2001  -  2002  - 2003 - 2005-2012

January 2004 - Libertarian "Debate Boortz" Petition Started

    Many libertarian signers of the "Boot Boortz" petition below, as well as many other libertarians, have expressed support for 2004 Libertarian Party Convention Planners featuring a debate with scheduled talk-show host Neal Boortz who is critized for a variety of non-libertarian positions. They suggest high profile and hard core Libertarian Party members like Harry Browne, Jacob Hornberger, Sheldon Richman, Mary Gingell, John Clifton, Mary J. Ruwart, etc. Those supporting a debate have been encouraged to contact convention planners Nancy Neale <> - Sean Haugh <> - or Marc Cenci <> about this.
     However, given Neal Boortz' --who frequently complains about some libertarians desire to boot him from the convention (see below) refuses to mention the debate alternative frequently proposed.  Addiitonally, he personally attacks those libertarians organizing the event (including the familiar inflammatory charges of "anti-semitism" against libertarian critics of Israel -- see news item below and Carol Moore's reply to Boortz).  In response, 24-year Libertian Party member Carol Moore set up a site to allow those who also would like to see a debate between Boortz and a hard core libertarian to express their view. The "Libertarians Requesting Boortz Debate a Hard Core Libertarian" petition is at:

May 2004 - Libertarians for Peace Letter to Libertarian Party 2004 Convention Delegates

Dear Delegate to the 2004 Libertarian Party Convention:

     Libertarians for Peace is a loose network of libertarians committed to promoting an end to United States military intervention.  We believe the U.S. government carries out an imperialist agenda that benefits powerful government and corporate special interests at the expense of the lives, liberty and prosperity of Americans and of peoples worldwide.
     We are opposed to the militaristic view that violence can resolve all conflicts and to the massive surveillance of innocent civilians, especially those engaged in political activity against war and civil liberties abuses. As libertarians we believe that the Americans must show the world the light of liberty -- not the fist of a new world order.
    Going into the 2004 Convention members of Libertarians for Peace want to share our thoughts on PLATFORM REFORMATTING, THE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEES AND LIBERTARIAN PARTY NATIONAL STRATEGY.

        The 2002 Libertarian Party Convention voted to allow the 2004 Convention Platform Committee to attempt to reformat the entire Libertarian Party platform so that each plank would contain sections on: the Issue, the Principle, Libertarian Solutions, Libertarian Action/Transition. 
       You can get a ZIP file the Platform Committee released of the *proposed* changes at  Also find there one web page where you can read all the proposed changes to the Military and Foreign Policy section.
      Note that there IS new substantive language included to “fill in the blanks” but this is a work in progress and changes and new language will be suggested during the Platform Committee meeting in Atlanta, May 25-27.
    IMPORTANT CONCERN: Do not allow the Platform Committee to force an “up or down” vote on the whole new platform.  DEMAND our delegates’ right to go through the platform plank by plank and approve all language!
    Below are Libertarians for Peace CRITICISMS and SUGGESTIONS on sections of certain Platform Committee proposed planks **as so far proposed.**  We would appreciate it if you would consider our comments carefully.


I. Individual Rights and Civil Order - 15. Internal Security and Civil Liberties

Lib4Peace Note: In two sections the Committee Proposed Language does call for abolishing the CIA, NSA and Department of Homeland Security.  After Waco and 10 years of exposes of FBI abuses and failures, can any libertarian doubt private security agencies could do a better job – without endangering our civil liberties??


IV.D.2 Foreign Intervention

(Libertarian Solutions):  The United States should not inject itself into the internal matters of other nations that are not an imminent threat or in active war against us. Individuals should be free to provide any aid they wish that does not directly threaten the United States.

Libs4Peace Note: These vague statements could be used to support war on Iraq! We suggest that language be much more EXPLICIT.
       For example: "The United States should not inject itself into the internal matters of other nation unless solid intelligence proves it is about to launch a military attack on U.S. soil or the U.S. is already in a constitutionally declared war with it.


