Where is a Ron Paul Activist to Go? The Boston Tea Party!
Ron Paul inspired millions with his message of freedom and brought hope to the American political process. But with all the enthusiasm and activism Ron Paul inspired he did not win the Republican Nomination. Ron Paul activist looked to the Libertarian Party to give them a candidate they could support. Instead the LP nominated Bob Barr. Libertarian and Ron Paul activists should join The Boston Tea Party. by Raymond Lady
(libertarian)
Monday, September 22, 2008
Ron Paul inspired millions with his message of freedom and brought hope to the American political process. But with all the enthusiasm and activism Ron Paul inspired he did not win the Republican Nomination. Ron Paul activist looked to the Libertarian Party to give them a candidate they could support. Instead the LP nominated Bob Barr.
While in congress Barr voted for the Iraq War and the Patriot Act. Barr also proposed to ban the practice of Wicca in the military and expanded the War on Drugs. He also wrote and voted for the Defense of Marriage Act. Barr claims that he has changed his position on these issues but his actions in recent days and weeks have caused many to beg to differ. On Hannity and Colmes Barr said that he would not legalize the "hard drugs". He also supports keeping some portions of the Defense of Marriage Act and has yet to release a statement about whether he still plans to ban a religion. And most recently Barr stubbed Ron Paul’s third party unity press conference claiming, "It wasn’t worth it".
Bob Barr has proved himself NOT to be libertarian.
Many Ron Paul supporters finding themselves without a candidate to support have turned to the Constitution Party and Chuck Baldwin. Many of these activists have been lead to believe that the Constitution Party is a libertarian or Ron Paul-like party. It is not.
The Constitution Party platform starts with, "The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States." Apparently they don’t know that the United States is a secular nation.There platform also states, "We oppose any legal recognition of homosexual unions" and "we oppose efforts to legalize adoption of children by homosexual singles or couples." It als states, "we also believe that our collective representative body we call government plays a vital role in establishing and maintaining the highest level of decency in our community standards." Libertarians recognize that government has no authority regulate mortally; the Constitution Party does not.
The Constitution Party and Chuck Baldwin have proved themselves not to be libertarian.
Now I bet you are asking yourself, "Were on Earth is a Ron Paul activist to go?" I’ll tell you, to the Boston Tea Party.
The Boston Tea Party is America’s only truly libertarian political party. All members must agree to the one sentence platform that reads, "The Boston Tea Party supports reducing the size, scope and power of government at all levels and on all issues, and opposes increasing the size, scope and power of government at any level, for any purpose."
Members of the Boston Tea Party can belong to other political parties and the party endorses candidates not matter what their party affiliation as long as they agree with the party platform. The Boston Tea Party strongly believes in both Economic and Personal freedom. The Boston Tea Party is Americas hope for a libertarian future.
All Ron Paul activists should join the Boston Tea Party. It is the home of true libertarians and of Ron Paul’s ideology. The Revolution lives on in the Boston Tea Party.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 28
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Raymond Lady only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Raymond Lady is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
The key to ever creating a libertarian majority (or even a large enough minority to have an impact) is not further fractionalization of the movement. The Boston Tea Party is welcome as a caucus within the Libertarian Party, much as Outright, or the Radical Caucus or the Reform Caucus, but if it tries to establish itself as a separate political party, a purist party for libertarians, it will only serve to further delay and obstruct any hope of electoral success for libertarians. I say this as a member of the radical caucus, and as one who has had plenty to say about the wisdom of our choice for candidate this year. I have daydreamed about starting over and creating a more libertarian party than the actual Libertarian Party. But the bottom line is the Libertarian Party is the best hope for uniting, organizing and eventually succeeding electorally because the party has some semblance of political infrastructure that it has taken a quarter century to establish, and a brand that is beginning to be recognized, thanks in part to Ron Paul.
There are those who say that Ron Paul isn't libertarian enough. No matter who we nominate there will be those who are passionately opposed to the choice. Still, overall, we have a party that is generally libertarian in principle and most of our candidates represent the brand relatively well. This is not the right time to be creating splinter groups in the movement.
