Article Image

FreedomsPhoenix Senior Editor interviewed by 'Miller Politics'

Written by Subject: Eugenics
Miller Politics wrote:
Dear Mr. Gammill:
Could you answer these questions for a interview to be published on
Ben Miller
Editor, Miller Politics
1.  You recently endorsed Dr. Mary Ruwart for the Libertarian presidential nomination.  What makes Dr. Ruwart stand out among the crowded field that includes two former members of congress, a media personality and several party loyalists?

Short answer: Precisely because she is not a political party hack.  Her knowledge and sound living as a libertarian over many years cannot be challenged.  She is the perfect candidate to represent libertarian philosophy before the nation.

Long answer: The Libertarian Party was founded to use the tools of the state -- in this case the election apparatus -- to oppose those who worship the state.  Libertarianism is easy to describe.  There are only two things a libertarian must practice:  That they will not initiate force or fraud upon anybody (nonaggression principle).  That they will keep their promises (honor contracts).  Unfortunately, there is a war within the Libertarian Party between those who use the political process to spread libertarianism, and those who claim the sole purpose of a political party is to elect its candidates.  The latter have amassed centralized power into the national Libertarian Party over the 50 State affiliates, and want nothing to do with anything that either detracts from their authority, their fund raising or their candidates.  There is a fair chance this war will be resolved at this convention.  Either way, some group will leave.

Mary Ruwart preaches and practices living the libertarian principles.  While Christine Smith, Jim Burns and Steve Kubby fall into this category, I found Dr. Ruwart to be the strongest candidate of the four.  [I also encourage anyone to check out Dave Hollist at the convention, who has no chance of getting the nomination, but has some of the most fun and creative ideas for interacting with others that I have ever heard.  Unfortunately he will not get much chance to be heard.]

2.  Also in your endorsement you say the media loves Dr. Ruwart.  How can that be when it has been Barr, Gravel and Root that have been covered by the major media channels and not Ruwart?
I said the media love her, not the major (corporate) media ... though they too find her charming when they talk to her.  The major media are still useful, but you are fretting about the rotting corpse of a dinosaur.  Were it not, no one would be reading blogs like Miller Politics.  There would be no need.  But the Internet has changed everything.  We communicate with each other directly, instantly and worldwide.  We report what we see.  Images, audio and video at the push of a button on our ubiquitous cell phones.  Inexpensive digital recorders of all kinds.  All available for live coverage, for quick coverage, delivering raw footage, so we get to decide for ourselves what is really going on around us.  We are the media.  We are mighty.  Those who rule are frightened because they are losing control.

But you asked about Dr. Ruwart.  Just watch Mary Ruwart in interviews.  She comes across as articulate, an able defender of liberty and the intelligent working woman a Ph.D. in Biochemistry ought to be.  Mike Gravel never got much attention from the corporate media --- who back the wars he opposes.  Bob Barr gets the attention because he is a perceived threat to John McCain's presidential ambitions, suspected of being able to draw votes away from him.  But does anyone actually think after 12 years of "fiscally conservative" Republican spending and eight years of Uber Bush, that McCain stands a chance against the Democratic nominee with or without Barr?  You do?  I'll smoke some of that!  And Root who?  Throwing him in this mix as a major media success is trying to get milk to shoot out of my nose.

Barr.  Root.  If the Libertarian Party has become nothing more than the representatives of Republican-lite then it is time for the remaining libertarians to leave and let the party complete its collapse. 
3.  Do you think it is better for the Libertarians to nominate a long time party member over newer members that have more name recognition?
The purpose of the presidential candidate is to represent the party.  If that person does not represent libertarianism then what is the point of becoming or remaining a member of the Libertarian Party?  If that person clearly articulates they are a Republican then their agenda is to make the Libertarian Party more like the Republican Party.  We already got one of those.  How is that working out for everybody?

If I cannot have a libertarian representing the Libertarian Party then I might as well have McCain representing the Republican Party or Hillary representing the Democratic Party.  Proven winners who mouth their Party's respective philosophies when convenient, and ignore practicing what they preach always.  Is that what the Libertarian Party has degenerated to?

Dr. Ruwart has a reliable and consistent track record.  So do the other candidates, it is just that many of their track records have nothing to do with libertarianism.

Contact me with any further needs, but I will be quite busy in a couple of days.  I hope this is what you wanted.  I trust it will be posted soon,


Join us on our Social Networks:


Share this page with your friends on your favorite social network: