T
H
E

L
I
B
E
R
T
A
R
I
A
N

E
N
T
E
R
P
R
I
S
E


I
s
s
u
e

94

L. Neil Smith's
THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE
Number 94, October 16, 2000
Who Is Carl Drega?

From: "Dennis Kabaczy" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Subject: Scott Graves letter in TLE #93
Date: Monday, October 09, 2000 9:12 AM

Mr. Graves says he did not see any evil in Mr. Browne when he met him. Well the American people did not see any evil in FDR in his first election, either.

FDR, over a period of eleven years, managed to get enacted into law, most of the socialist platform of 1932. Libertarians recognize him as one of our most statist presidents. He is not a hero, except to those indoctrinated in our government schools, who have not learned better.

I am not saying Mr. Browne is evil. All I am saying is the wolf in sheep's clothing has been to our door before. As with any other politician, we must remain vigilant.

Dennis Kabaczy
Canton, MI

From: "critter" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Subject:
Date: Monday, October 09, 2000 9:49 PM

After watching the extremely nauseating and sickening "Peter Jennings Reporting "The Gun Fight" Power and politics of the National Rifle Association" I wanted to march down to the NRA headquarters and set it afire. These bumbling idiots are protecting us from the governments assault on our second amendment rights???? All I can say is... GO HELP THE OTHER SIDE!!! PLEASE!!!

From: "Kevin J Tull" To: Date: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 1:06 PM

What's the real reason that the Arizona LP has split from the NLP, I don't recall Harry Browne making any comment to use the coercive power of government to enforce anything unconstitutional. Also as James J. Odle in TLE #91 said, "I thought Neil wasn't running for Prez since he didn't receive his million signatures.", and I thought L. Niel was a Libertarian, what are the specific things that convinced him Browne and the NLP, weren't?

Why has the Arizona Libertarian Party chosen, in it's greater wisdom, to ignore the majority of Libertarian voters in their state. Perry Willis, Campaign Manager Browne for President says,

"And that group has decided to ignore the Arizona presidential primary that gave Harry Browne 77% of the Libertarian vote, and to ignore the LP's choice at the national convention. Instead, they have placed on the ballot the names of L. Neil Smith for President and Vin Suprynowicz for Vice-President -- both of whom have agreed to have their names used."

Well, even though the ALP seems to have had a major brain fart, this is what the Brown campaign says,

"Pulling together may require swallowing some pride and ignoring long-standing animosities, but it's the only way we can succeed. Imagine the additional energy, time, and other resources that could go into building the party if there were a moratorium on intramural hostility.

"And so to further party unity, we urge Arizona Libertarians to vote for L. Neil Smith for President, rather than writing in Harry's name. If Smith is the only Libertarian presidential candidate printed on the Arizona ballot, it makes sense to pile up as many votes as possible for him.

"We have to rise above petty disputes and devote ourselves to the task of bringing about freedom for all people."

I have read some of L. Neil's Commentary throughout the years and I believe he would be a great Libertarian president, I also have read Vin Suprinowicz's "Send in The Waco Killers" and "The Libertarian" and I believe he would be an even better Libertarian president, that said, I still find it hard to understand why two otherwise highly intelligent people would carry the banner for this mistake that the leadership of the ALP has chosen to take part in! I guess a couple a thousand suggestions was enough for Mr. Smith to want to go to Washington and help screw up an otherwise unanimous decision of the Libertarian majority to have Harry Browne as their candidate.

If you guys really think the Libertarian Party has abandoned it's principles and you can't change the party back then why would you steal the party away from the 77% of Libertarian Arizonans who believe otherwise? Start a new party, call it the Arizona Anarchy Party and get on with your lives!

Kevin J. Tull [email protected]

From: "Pamela Maltzman" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Letter from Scott Graves, TLE 10/09/2000
Date: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 6:16 PM

To the Libertarian Enterprise:

I have some comments regarding Scott Graves' letter of October 9, 2000 and the issues mentioned therein.

