we bargain with
them, to give them more aid.

The Islamist regime in Pakistan presides over a holocaust
of non-Muslims, expands it’s nuclear arsenal, imprisons an
American who resists an armed assault, and continues turning
a blind eye to (or even supporting) terrorists in Afghanistan
and Kashmir. Yet they still receive US aid.

The message this sends is, if you’re anti-American enough
and powerful enough, you get a pass. If you reform and try
to work with the west, and you’re not very strong militarily,
you will be deposed by the west.

Whatever is rewarded, we will tend to see more of.
Whatever is punished, we will tend to see less of.
The end result in Libya and Egypt will be sharia law and
dictatorship of the Muslim Brotherhood. The result in
Iran and N. Korea will be more of the same. Trust and
belief in America are plumetting, our enemies are
strengthening.

There is something wrong with this picture.

Kevin Bjornson is the National Co – Chairman of The Libertarian Defense Caucus. He is considered one of the foremost libertarian intellectuals in the nation.

Disclaimer:

The views, opinions, positions or strategies expressed by the author and those providing comments are theirs alone, and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, positions, policies, or strategies of The Libertarian Defense Caucus or any individual Caucus member thereof.

Fellow libertarians–

After a temporary lull in hostilities,  LP director
Wes Benedict has once again declared war on
history, common sense, and liberty.

Reagan’s method and purpose of deploying
US Marines in Lebanon was misguided. They
were lightly armed, bunched together in a
readily-accessible barracks, and given no clear
mission. The phrase “peace keeping” is not a
substitute for strategy, and certainly they were
not tasked with attacking Jihadists.

Lebanon’s Christian minority, which was once a
majority, was largely middle-class and built Lebanon
into what was a “Switzerland of the middle east”.
That was before Islamists tore their country apart,
through bombs, murder, robbery, and sexual assault.

The US could have charged the Lebanese infidels,
or neighboring Israel, for protection services. That
would have been an option in a libertarian foreign
policy–but apparently not the “non-interventionist”
foreign policy of Rothbardites.

That being said, the US withdrawal sent a wrong
signal to our enemies. We were “punked” and
simply withdrew. That was a reward to Jihadists.
They attacked us, and got what they wanted.
Whatever is rewarded, we will tend to see more of.

If rewarded, Jihadist demands will keep escalating.
Their ideology commands nothing less than world
domination. They have a bloody history–going
back well before the US was born and before Europe
was a world power.  Before the Enlightenment gave
the west the edge, Islamist Barbary coast pirates
would raid Europe’s coastal cities, for plunder and slaves;
until the US navy under Jefferson, the British navy,
and French forces, defeated them.

How to deal with Jihadism, is a matter for debate within
the libertarian movement and party. For one faction
to seize control (by showing up at national conventions),
and then proclaim that their plan is the only one possible
for libertarians, is false and misleading.

We cannot assume that US defense costs would fall,
if all US forces were withdrawn to within US borders.
Fighting a war on US soil, would be enormously
expensive to US infrastructure, and result in US
civilian deaths. Not being able to project US power
into the foreign sanctuaries of Jihadists, would force
us into passivity, having to defend every possible
target all the time. Instead of choosing the time and
place of conflict.

If the US adopted Wes’ foreign policy,
US military and war costs would skyrocket.
There are ways of financing and privatizing
the US military, which Wes has been made
aware of, but chooses to ignore.

Further, we pledge that if libertarian hawks were to
become the majority faction at LP conventions,
we would not abuse our position of power by
mis-representing our foreign policy views as the only
ones possible under libertarianism. That much is
required by intellectual honesty.

We would welcome libertarian doves for other reasons.
By running only doves in political contests, the LP would
tend to siphon votes disproportionately from the Democrat
party base, which is also dovish. Under current leadership,
the LP is simply a minor shill for Republicans, who have
shown that they are not serious about either liberty or
effective counter-Jihadism.

