Johnson Says Troops Over There Are "Keeping us safe."

Discussion
1

'Libertarian' Presidential Candidate Gary Johnson: Warmonger?
          <http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/120378.html>

    Posted by David Kramer <mailto:voluntaryist8@…> on September
    7, 2012 03:30 PM

    Statement issued
    <http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/statement-from-governor-gary-johnson-on-the-anniversary-of-september-11-2001> by
    Gary Johnson on the tenth anniversary of the false flag attack on
    the United States sheeple:

        "As we all pause this weekend to remember the events of
        September 11, 2001, our thoughts are with those who lost their
        lives, those who saved so many lives, and a nation that showed
        its greatness in countless ways. 9/11 and the days after were a
        time when ordinary Americans did extraordinary things. Our
        thoughts and our gratitude are also with the amazing men and
        women of our military who are putting themselves on the line
        every day to keep us safe. The fight against those who would do
        us harm continues today, and it is a fight we must carry out
        with the same determination that was so magnificently displayed
        by the heroes of 9/11."

    [Thanks to Scott Horton]

          Re: 'Libertarian' Presidential Candidate Gary Johnson:
          Warmonger?
          <http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/120393.html>

    Posted by Laurence Vance <mailto:lmvance@…> on September 7,
    2012 04:28 PM

    The statement by Gary Johnson
    <http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/120378.html>that the
    men and women of the military are "amazing" and that they put
    themselves "on the line every day to keep us safe" shows once again
    <http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/06/how-libertarian-is-gary-johnson.html>that
    he doesn't have clue what a real libertarian is. Romney, Bush,
    Obama, Biden, Clinton, McCain, Palin, and the rest of the warmongers
    have all made almost the same statement.

    Two more thoughts:

    I wonder if U.S. troops would still be "amazing" if they went house
    to house killing "suspected terrorists" in Johnson's neighbourhood?

    Are the U.S. who bomb wedding parties and cut off body parts and
    urinate on dead bodies "amazing" too?

      Johnson Says Troops Over There Are "Keeping us safe."

    Submitted by Sue4theBillofrights
    <http://www.dailypaul.com/user/29293> on Thu, 09/06/2012
    <http://www.dailypaul.com/date/2012/09/06> - 18:11

    in

    �Ron Paul 2012 <http://www.dailypaul.com/forums/ron-paul-2012>

    �DP Original <http://www.dailypaul.com/category/helpful-tags/blog>

    "Our thoughts and our gratitude are also with the amazing men and
    women of our military who are putting themselves on the line every
    day to keep us safe." - Gary Johnson, Sept. 11, 2011

    http://race42012.com/2011/09/11/gov-gary-johnson-statement-o…
    <http://race42012.com/2011/09/11/gov-gary-johnson-statement-on-the-10th-anniversary-of-911/>

    Kowtowing to the cruel lie that is keeping us in chains. No, Gary,
    blowing Iraqi babies to bits and bombing Afghan wedding parties is
    not keeping us "safe." This is a fundamental part of the Ron Paul
    Revolution.

    What's next? We need to fight them there so we don't have to fight
    them here? Civilian casualties are unfortunate but unavoidable?

    Political courage is for every day of the week, not for when no one
    is watching and waiting to jump down your throat. When millions were
    watching is exactly when truth-tellers like Ron Paul tell us that
    they don't hate us for our freedoms...they hate us"because we're
    OVER THERE!" <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sraDwkAwqH4>

    See: "blowback."

    You cannot defend the war machine and be a Libertarian. War is the
    enemy of liberty.

    ""Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to
    be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every
    other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and
    taxes. And armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments
    for bringing the many under the domination of the few." James Madison

Warm regards, Michael

Michael R. Edelstein, Ph.D.
Clinical Psychologist
San Francisco
415-673-2848 (24 hours)

Author of /Three Minute Therapy/
(with David Ramsay Steele, Ph.D.)
Features help for anxiety, depression, relationships, panic attacks and addiction
*A Quality Paperback Book Club/Book-of-the-Month Club Selection

To order: www.ThreeMinuteTherapy.com <http://www.threeminutetherapy.com/>
Or toll free: 1-800-986-4135
Email: DrEdelstein@...