IV.C.1 Foreign Aid

 (The Issue):  The federal government has used foreign aid as a tool of influencing the policy of other sovereign nations, forcing taxpayers to subsidize governments and policies of which they may not approve, rather than achieving the stated goal of delivering aid to those who truly need and deserve it.

Libs4Peace Note: DELETE "rather than achieving the stated goal of delivering aid to those who truly need and deserve it."  This makes it look like we WOULD support government delivering aid to the needy.

(The Principle):  All foreign aid should be privately funded by individuals or private organizations. Individuals should not be coerced via taxes into funding a foreign nation or group of whom they disapprove, and having no say as to where their aid is distributed.

Libs4Peace Note: DELETE "of whom they disapprove, and having no say as to where their aid is distributed."  Again there seems to be an assumption that if taxpayers somehow approve it, aid is acceptable.  ADD “any” so it reads “any foreign nation (or government?) or group.”

(Libertarian Action/Transition): All foreign aid payments used as bribery to aggressor nations, such as North Korea, should immediately cease.  Payments to other nations, used to curry support for US policy should cease and be replaced by private sector programs where aid is given to individuals, not governments.

Libs4Peace Note: This whole statement is unacceptable.
a) If you are going to single out aggressor nations getting U.S. aid, please start with the biggest recipient of U.S. aid, Israel, as well as Egypt and Jordan which are paid to NOT attack it.
b) DELETE “where aid is given to individuals, not governments.”  We don’t tell private individuals they can’t give money to foreign governments.
c) Because foreign military aid is a totally unnecessary imposition on taxpayers, Libs4Peace Suggests something more definitive like:
    We call for the immediate cessation of aid from the United States government to  all foreign governments.

IV.A.5 Secession
(Libertarian Action/Transition): As a transition step, we would allow any political subdivision to secede from the larger political entity of which it is a part based on a majority vote of citizens residing in that subdivision, provided they accept the responsibility incumbent on them in no longer participating in the public sector programs.

Libs4Peace Note: DELETE: "based on a majority vote of citizens residing in that subdivision" Allowing a MAJORITY to impose a solution on a minority contradicts the earlier statement of the plank: "Exercise of this right, like the exercise of all other rights, does not remove legal and moral obligations not to violate the rights of others."
      Supporting the right of individuals and communities on their private property to secede is the libertarian solution. We should leave secession mechanisms vague until we have thoroughly studied the issue.

    We are not endorsing any candidate, but we are expressing our views on some of their positions.   We are delighted that the three leading active candidates -- Michael Badarik, Gary Nolan and Aaron Russo -- are against U.S.  foreign military intervention, foreign aid and the Iraq War, and  all three are making the issue central to the campaigns. 
       However, we are distressed that Gary Nolan admits he would have supported military action against the Taliban government because he believes he has sufficient information it was complicit in the September 11th attacks – but only provided there had been a declaration of war.  To be fair, he is excellent on emphasizing that U.S. interventionism leads to terrorism against Americans.
    We are not happy that all three candidates support federal excise taxes or tariffs, or that Badnarik tentatively supports and Russo firmly supports a national sales tax.  All such taxes could be used to support foreign wars of aggression.
    Because we believe that friendship and free trade with other nations
includes individuals' right to live and work where they please, we are
concerned about two candidates’ immigration stands.   Michael Badnarik and Aaron Russo have asserted that open immigration cannot be allowed until we abolish the welfare state.  Gary Nolan's position on immigration is to let all peaceful people who wish to do so immigrate.
     Until just the week before the convention Russo's campaign web page and circulated statements included the ambiguous statement: "Both parties station our troops around the world rather than protecting our borders from terrorism and the abuse of social services by illegal immigrants."  Some people might interpret this as a call to place military troops all along our borders!  Hopefully Russo will NOT make "enforcing immigration laws" a campaign issue if he gets the nomination.