Consequently, the Libertarian Defense Caucus calls for
the replacement of LP director Wes Benedict and LP chair
Mark Hinkle

The full text of Mr. Benedict’s “Cut and Run” screed:

February 28, 2011

Dear Friend of Liberty,

In the Middle East, it’s time to cut and run like Ronald Reagan did in 1984.

In 1982, President Reagan ordered American Marines into Lebanon as part of a “multinational peacekeeping force.” In 1983, there were several bombings targeting Americans in Lebanon, including the well-known Marine barracks bombing that killed 241 U.S. Marines.

At first, Reagan insisted that the U.S. would keep military forces in Lebanon. But in February 1984, he changed course and ordered a complete troop withdrawal.

The following is from Reagan’s autobiography:

Perhaps we didn’t appreciate fully enough the depth of the hatred and the complexity of the problems that made the Middle East such a jungle. Perhaps the idea of a suicide car bomber committing mass murder to gain instant entry to Paradise was so foreign to our own values and consciousness that it did not create in us the concern for the marines’ safety that it should have.

In the weeks immediately after the bombing, I believed the last thing that we should do was turn tail and leave. Yet the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there. If there would be some rethinking of policy before our men die, we would be a lot better off. If that policy had changed towards more of a neutral position and neutrality, those 241 marines would be alive today.
I think our government would be well-advised to think about that quote before they stick their nose into Egypt, Libya, and other Middle Eastern countries in turmoil right now.

I applaud Reagan’s decision to withdraw from Lebanon, and I call on President Obama to follow his example by withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq, Afghanistan, and the rest of the greater Middle East.

Even though many Arabs hated the American intervention in Lebanon, it’s important to remember that Reagan’s withdrawal did not result in terrorist attacks in America. It did not result in a spreading takeover of Middle Eastern governments by terrorist groups. What it did was stop further American casualties, and allow for a reduction in military spending.

It was foolish and wrong for Reagan to send American troops into Lebanon, but it was good that Reagan was able to recognize his mistake and withdraw those troops.

In Iraq and Afghanistan, President George W. Bush’s pride and stubbornness prevented him from following Reagan’s example. Unfortunately, President Obama has shown that same pride and stubbornness so far.

A withdrawal might cause President Obama to lose face, but it would save many American lives, and it would help save our economy as well.

Many people say “cut and run” as if it were cowardly or idiotic, but that may not be accurate. Apparently the term comes from navigation, when in dire circumstances a ship’s captain might quickly cut the anchor line, raise sail, and “run” before the wind. You lose the anchor, but you save the ship.

I am so frustrated. Sometimes I think we’re spending a trillion dollars and wasting thousands of lives in the Middle East just because politicians are scared of the words “cut and run.”

But I say that’s exactly what we should do: cut and run.

Disclaimer:

The views, opinions, positions or strategies expressed by the authors and those providing comments are theirs alone, and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, positions, policies, or strategies of The Libertarian Defense Caucus or any individual Caucus member thereof.

The Libertarian Defense Caucus stands in solidarity with Russian people, culture, and defense forces against the horrific terrorist attack at the Moscow airport. An attack which murdered dozens, and maimed scores more.

Let us speak the name of this terror: Islamic Jihad.
Let us make these declarations:

–America and Russia should be allies in this struggle to reverse the spread of Islamist aggression; much as Rome and Byzantium upheld civilization against barbarians.

–America should cooperate by extraditing to Russia, those who are wanted for aiding terrorists and who now have sanctuary in the US. In particular, Imad A. Ahmad of the Islamic-American Zakat foundation, which has supplied terrorists in Chechnya.

*–NATO should expel Turkey because it seeks to restore the caliphate by alliance with terrorists, including those now attacking Russia.

*–Russia should be invited to apply for NATO membership,
and resume it’s rightful place as an heir to Byzantium.

* The Caucus holds no official position on the admittance of Russia into NATO nor the expulsion of Turkey from the alliance.

The guiding principle of the Caucus is that all member nation-states should be held to the highest ideals of republican governance.

