Article Image
IPFS News Link • Politics: Republican Campaigns

Sarah Palin and Wayne Allyn Root to Speak at Tea Party Express


17 Comments in Response to

Comment by Ernest Hancock
Entered on:

Don Wills is visiting Phoenix and will party with us at the Grand Re-Opening of the Workshop after the upgrades and will be on the radio with me Weds. morning to discuss why the LPUS should/shouldnot sell out to the Tea Party Express.

Comment by Found Zero
Entered on:

I knew TPE was astroturf from the second I saw them. Or more specifically, their bus. See, if that was us there would have been 2 weeks of argument about it on the forums, several reputations impugned, accusations of infiltration, multiple competitive money bombs and it would have resulted in three TPEs, each claiming to be the first or the best or the only.

Check out the buzz around "peace blimp" and whiteness Trevor Lyman and his almost infinite capacity to put up with criticism.

Comment by Found Zero
Entered on:

Against my nature I'm starting to see a lot of reasons for optimism in all this. I've railed against Glen Beck and the "Teocons" from day 1, but the neo-teparties turned out to be  a great way to counter-infiltrate. And a douchebag Glen Beck might be, but I have yet to see anyone become a well read patriot in under 2 years time. Everybody gotta start somewhere.

As to LPUS, unless they do make a dramatic shift, there's ABSOLUTELY NO REASON FOR THEM TO EXIST as everything they want has essentially manifested with RPR. They can't move to the center, that's what the dems are for. The only place they have to move is back to the right, back to the purists.

Thus, as an electoral force, I'd empatically say WHO CARES about electoral viability when you can influence the entire political dialog?

In the entire "3rd party" spectrum, only LPUS and the Greens have any real brand awareness so where do you think independents will go? And of the whole spectrum, which do you think can draw greens and dems? Hint: it will never, ever, ever be the GOP.

If Ernie, Barry, Powell and the boys can "take back the LP" I think it will be enormously important because people will see that freedom comes in every flavor. I think with RPR, our GOP factions got a little too smug. A bit of "we were right all along". And of course that old "white Christian nation" thing got a little too popular for my tastes.

I think it would be great for the electorate to factionalize outside of the boxes and inside. I think it's great to have people asking what KIND of republicans we are or what KIND of anarchists because it should be a yes or no question but one that gets a qualified response.

And don't worry about this "lunatic fringe" accusation anymore. When everybody is listening and comparing themselves to you, you aren't the fringe, you are a trend setter.

Comment by Don Wills
Entered on:

No name writes "The Tea Party Express is a 100% verified and confirmed RNC op. RNC paid for, RNC controlled."

So what? If the Maricopa County GOP invited Ernie to speak at a GOP event in Phoenix, would he show up and pitch libertarian philosophy? Absolutely! So what's wrong with W.A.R. going to a pretend Tea Party event to debate with Sarah®?

Comment by Anonymous
Entered on:

 As you can see below, here the Libertarians go again....jawboning.  Talk talk talk talk talk talk talk.  No action.

We'll here's what you really need to know.


The Tea Party Express is a 100% verified and confirmed RNC op.  RNC paid for, RNC controlled.

What more is there to say about it?  Nothing.


Comment by Brock Lorber
Entered on:


Comment by Ernest Hancock
Entered on:

"Ask the pure libertarians this simple question -

Do you believe that all taxation is theft, and is therefore immoral?" - Don Willis

Survey Says... "YES!" (Ernie says "Yes" too)

Whenever I get a new radio affiliate added I know I'll start getting the "are you an anarchist" questions. My response is always the same,... "Compared to what?... what we have now? If my choice is _none_ or what we have now, I advocate for none without hesitation. Start enforcing the Bill of Rights and I might be a little more supportive of the type of government the Declaration of Independence advocated for, one that supports individual rights. A government that violates individual rights is why the revolution happened in the first place."

Fair warning Don. This is the argument that I will base my response on to the rhetoric you fancy... soooooo, when you are ready, call me at 602 717 5900 with your schedule in front of you and we'll  schedule a day to discuss this live on one or both of the radio shows. Get all of your stuff ready, you'll need it :) 

Waiting on you now.

Comment by Don Wills
Entered on:

Barry says he's not going to reply, so I'll try end this conversation. FWIW, Barry can proclaim that I'm a revisionist, misinformed, historically challenged or whatever, but you will notice he gave no specifics.

The Battle, whatever its name (anarchist vs. minarchist, Rothbardians vs. pragramatists, and yes I made up the word what?), for the heart of the LP has been going on for a long time, and has been divisive and damaging to the LP.

Ask the pure libertarians this simple question -

Do you believe that all taxation is theft, and is therefore immoral?

It is my understanding that pure-libertarians will answer YES and YES to the two clauses of that question. It is only with a clear answer to that question can discussions ensue about the purpose of the LP, and of the purity of the libertarian positions of folks like Ron Paul (a member of the GOP who actively supports all GOP congresscritters from Texas), W.A.R. (a member of the LP) and Ernie Hancock (also a member of the LP).

Comment by Barry Hess
Entered on:

Okay Don;

But this is my last comment.  You said to correct you if you miss-characterized us, and, Yes, you did, and in an almost complete and total manner.