2

Dear Michael and All,

This is the piece to which I referred on the Activists List. I saw it on Economic Policy Journal. The piece was written on September 10, 2011. We know Johnson is "new" to libertarianism, and still stuck on Republican/Democratic soundbites, especially where foreign policy is concerned. I was indeed dismayed when the Libertarian Convention nominated yet another Republican cross over. However, I prefer to vote Libertarian (big L), and encourage others to do the same. Ron Paul was my only exception, even though many of our Libertarian colleagues warned us against his stand on social issues, just as we are now being warned about Johnson's foreign policy. All this being said, I can do as Rockwell and not vote at all, and miss a chance of promoting the party to which I belong. I could also write in Ron Paul, but I prefer to move forward with encouraging better Libertarian candidates.

The LPSF will be distributing Gary Johnson door hangers every weekend till election day.

Marcy

3

Marcy,
The same roles will continue to deliver the same story.
Who we are(you, me, others), must change in the in the political landscape.
John

4

Hi All! I have taken up Marcy's suggestion to write a message to Gary Johnson on his website (Contact us) to move away from the warmonger side and closer to Ron Paul's stance. "Humanitarian purposes" can be used by any government to invade another country and start dropping the bombs. Also, I noticed in his foreign issues section, he talks about "evaluating" whether US troops should be stationed around the globe. That's nonsense--and I let him know it (politely). He has the makings of a good Libertarian, but he needs a push away from "keeping us safe."

Aubrey

5

Are we so irrelevant that our candidate can be "warmongering" at all? We must politely implore him to respect our wishes?

6

Hello folks,
I'm new to the LP discussion so can somebody explain how there is such a radical departure from libertarian ideology by the Libertarian candidate on such an important point? Maybe he should get NO votes from all libertarians unless he toes the line. He will not win the election anyway and our support simply demonstrates our irrelevance, not to mention the irrelevance of the ideology to us. Every message sent by our support is bad!!
Sending Johnson down in flames would send the message that we are not to be trifled with. How can we be taken seriously otherwise?
We aren't! How many libertarians in federal and state office? One?

Ultimately, it is not the candidate that is is important. It is the clarity, solidarity and resolve of the people behind him that matter.

Maybe this is all a mistake and part of some divisive move?

John

7

Hi John,

I believe your questions were excellently addressed by a prior post by Starchild, addressing the continual division within the Libertarian party between radical purists and incrementalists.

I would like to add my own interpretation by saying that the former easy to follow -- just follow to the letter the words of Rothbard and company and not to worry about results (there is always tomorrow for the general public to see the light). The latter, not so easy, since it involves a bit of situational ethics and personal judgement, and involves wanting to actually make a difference among the general public.

We all realize that Johnson belongs to the incremental constituency.
"Sending him down in flames" as you suggest, in my opinion, belongs to the purist's camp, where political results in the general political arena is ignored.

I would suggest that the reason the LP has come up with two Republican cross overs who are not entirely familiar with libertarian principles, is because the incrementalists, by nature more practical, show up at national conventions and nominate candidates that are appealing to the general public (the voters). You want purist candidates, attend the conventions!

I would further suggest that gently pressuring Johnson to abandon the Republican/Democratic soundbites is our best course of action right now. Abandoning him now will rob us of a great opportunity to promote the Libertarian (BIG L) party via promoting his campaign. Of course, he is free to ignore our pressure, since he might feel that our doing so now might be akin to marrying a drunk and insisting he sober up after the wedding.

Marcy

8

Thanks Marcy,
I believe I understand the thinking there.
When could we expect the incrementalist approach to produce an elected candidate?
John

9

Sooner than the purist approach.

Marcy

--- In lpsf-discuss@...m, John Bechtol <javlin@...> wrote:

10

Marcy,

I'm approaching this strategy as a vertern of the 1960's John Birch Society. Did we accomplish anything in the past 45 years? How did we fail? Why are we in the conditions we are in now, when we were working actively, with most of the right ideologies? How far did we get with our ideological purity?

Why did the Birch Society oppose Reagan? Would we be better-off, if someone else had been President?

Like the Birch Society, The Libertarian Party is obviously not in the business of winning elections, but it is different in that it is forwarding its message with the fielding of candidates for political office.

This presents additional dimensions of strategies. Why did Ron Paul leave the Libertarians and shoot for the Republican ring? Will Johnson's name on the ballot have more impact than Pauls candidacy?