First of all, in the interest of truth-in-advertising, I am that "certain ex-girlfriend" alluded to. And yes, I will attest to the facts that (1) Scott lived too long in Fort Collins, and (2) as a result of that, he does indeed have a good eye (and nose) for bullshit.

I will even add that in spite of our personal differences years ago, I have never lost my respect or admiration for Scott's considerable intelligence or his willingness and courage to call a situation as he sees it.

> I just didn't see the evil that I was warned about,
> I didn't see the back stabbing maniac, the
> compromising sell out, the man who has no
> principles, the non-libertarian candidate....
> I have no idea where his enemies get the idea he is
> the Anti-Christ.

Again, I have to agree with Scott. I didn't see the Anti-Christ either. (Is it too close to Halloween, or what?)

I have met both Harry Browne and Art Olivier, and years ago was privileged enough to hear Harry Browne speak at a California supper club, decades before he got fed up enough to run for office.

In addition, I met L. Neil Smith when I lived in Fort Collins (only for a couple of years, but even that seemed too long), and I met Vin Suprynowicz when he spoke at a Southern California supper club during his book tour last year to promote "Send in the Waco Killers."

In my estimation, both Harry and Art are men of principle. I am not ashamed to say the LP chose them, and I plan to vote for their ticket. (Besides, both of these men are married to women nearly as tall as I, so in my book they can't be all bad! ;-)

Had the LP chosen L. Neil Smith and Vin Suprynowicz as its national ticket, I might then be voting for them. But from what I could tell, neither Neil nor Vin actually threw his hat into the ring.

Instead, Neil wanted a million people to write in and "persuade" him to run. This reminds me of nothing so much as the blushing bride who wishes to be "persuaded" to come to bed on her wedding night because she doesn't want to seem "too eager."

Technically, I think the Arizona dissenters were within their rights to nominate L. Neil Smith and Vin Suprynowicz, or even Donald Duck and Goofy, if they wished to do so.

But their action makes me question their motives and wisdom in doing so. In fact, I have several questions regarding this whole situation.

The members of the Libertarian Party have expended considerable effort over the years to build a recognizable presence in American politics, including ballot status in all 50 states. I myself am not all that fond of majority rule (two wolves and a sheep deciding upon the dinner menu), but it is the method used in choosing candidates at the national convention.

One of the biggest criticisms I have heard about the libertarian movement, from people both within and without the movement, is the fact that libertarians find it extremely hard to work together for a common goal. (For instance, I know people who love the libertarian message but hate most of the messengers. This latter group includes a Denver man who is still a mutual friend of Scott's and mine.)

I would ask: Isn't the action of the Arizona dissidents, in trashing the national ticket selected at the LP National Convention, not only working at cross-purposes to the majority of the Libertarian Party, but effectively shooting themselves in the foot?

There are factions within the libertarian movement who eschew political action, preferring instead to work on the difficult task of educating people to let go of the government tit before they ask them to vote. I have no particular quarrel with these folks, and in fact was one myself for years. It's a difficult, nasty job, and someone has to do it.

But if I rightly remember, L. Neil Smith himself has run for office in Colorado. In fact, the last time I heard him speak was at the Colorado LP State Convention in 1995, at which time he was encouraging other people to run for office as Libertarians.

Now, apparently, Neil is bashing the LP. I am not sure what has changed in the interim, or why he has chosen to reverse his position. Is it perhaps the fact that not all libertarians agree with the way he wants things done?

May I remind the readers that it is still possible of men and women of goodwill to disagree on the means of achieving freedom, even if they agree on the goal of freedom. There is more than one role to be played in this movement of ours, even if it isn't approved of by either L. Neil Smith or the readers of The Libertarian Enterprise.

Pamela Maltzman
[email protected]

From: <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Subject: TLE letters to the editor
Date: Thursday, October 12, 2000 1:07 PM

Dear TLE (John),

Just a thought for the "more examples of a craven, biased media" file!