As a response to the comment about Paul's endorsement of Baldwin, I'll have to say I agree with the columnist's assessment of the libertarian cred of the Constitution Party and I'm not sure why Dr. Paul endorsed Baldwin individually after endorsing all third party candidates together just two weeks prior.Â
Bottom line, vote as you feel led in any given race but don't abandon the party just yet. We're still the freedom party with the best shot at making an impact. Â
The Boston Tea Party is America’s only truly libertarian political party. All members must agree to the one sentence platform that reads, "The Boston Tea Party supports reducing the size, scope and power of government at all levels and on all issues, and opposes increasing the size, scope and power of government at any level, for any purpose."
I wouldn't call that a "truly libertarian" belief. In fact, I wouldn't call it a "libertarian" belief at all, except for someone who thought that all government was inherently aggressive and should be done away with. I'd be willing to call such a person an "anarcholibertarian," but a "true libertarian" -- come on!
Seriously, how could a Ron Paul supporter -- someone who advocates the governance of the U.S. Constitution -- sign on to this without contradicting other of his beliefs? Â
Boston Tea Party ... home of ... Ron Paul’s ideology.
Apparently, not at all. With Paul's endorsement of the "Jesus Party" candidate, he wants to be as far away from libertarians as he can get ... although anarchy is nearly as far away from liberty as anyone can get.
Barr's stance on the drug war is that he would leave the entire issue up to the states to decide. What he said on Hannity and Colmes was that he personally didn't support legalization of hard drugs, and would not vote for it if he was in a position of power within a state's government, but he understands that the issue would not be his to decide.
 As for the Defense of Marriage Act the only portion he supports now is the part that instructs the federal government to leave each state free to define marriage however it chooses. How is that not consistent with libertarianism?
 "Snubgate" is a non-issue that has been blown way out of proportion by individuals that intended to use it to further their own agendas, and the whole obsession with naming controversies ____-gate is really played out while we're on the subject. Many of Ron Paul's staffers have a history, long-predating the press conference incident, of disrespecting or attempting to sabotage Barr and/or his campaign.  They are not without fault for creating and/or fostering a hostile relationship with the Barr Campaign, and singling out the Barr Campaign for 100% of the blame is disingenuous at best.
 As John Howell wisely observed: Fragmenting support for alternatives to the two-party system is a self-defeating "strategy" that will accomplish nothing. Forming your own little club as a vehicle for political endorsements has its benefits, but clearly taking shots at others in an attempt to build your membership base is just another form of negative campaigning. It should never be forgotten that the illegitimate duopoly that is ruining America is the opposition, and your fellow revolutionaries are your friends. You should be advocating the benefits of your interest group, and not attacking other interest groups to try and convince their members to defect.
There is much work to do and some time left to do it, to get Charles Jay registered as a write-in candidate in various states.
But, no, he's not on as many states as others. Which is not really relevant, since none of the third party candidates are going to win enough electoral votes to get to the White House.
The Boston Tea Party is a political party. If you don't like it John Howell, too bad. We like it, and we joined it, and you didn't. So we get to choose whether we're a political party, and you don't. Our purpose is to exercise our freedom to choose a political party that represents our ideals. If that results in more choices for libertarians, great. If that results in more fractionalisation of the libertarian movement, so be it.
We did not choose to eviscerate the LP platform in 2006. When that happened, Tom Knapp formed our party. We did not choose to nominate Bob Barr in Denver 2008, but when that happened, dozens of people joined our party. We did not choose to alienate and chastise Angela Keaton, but when the LNC got bogged down on that activity, dozens of people joined our party. We did not choose to snub Ron Paul, but when that happened, dozens of people joined our party. Â
I don't expect electoral success for libertarian candidates. Nevertheless, our party has identified and endorsed some sixteen Libertarian Party candidates for various offices. We have even endorsed an LP candidate for president and one for vice president, George Phillies and Chris Bennett - in part to illustrate that we're capable of endorsing a libertarian candidate for president if the LP were ever to choose to run one again.Â
If the LP wants all of the Boston Tea Party members to join the LP and pay dues to the LP and pay attention to the LP, I think you can wait until you see the devil on ice skates, and it won't happen. But, if that were a goal for you, you might try pushing some reforms on the LP structure, such as less secrecy and more openness about what the national committee is doing (half a dozen people have joined since the brouhaha on whether Independent Political Report should have published Bob Sullentrup's announcement of St. Louis as the site for the 2010 LP convention - which Sullentrup neglected to mention was in any way secret). You might want to have less corruption of your national party, where even your party's co-founder David Nolan has noted that staff were biased in favor of a particular candidate before the nominating convention this year. You might want to have more oversight by the members of your party so that the national committee can be overturned if it acts in error or against the wishes of the members.Â
Ron Paul would be a breath of fresh air compared to the likely winner in the current election campaign. But, he won't run as a Libertarian Party candidate, he says. So, what can you do? You can't choose for him, any more than you can choose for 348 members of the Boston Tea Party.