For More information on Libertarian Presidential candidates see:

    We agree with Murray Rothbard and thousands of other "hard core" libertarians through the years who believe the Libertarian Party must make opposing foreign intervention – and especially current wars like in Afghanhistan and Iraq - central to our policy.  We encourage all state parties and federal candidates to do so.  And we encourage delegates to listen carefully to Libertarian National Committee candidates and choose any who will encourage the national party promote such a strategy.

Please feel free to join our yahoogroup and discuss these issues with us:

Libertarians for Peace Boortz Protest Makes the News!
     Saturday May 29th radio talk show host Neil Boortz spoke at a breakfast for libertarians. There were three "protests":  a small peace rally at the same time in a separate room; Carol Moore handing out Libs4peace contact sheets, other peace literature and "No Boortz 2008" stickers; another fellow handing out free Libertarians Against War buttons.  Bob Sullentrop, LNC secretary, asked for a sticker and ended up giving it to Boortz, who made fun of it, per story below. Carol Moore will be sending him a button via mail.
    Libertarian talker
    Neal Boortz, the radio host who calls himself "the high priest of the church of the painful truth," addressed nearly 1,000 fellow Libertarians at the party's national convention in Atlanta on Saturday in a 42-minute performance that could have passed as a segment from his nationally syndicated talk show.
    He cracked up the breakfast crowd by making fun of New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton ("Never trust a politician without knees"), razzing friend and conservative radio personality Sean Hannity ("Baby Jesus") and taunting conventioneers who wore anti-Boortz lapel stickers in protest of his support of the war in Iraq ("If you can't afford a button, get a new cause"), the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports.
    "I'm going to do this like I do talk radio. If I get on a roll, you're going to have to turn down the volume," said Mr. Boortz, who broadcasts from WSB-AM in Atlanta.
    Mr. Boortz's pro-war stance runs counter to Libertarian ideology and prompted some to petition that he be removed as a convention speaker.
    "For the most part," Mr. Boortz told the crowd, "I'm not ideologically pure."
    Mr. Boortz, who on his show egged on antiwar Libertarian protesters throughout the week, ended his morning monologue by saying: "I'm really disappointed there were no raucous demonstrators."

Boot Boortz from LP's 2004 Convention Petition. Over 700 Signatures
Debate Boortz at LP's 2004 Convention Petition - Over 100 Signatures

May 2004 - LP Platform Convention Adopts Most Libertarians for Peace Proposals
      Per the Libertarians for Peace letter to delegates below, the Libertarian Party platform committee and convention adopted only slightly altered version of most of the Libertarians for Peace proposals below.

June 2004 - Michael Badnarik Eakes Out Victory Over Nolan, Slams Russo
        Texas Libertarian Party activist Michael Badnarik BADNARIK.COM won a third ballot victory over Aaron Russo (423 to 344, NOTA 11) after knocking Gary Nolan off the ballot by just five votes (249 to 244).  Libertarians for Peace did not endorse any candidate, per the below letter to delegates.  See C-SPAN coverage; search "libertarian."
          Badnarik's fiery debate oratory excited delegates; Nolan had a bad throat episode, while Russo was his usual embarrassingly over-the-top self and actually claimed he didn't need congressional approval to go out and kill or  capture any alleged terrorist anywhere on the planet.  Some delegates were disgusted because they believed dishonest attacks by Russo and his supporters on Nolan and/or heard about or witnessed Russo's often boorish public behavior.  In his concession speech Nolan endorsed Badnarik.  Russo used his to get in one last insult at Nolan, though it could not top his crude "joke" at the February 2004 California convention: "He's an Arab. Let's Kill Him."
        Now that the excitement and controversy of the convention is over, it's time to work hard to use the Libertarian Party presidential campaign -- and all the congressional races -- to get out the non-interventionist message -- U.S. out of Iraq and Afghanistan - bring all the troops home now -- end all foreign aid now!!