I'm not pretending to have all the answers, at this point. Nor am I critical of any decisions made by the party so far.
I was, after all supporting your position not to abandon Johnson in order to keep the integrity of the party intact.

But I was calling into question who "we" are as a party.

Are "we" really relevant and are we really making a difference?

I put "we" in quotes cuz I also speak as a lifelong registered Republican with roots to the abolition of slavery.
From that point of view, is "we" a membership thing or is is it a serious and effective movement?
I hope it is the latter.

John

11

Marcy,
Less than a thousand years? Excellent!! :slight_smile:

OK I'm a wise-guy, I know. Sometimes it gets me into trouble. As Starchild suggested maybe I should pursue other targets with my political comedy!!

That being said, the point of my first post is that the Demoblicans are already competing for the increment that promotes war. Why would we compete for that same increment when Ron Paul has already shown the power of competing againts that increment.

Especially when it seems to be an increment in the destruction of the principles of the party...far from advancing them...incrementally.

With that being said, Who are "we" as a party? What faction of the party is calling the shots? Has the party been hijacked by sycophants? Or is it Johnson who has been hijacked?

Maybe you've already been through this ad nauseum but there seems to be a significant unresolved issue here. Pretending it is not there and moving forward is a recipe for disaster. What does it take to produce more consensus and solidarity?

John

12

Hi John,

I am the wrong person with whom to discuss ideology. I am a Libertarian because I believe in a small government that leaves me alone to pursue my potential, and I do not see a true desire for a small, non-intrusive government in either of the two major parties. I work to promote the Libertarian party so its candidates will continue to appear on the ballot; without such work, the Party will lose ballot status. Not being an ideologue, I prefer to work within a political party structure than via a think tank or debating society.

You ask whether we are relevant or are making a difference. I don't know. What I do know is that by working hard to promote the Party and its point of view on current and specific issues, the general public becomes more aware of our views. Whether anyone chooses to adopt those views, we can only hope.

You ask who do I mean by "we." If I am speaking about "we Libertarians," I am referring to individuals who are registered Libertarians. If I am speaking about members of the Libertarian Party, I am referring to individuals who have forked over their membership dues. By "libertarians" I mean those who espouse the principles of libertarianism, regardless of their political party affiliation, if any.

Why did Ron Paul leave the Libertarian Party? I presume because he felt it would be easier for him to get elected as a member of a major party. Will Johnson's name on the ballot have more impact than Paul's candidacy? I would say "no;" since there is only one, once in several generations, Ron Paul.

You ask who is calling the shots in the Libertarian party. I assume you mean at the national level where the presidential candidates are nominated. I would say it would be 1) the national leaders of the party, duly elected by party convention attendees, and 2) the convention attendees who vote for the leaders and the platform. Whether that is a good or bad reality is a topic for another e-mail thread.

In response to your question as to what does it take to produce more consensus and solidarity, I would say I have already responded to that when I mentioned a bit of situational ethics and personal judgement in an earlier post.

Marcy

13

Marcy,
In spite of what you think about yourself, so far you are the one who has provided the cogent and lively debate that forms new methodolgies to achieve the small government we all seek.

That, in addition to sustaining the rudiments of the political organization is heroic.
John

14

Marcy said

”he might feel that our doing so now might be akin to marrying a drunk and insisting he sober up after the wedding.”

You are very funny Marcy…very correct AND very funny.

Mike

15

Yes, I thought so too!

I saw it from an other POV: He's cute, we were drunk, now we're sober in the morning and not so comfortable with the "alternative lifestyle".
John

16

That is very funny too…and could also be very true. Let’s see if we can turn him around.

Mike

17

Oh, that approach is straight from Dr. Laura, the advice-giving talk show host. Her response to any caller engaging in crying and rending of garments in regard to his/her spouse would always be "You picked him!" (or "You picked her!) Same with candidates....and office holders (ouch!)

Marcy

18

John:

No political party is monolithic. Libertarians do not always agree on every
single issue. Political reality is that you sometimes have to work with people
who do agree 100% with you.

19

I agree with Les. We choose the political party that is the best. That doesn't mean it is perfect. If everyone had to have a perfect political party, there would be several million political parties.

Richard Winger

415-922-9779

PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147

20

Leslie,
Yeh, I know.

Which part of the Libertarian Party is OK with troops in foreign engagements and thinks those troops are keeping us safe? The Huntsman part? :slight_smile:

John