 Out of curiosity, when would it be the right time to create splinter groups, or, as I like to say, offering people a choice in libertarian parties? We are the fastest growing libertarian party in America. Maybe you should reflect on the many things that are causing people to leave your party - David Nolan noted in his campaign flyer for the LNC in Denver that he thinks the membership has continued to dwindle since 2000 - and make meaningful changes within your party before you start demanding that we not form our own political party. We have done so, and you don't really have any choice about whether we do or not.
Many people are not satisfied with a party that is merely generally libertarian in principle. It should also be libertarian in practice. It should not do some of the things it is doing, in the opinion of many who have left the LP (as I did in 1998) over actions taken by the LP staff or national committee.
For those who were reading for comprehension, Ron Paul made it very clear why he endorsed Chuck Baldwin. Bob Barr told Ron Paul that it was wrong of Ron Paul not to choose a candidate. Then Barr's campaign manager, Shane Cory, told one of Ron's people to go f#ck himself. So, it was Barr's admonishment that prompted Ron to choose to endorse someone in particular. Given that Barr had done his level best to alienate Ron and everyone associated with Ron, were you expecting him to endorse, maybe, McKinney or Nader?
I say, vote as you wish if you must vote. Or don't vote if you feel it is wrong to vote for any of the choices available to you. But, do leave the LP alone until it gets its act together. Don't reward the LP with membership dues it does not deserve, so long as it continues to thwart your preferences as a member.
Making an impact sounds like a car crash. Which does seem to be what the LP is most like.Â
Posted By: Bill Hartwell
Date: 2008-09-30 16:12:54
Quite Frankly, Mr. Howell, the Libertarian Party lost my respect when its paid staff used party resources to support their chosen candidate and sabotage the campaigns of other candidates, way back in 1996. Despite that, I remained a dues-paying member up until 2006, in hopes that, as a dues-paying member, the advice I had repeatedly received from people like yourself would prove to be true, and not merely the soothing words of professional politicians.
In practice, the opposite happened. The actions of the Libertarian Party in 2006 drove me from the party, and its actions in 2008 have merely confirmed my decision. If I wanted to be a member of the Republican Party, I would have joined the Republican Party, not the Libertarian Party. But apparently that distinction has been lost on the people who actually run the party, while continuing to try to convince us mere members that we have some say in it, despite the evidence of their actions.
Now, I am proud to say I am a member of the Boston Tea Party. Until the Libertarian Party actually supports libertarian ideals, it will receive no support - either financially or in any other way - from me. While I cannot speak for anyone else, I would not be surprised that many of those who have left the LP in the last couple years have done so for reasons similar to my own, and I also suspect that you'll find they have a similar opinion regarding the LP's chance of getting their support.
Rather than castigating us for choosing to affiliate with like-minded individuals, Mr. Howell, you might want to consider that we have good reason for our choices, and you might want to consider the possibility that the LP, having driven us away by its actions, will have to earn any positive consideration its supporters would like us to give it. Given the past actions of the LP's leadership, I have grave doubts as to its ability to earn that positive consideration.
One needs to correct one's status or is a nonduck swimming in a duck pond with other ducks. www.pacinlaw.org. read "The Red Amendment" www.redamendment.net and spread the word to the 'infotainment generation' www.deprogram.net