Disclaimer:

The views, opinions, positions or strategies expressed by the author and those providing comments are theirs alone, and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, positions, policies, or strategies of The Libertarian Defense Caucus or any individual Caucus member thereof.

And that’s only half the story.  In Europe, in the UK, Pakistani men are raping young British girls, because they “dress like sluts.”  In Denmark, they are attacking the headquarters of the newspaper that publishes cartoons mocking Muhammed.  In Sweden an Al Qaeda-linked terrorist tried to blow up hundreds of Christmas shoppers in downtown Stockholm. 
 
In Uganda and Tanzania, Muslim groups are pressuring the governments to declare homosexuality illegal, punishable by life in prison, or even execution.  In Somalia, music has been completely banned, and women are not permitted to work outside the home.  The very latest; if they get caught shaking the hands of a non-relative male, they could be beheaded.
 
Surely, you all recognize how this conflicts enormously with libertarian values. 
 
We understand your position and your personal feelings prevents you all from wanting to do anything about it. 
 
But a compromise…
 
Why not let us Pro-Defense libertarians take the lead on this?
 
As Jim says, we don’t need you to join us in our call to arms.  But we sure as hell would like your moral support.
 
Isn’t that the least you can do?  Can you at least give us that?  Just an acknowledgement that Yes, Sharia Law sucks, and all libertarians, including leftwing libertarians are opposed to Sharia Law.  Further, if some libertarians want to fight back against Radical Islam, “mazeltof”; they are fully free to do so. 
 
You all don’t even do that.  You don’t even acknowledge the threat of Radical Islam.  You’ve got your heads in the sand, and are pretending it doesn’t even exist.
 
Okay, it’s overseas.  And I understand 99% of all non-interventionists are isolationists at heart and could really give an ‘F’ about what goes on in Europe, Africa, the Middle East, ect…
 
Fine.
 
But what about Creeping Sharia here in the United States:
 
1. A restaurant in Nashville, TN was prevented from opening up a bar in the facility cause the Mosque across the street objected to the city council.
 
2. In Hamtramck, Michigan the Muslim call to prayer blares from speakers outside of 4 different Mosques in the tiny hamlet 5 times a day, despite the pleas of local residents, and the Chamber of Commerce, small businessman that its preventing outsiders from coming into town.
 
3. In North Philadelphia the city has prevented any new liquor stores from opening up because of objections from the Muslim community.
 
4. In Wisconsin a publicly-subsidized Pre-School, part of the Head Start program, just eliminated secular Christmas celebrations and banned Santa Claus, cause of objections of Muslim attendees. 
 
5. Corporations across the U.S. are now being sued by CAIR in federal court, and pressured by Muslim groups to be “Sharia compliant.” 
 
6. A group of Christian pastors were arrested at a Fair in suburban Detroit last summer for handing out pamplets praising Jesus on a public sidewalk.  They were surrounded by 8 squad cars full of cops. 
 
C’mon you all.  Surely you can agree with the Pro-Defense wing of the libertarian movement, that these examples are completely contrary to libertarian principles and should be opposed. 
 
All we’re asking in the Pro-Defense wing is that you acknowledge that Sharia Law is a threat to Liberty, and that you occasionally lend us Pro-Defensers your moral support.
 
Something along the lines of: “While we do not advocate foreign intervention to stop Radical Islam, we do recognize it as a threat to libertarian values, and acknowledge that those private efforts of some libertarians who want to fight back, are legitimate.”
 
We’re asking for compromise.  Can you please meet us half-way? 
 
Eric Dondero, Publisher
LibertarianRepublican.net
 
Member, Libertarian Defense Caucus since 1985
Fmr. Senior Aide, US Cong. Ron Paul 1997-2003
Ron Paul, Libertarian for President, Travel Aide, 1987/88
Fmr. Libertarian National Committee mbr.
Founder, Republican Liberty Caucus.
 
Disclaimer:

The views, opinions, positions or strategies expressed by the author and those providing comments are theirs alone, and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, positions, policies, or strategies of The Libertarian Defense Caucus or any individual Caucus member thereof.