Campaign Promises to Change Un-Libertarian Answers at VoteSmart.Org
     After inquiries in early and late July about Michael Badnarik's unlibertarian replies at Vote-Smart.Org both Jeremy Linden and later Barb Goushaw of the campaign promised to have them changed. The most egregious ones were finally changed at the end of August.  Description of the position and an explanation with problem with the position.  Badnarik changed his position to the libertarian on on the last three but kept the same positions on the first.
    **  Slightly Decrease Funding for the Military; Slightly Increase Funding for Armed Forces personnel training, Modernization of weaponry and equipment, Research and development of new weapons.  Problem: The US military spends as much on the military as all other nations combined, much of it on maintaining foreign bases.  Past candidates have held that we could quckly cut the military 75-90% and still have more than adequate military defense.  Additionally
    ** Should the U.S. use diplomatic pressure to encourage North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons program?  UNDECIDED  Problem:  Should be NO. Libertarians are for diplomacy; assuring No Korea we were NOT going to invade and withdrawing troops from So Korea would go a long way in that direction.
    **. Should a nation's human rights record affect its normal trade relations (most favored nation) status with the United States? UNDECIDED  Problem: Should be NO. Libertarians for free trade and encourage trade as a way of strengthening the people to rebel.
    **  Do you support the trade embargo against Cuba?  UNDECIDED Problem: Should be NO. Libertarians are for free trade and believe Cubans would have rebelled long ago if U.S. was not keeping them so poor through embargo.

August 2004 - Russo's Anti-Immigration Ad for Badnarik Shocks Libertarians
       During the nomination process many libertarians were uncomfortable with Aaron Russo's web page and television advertisement emphasis on ending immigration and protecting the borders -- including by putting troops on the border.  It is one reason he did not get the nomination. (See the Russo v. Nolan web page.)  Libertarians consider free trade and open borders to be equally important to ensuring peace between nations.
       In July Badnarik visited Russo who was taping him for a television advertisement. One of the resulting ads was entiled "Protecting Our Rights" and was aired in New Mexico for about a week. The ad repeated Russo's anti-immigration/protect our borders theme and even used his pre-nomination slogan "All Our Freedoms, All the Time"!!  In it Badnarik says: Are you disgusted with the welfare system and illegal immigration? (A visual shows a prisoner being led away in custody and a message on the screen reads, "Want to END welfare and illegal immigration?") Later it an announcer says while graphics highlights the words "protect our borders."
      For more details see BADNARIK WATCH. Some comments from shocked and angry libertarians are below:

From Starchild, California, August 10, 2004
       This is NOT what I signed up for. It is as bad as Aaron Russo's message was before he agreed to change his focus from criticizing "illegal" immigration to focusing on the positive end goal of open borders and saying we need to get rid of the welfare system so we can get there.
       If I am not mistaken, Michael Badnarik said he would run on the Libertarian Party platform. At least that's what it says on our national website, and that was my impression from the convention as well.

Carol Moore, District of Columbia, August 10, 2004
    The LP PLatform says NOTHING about restricting illegal immigration and protecting our borders. ... ***Michael Badnarik's personal integrity is on the line if this ad continues to run.***

Gary L Whitaker, August 10, 2004
     Immigration should be open for anyone who understands and agrees with the Constitution, Bill of Rights and the Federalist Papers.

Nancy Henker, Nevada, August 10, 2004
    If Aaron Russo is 'helping' Badnarik with ad production, it could get fiery, if not hazardous to LP integrity. Let's hope not.

David Tomlin, Nashville, TN, August 10, 2004
     "I feel betrayed. I considered Russo unacceptable for this very reason, and now Badnarik is pulling the same stunt."

Jimmy Cook, Oklahoma, August 10, 2004
      This shows what I have said from the beginning and will continue to say. Badnarik, as intelligent as he is, is not sophisticated enough to be a candidate for the president of the United States. Of course this Russo's doing. Russo is doing the ads to 'help out' with the campaign. Badnarik should run from receiving this sort of 'help'.