While watching the news this morning I noticed something in connection with the way the media reports the poll "results." In the past when Mr Bush was in the lead it was "too early" to make any comments. As the election drew closer, and poll "results" became more even or a point or two in Mr G.A. Gore's favor, the media simply reported these "results" with a gleam in their eyes. Now that the election is less than a month away, Mr Bush's slight lead in the poll "results" is being reported as "well within the poll margin for error."

Could this be any more blatant? Can the 89% of the news-media who are registered democrats believe this is providing a balanced and objective report?

The most irksome point here is that the situation would be much different if polls were not available, and the news media actually was the bastion of "truth" it pretends to be!

This was just a hipshot. I think our vaunted media will be too wrapped up in the impending war in the middle east to answer charges of bi-assed political reporting!

Regards,
Peter R Petronello
MSgt (ret) USMC

Who cares who "won" the debate, the press will simply spin it to their preferences anyway.

From: "Kevin J Tull" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Subject: Mr. Whiny Pansey Ass, whines again!
Date: Thursday, October 12, 2000 5:19 PM

I came, I read, I comprehended! The AZLP was right and the NLP and the AZLP INC. were terribly wrong, and ahem, me too. How about 2004 for L. Niel?

As for Mr. I Feel Superior To Everyone Else Cuz (Because) I Can Use Big Words Like Pusillanimous, I really like the uncondescending tone of "sacks of dog shit", it almost made you sound like a average joe. Although I admit I did have to look up that big P word in the dictionary. I suppose with all those big words trapped in your noggin (head) you had to show your pococuranteism to the majority of us simple readers ( Yes, I did pull that one out of a dictionary, and if you haven't memorized the entire english language then you'll probably have to look it up too).

At least you did get me to look up past TLE issues (by the way John, 12 and 17 were not accessable) and check out several AZLP sites (AZLP, AZLP Inc?, and my least favorite AZLP Inc.) where I came to the realization that it was the NLP that had a "major brain fart" by backing the band of thieves at the AZLP Inc.

a semi-chastised Libertarian,
Kevin Tull

From: "JACK JEROME" <[email protected]>
To: "John Taylor" <[email protected]>
Subject: Once again into the breech
Date: Thursday, October 12, 2000 11:27 PM

Hi J C,

Looks like ONE of my predictions for the fall of 2000 may come true. Several months ago I felt it reasonable to assume that the Administration would look for any available excuse to enter into a war, and they have got one.

Before I fully perambulate into another tirade, I feel sorrow for the men and families involved in the recent (12Oct2000) Naval tragedy in the Middle East. But these lives need not have been lost. Had the War Department (Dept. of Defense) not repeatedly involved itself in the affairs of others by "police actions" these terrorists may never have had a reason for their cowardly actions.

Ever the toadying army at the beck and call of the United Nations (What a crock), USgov forces have bent country after country to it's will in violation of all Libertarian principles. Are our forces defending human rights inalienable? Or are we covering our asses to keep sources of oil available?

Soon, Israel will require both money and support to bring down its own civil war. With politicians commanding armed forces one can easily guess the outcome. At what point will we let people fight their own fights?

These groups have both forsworn peace thousands of years ago. Both groups have charters so similarly worded that they are virtually interchangeable. It seems that in every culture, revolution may be the ultimate statement of Democracy. Maybe Democracy should take its course.

Our country has been bleeding away the Constitution for years, and we cannot defend it INSIDE our boarders. Yet we profess to do the same overseas. How arrogant of US.

With the increased "evidence" of terrorism in the world at large, I fear increased losses of freedom even at home. Owing to the threat of terrorist attacks, it will provide a great opportunity to tighten up on us free people. The advent of the following I give as evidentiary proof of lost freedoms: KARNIVORE programs (reading this, no doubt), more video security at stop lights and public areas, the obligatory phone taps, and the closing of public thoroughfares. Can one doubt this in the light of current events? If I'm wrong about this, excuse my paranoia. Like Heinlein said, paranoids live longer.

Peace out,

Jack

Next to advance to the next article, or
Table of Contents to return to The Libertarian Enterprise, Number 94, October 16, 2000.