Brendan Trainor, Nevada, August 10, 2004
      I am disappointed that Michael Badnarik has emphasized "illegal" immigration in his campaign ad in New Mexico. ... As a child of Irish immigrants, I call on Michael Badnarik to pull the reference to "illegal" immigration as a talking point, and keep his promise to honor the Libertarian Party Platform.
Robbie Honerkamp, August 11, 2004
    I don't like the idea of Aaron and some of his staff (Thomas Knapp in particular) jumping onto the Badnarik bandwagon. I've heard rumors about this, but I really don't think there's anything sinister about it as far as there being an effort to destroy the Party.
    That being said, if Badnarik is willing to let others divert him from his own stated campaign platform then we've got problems. I don't agree with some things in the LP platform, but in Badnarik's case he said that the LP platform would be his own. From the ads he's running it appears that he's changed his mind.

Melissa Seaman, South Carolina, August 11, 2004
    There are a few ways to end illegal immigration.  One way is to get rid of the laws that make it illegal.

Paul Tripp, August 11, 2004
    I agree that Russo is having a little too much influence on the campaign. Steve Gordon is  a good guy, and I don't so much mind him being Badnarik's communications director, but the recent anti-immigration ad is going too far.

David Euchner, Arizona, August 11, 2004
     His recent statements on TV cannot be reconciled with the LP platform. Period. People can try to twist the meaning of this statement or that, but I think it's pretty clear.

Roy Leyendecker, Wisconsin, August 11, 2004
    Russo lost the nomination, Shouldn't this be Badnarik's campaign and not old Russo Campaign one liners?

Joseph Knight, New Mexico, August 11, 2004 
   I just CRINGE every time I see that very un-libertarian "illegal immigration" bit in an otherwise excellent TV ad.  Remember Esequiel Hernandez! {Note: Innocent American boy accidentally killed by troops policing Texas border.}

MaryLou Seymor, August 15 and 16, 2004
   .... so far, a majority of people on the lists, at least, appear to have "misinterpreted" it to mean "illegal immigrants should be drug off in chains" (perhaps because that's what was pictured in the ad?)....

Bob Tregilus, Nevada, August 16, 2004
      People are not guilt of  criminal activity UNTIL they are convicted of a crime in this country. Even former criminals of other countries are welcome so long as they do not commit a crime here.
      I will find it very hard to vote for Badnarik until this policy changes.

August 2004 - Badnarik Statements and Position Paper Finess Immigration Line
   After a Libertarians for Peace organized outpouring of discontent with the anti-Immigration, scuttlebutt had it that Badnarik's Campaign Manager Fred Collins stated the ad would not be run again.  However, some libertarian obviously helped him finess a NEW line that drew less protest, even though many would say it also violated libertarian principles by stating an interim position as a final position and by putting troops at the border for anything other than invasion by a foreign military force.  However, the anti-immigration "Protecting Our Rights" ad stayed on his web page throughout the campaign.

Michael Badnarik in a June 8, 2004 interview with FoxNews
    The Libertarian position on immigration is to have, not open borders with no restrictions, but to have controlled borders that allow hard-working people to come into America to help raise their standard of living and improve the American economy.

Badnarik said in interview at for the Fort Worth/Dallas Star Telegram, posted on Fri, Aug. 13, 2004:
       "We have 150,000 troops in Iraq who are not doing anything to protect American safety. All they are doing is generating more hostility and more terrorist threats," he said. "Many of those soldiers could and should be protecting us from people coming across the border and causing problems."

Excerpt from Badnarik position paper "Immigration, Borders and National Security"     
        Not only are immigration restrictions bad policy in and of themselves, they make national defense a more difficult task. Immigrants crossing into the US illegally, because they were denied legal entry for no good reason, provide cover, by sheer dint of numbers, for terrorists and criminals. The black market in smuggling humans constitutes a vector for bringing the nation's enemies into our homeland.
      Coupled with open, easy immigration for the peaceful, I advocate a vigorous national defense against our enemies. Terrorists and criminals who attempt to enter the US via a Customs and Immigration station should be denied entry and, where applicable, arrested or extradited. Terrorists and criminals who attempt to enter the US via other points along its 95,000 miles of border and coastline should be treated as what they are: invaders against whom our armed forces must respond. There are obvious exceptions—Cuban and Haitian "boat refugees" who don't have much control over where they make landfall, for example—but they are exceptions, not the rule.

September 2004 -  LP Press Release Alleges Badnarik Wants to Sent Iraq Troops to Chase Bin Laden
    The Libertarian Party sent out a September 10, 2004 LP press release titled "Bush should commemorate Sept. 11 attacks by tracking down bin Laden, Badnarik says" and starting with the sentence: "The best way for President Bush to commemorate the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks is to pull out of Iraq and use those troops to track down Osama bin Laden instead, Libertarians say."  ("those troops" obviously referring to the 150,000 now in Iraq.) See whole release at
      It continued with a number of Michael Badnarik quotes that could be interpreted very loosely as saying that, except that Badnarik has said numerous times he intends to bring those troops home. Also, during the Convention debate for the nomination he won big applause for saying he would use letters of mark and reprisal to catch terrorists like Bin Laden.  Additionally the press release contained no mention of declaring war on Afghanistan, Pakistan or other nations - or even getting an invite from U.S. puppet President Karzai.  While some contend Badnarik did not agree with the release, it was was put up on his web page at )
       LP Communications Director George Getz refused to answer members questions about the press release.  This was particularly disturbing because at the August, 2004 Libertarian National Committee meeting the "LNC" abolished the Advertising and Publications Review Committee (APRC) which used to deal with non-libertarian content in official publications.  One argument for abolishing it was that members complaints would be sufficient to deal with any issues.

October 2004 - George Getz Says LNC 2001 Press Release Excuses Iraq Troops Claim
      After Libertarians for Peace member Carol Moore made a formal complaint to the LNC because of Getz insulting refusals to explain his September 10th press release statement that "libertarians say": "...pull out of Iraq and use those troops to track down Osama bin Laden..."   Below is Getz reply to the LNC.

 LNC Friends:

     Here is my response to questions about a Libertarian Party press release issued on Sept. 10, 2004, on the anniversary of the Sept. 11 terror attacks. (Feel free to forward this to whomever you like.)
        I understand that controversy has been sparked by the first sentence:
        “The best way for President Bush to commemorate the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks is to pull out of Iraq and use those troops to track down Osama bin Laden instead, Libertarians say.”
        The main question seems to be whether that statement conflicts with Libertarian Party positions.
 On October 14, 2001, the Libertarian National Committee, at its meeting in Atlanta, Georgia, approved a statement on the September 11 attacks, which reads, in part:
        “On Sunday, October 7, the United States launched military action against Osama bin Laden, the terrorist believed to be responsible for the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The U.S. military also struck military bases controlled by the Taliban regime of Afghanistan, which has sheltered and reportedly assisted bin Laden.
        ”While the Libertarian Party has been a consistent voice against reckless foreign interventionism by the U.S. government, we support action against the perpetrators responsible for the terrorist attacks. The vicious and barbaric attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, which bin Laden allegedly masterminded, cost 5,000 innocent Americans their lives. Such horrific crimes cannot go unpunished.
        ”A fundamental role of the United States government, as defined in the U.S. Constitution, is to protect American citizens against foreign attack. Therefore, it is proper for the government to take forceful action against terrorists who have already killed thousands of Americans, and who have threatened to kill more. Such criminals must be rooted out and destroyed before more innocent people die. Their training camps and weapons must be eliminated. Their supply infrastructure must be shattered.
        ”At the same time, the United States' response must be appropriate and measured. . . . “
        The complete statement is at:
        A question has also been raised as to whether the press release was cleared by the Badnarik campaign team. It was.
        That said, in hindsight Mr. Badnarik probably would have expressed the thought differently. During a hectic campaign, there just isn’t time to send drafts back and forth until a perfect wording is found.
        Note that the release does not say that the U.S. should act without a declaration of war, and therefore does not go beyond the LNC resolution. In fact, during the interviews that resulted from this release, I elaborated on the LP’s foreign policy views and pointed out that war should never be undertaken without a formal declaration from Congress.
        Keep in mind that press releases are not designed to be comprehensive policy statements; they are merely a shorthand way of getting the media’s attention.  They do not say what they do not say.
        I should also add that while there are pacifists in the Libertarian Party, we are not a party of pacifists. We believe that while neither nations nor individuals have the right to commit aggression, both have a right to self-defense.
        Advocating retaliation against an attacker, and being a “peace party,” are not mutually exclusive.

 George Getz
 Communications Director
 Libertarian Party

October 2004 - LNC Vice Chair Disputes Getz' Claim
    On October 20th LNC Vice Chair Lee Wrights replied to the George Getz letter, ccing LNC members, starting with the following quote from Getz:

> The best way for President Bush to commemorate the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks is to pull out of Iraq and use those troops to track down Osama bin Laden instead, Libertarians say.”
> The main question seems to be whether that statement conflicts with Libertarian Party positions.

Hi George,

        The main question is does the statement conflict with the party's platform, which takes precedent, in my opinion, over any resolution passed by the LNC.  It is obvious to me, and to others I have spoken with concerning this particular press release, that the statement _is_ in conflict with the party's platform, and no resolution passed by any LNC can justify that.
       Ms. Moore has a legitimate complaint, and since the APRC has been abolished she is trying to get it addressed in the manner the LNC said they wanted.  Justification for doing away with the APRC was that our members would act as auditors of our literature; and, that the APRC was unnecessary because members could just bring their concerns directly to staff or the LNC.  Well, that is exactly what is happening here. Now, IF the APRC were still in existence, this matter would have already been taken care of and the LNC would have received a report from a subcommittee rather than having all this roundabout between angry members, staff, and the LNC.
       George, I am sorry you had to get mixed up in this, but that is what the LNC said they wanted when they voted to abolish the APRC.  Until the board either reverses itself or provides some other solution, I am afraid you may be in for more of these types of complaints as time goes on.

Only interested in Liberty,

R. Lee Wrights
Vice Chair, Libertarian National Committee

October 2004 - John Hospers Endorses Bush for "Security" Reasons

Other libertarians endorseing bush incluce..Tom cox.  Reason mag

October 2004 - Badnarik Calls for US Military to Get Bin Laden

     Again, LP Presidential Candidate Michael Badnarik has come out with a statement that rejects his Convention Debate position that letters of mark and reprisal should be used to get Bin Laden.  And it says nothing about Congress declaring war on whatever nation he might be hiding in.  Libertarians are wondering who has been encouraging Badnarik to assume this neoconservative, non-libertarian line.
October 29, 2004 - For Immediate Release
Contact: Stephen P. Gordon
Michael Badnarik was flying to Austin, Texas when the latest bin Laden tape was released. Upon arriving at his campaign headquarters and receiving a briefing on the situation, Badnarik issued the following short statement:
“Osama bin Laden’s tape gives us the clear-cut evidence that we need to identify the perpetrator of the 9/11 tragedy. Our highest military priority should be to capture bin Laden and bring him to justice – as opposed to continuing the war in Iraq and stationing troops in 135 countries around the world. I believe that a libertarian non-interventionist policy might have averted the 9/11 tragedy and reduces the likelihood of similar tragedies in the future.”
October 2004 - Badnarik Campaign Pays Nolan Accuser Aaron Russo $70,000 for "Public Relations"
     Libertarians who repeatedly heard Aaron Russo accuse staff of his opponent Gary Nolan of running a campaign just for personal profit were shocked to learn that as of the end of September, 2004, Russo had received $70,000 for "public relations" services. (See FEC reports.)  Since Russo admitted during the nomination campaign that the ads he puts together are done on his home computer -- which clearly shows in their amateurish production -- it is clear this is mostly profit for Russo.  Considering that Russo evidently influenced Badnarik's new, post-convention anti-immigration stance, and perhaps his pro-military war on terrorism position, Russo seems to have profited handsomely from undermining Badnarik's integrity and the party's reputation.