To begin with, I'm not, and never have been an anarchist and I don't believe there's any such thing as an anti-anarchist, in group form, or any other.  (Are you trying to raise a false flag, all by yourself?)  But to be clear, ALL libertarians keep their sights set on anarchy (i.e. the lack of a "need" for any, beyond self-governance), that is how the Garden of Eden was 'run'--but we all realize it is a utopic ideal.  Of course, we want to get as close as we can to that in the interim. 

 In any event, a compromise was made by the libertarians of the day, but there were 'conditions'.  The compromise was the Constitution, and the conditions became known as The Bill of Rights.  As libertarians, we are the keepers of a sacred trust between the People, and their (servant) government.  Our task is simply to hold 'them' to the contract.

 To falsely suggest that I/we want to be rid of all government has to be for some ulterior reason.  I'm running for Governor, fer cryin' out loud, and I'm "In It To WIN IT!", so why would you say such a thing? 

Maybe the next thing you're going to tell us is that we want to cut the 'legs' of "power" out from under the very office we seek....right?

Finally, your revision and confusion of historical events, movements and the like, was a fascinating romp through fantasyland, got yer 'E' ticket?

May I suggest something?  ...., Nevermind.

Comment by Don Wills
Entered on:


The pure libertarians like Barry and Ernie want all government to be abolished, plain and simple. Not just limited, abolished. Absolutely gone. Replaced by voluntary association and cooperation. A more honest label for a person who holds those beliefs is anarchist, but they know it's a tainted term associated with 19th century bomb throwers, so about 40 years ago they adopted the label libertarian to be more acceptable to society at large. FWIW, that type of name change is common - the Federalists stole that term from the anti-Federalists 220 years ago, and the progressives stole the term liberal from classical liberals 80 years ago. Labels do matter, and the anarchists that lurk within the Libertarian Party know it.

If anarchists were by some freakish occurrence elected to power, they would immediately abolish all taxes and all government because all taxation is theft and is therefore immoral. Elections would obviously be irrelevant so they would abolish them too! Barry, Ernie and Powell - please correct any mischaracterizations that I've made in this description of the anarcho-libertarian philosophy that you promote.

The anarchists were angry after what happened at the 2006 LP Convention, and were livid after Barr/Root was nominated in 2008. Their hope for the return of the Libertarian Party to the pure and logically perfect morality of Murray Rothbard is a fantasy - it's not gonna happen, even if W.A.R. is defeated in his quest for chair of the LNC.

I have believed for quite some time that this anarchist vs. anti-anarchist schism is one of the two main reasons that the LP has maintained its irrelevancy for 39 years. It's time for that battle to cease. The anarchists should leave the party (like Christine Smith threatened to do but apparently did not) to go form their own movement/party/whatever. Leave the LP to limited government constitutionalists like Judge Napolitano, John Stossel and similar good people. Maybe then we can regain some freedom that has been lost in the last 39 years. (FWIW, IMO the second reason that the LP has failed is that it has always been broke.)

Comment by Freed Radical
Entered on:
I had my own response to Don the Statist Tool, but I'll go with what Barry & Ernie said. And I'll point out that you compromising weenie Republicans are not going to take over the libertarian movement, regardless of what happens to the LP. If the LP loses its principles, it will cease to be relevant in the fight for freedom.


P. S. "Libertarians" like Glenn Beck and Alan Greenspan?!!!! REALLY??!!! You mean the Glenn Beck who repeatedly bashed Ron Paul (who isn't even 100% libertarian) and the Alan Greenspan who built up the stock market and real estate bubbles?!!! Are you on crack?!
Comment by Barry Hess
Entered on:

Hi Don;

I won't even begin to address the obvious misunderstanding you've displayed in your characterization of me, and Ernie.  I will address your question though.  No, there is not a litmus test for being 'libertarian', but there is a basic, underlying foundation of principle--that of 'no force or coercion'.

It is not a litmus test of percentages as to "how" libertarian one is, when they publicly confess to portraying a direct contradiction to a philosophy that has not changed in nearly 300 years.  It hasn't changed in almost 300 years because it's not complicated.  The underlying reason it cannot be 'changed', 're-molded', 're-named' (the story of  WAR's 'Grouper' nonsense comes to mind...  As I see it, WAR is anxious to change the Party's name to "Grouper".) or compromised, is because it's a single fundamental principle, 'applied' to EVERY circumstance, in EVERY situation. 

It's not something you can 'sell', as a 'retail' product and hope for the 'customer' to have any comprehension of what they bought.  This is a philosophy.  To have people gain anything from a simple, proven, moral philosophy--they have to know what it is, right? 

Those kind of folks always 'bolt' when the other teams/club really start trying to undermine us, and they read miss-leading stuff in the funnypapers about 'those -blank- libertarians'.  Experience teaches that 'fair weather libertarians' are a dime a dozen, and only get in the way of individual liberty.

 Please accept my perspective as having been recognized as a top salesman nationally (top 3 of 40,000+ competitors for 10 of 14 years in the field, and as a sales/debate trainer (I trained a lot of 'Waynes') for over 25 years.

Please don't mistake me.  I like Wayne, he's energetic and funny and fun to party with.  My only concern is with his portrayal of libertarianism as conceding to an "acceptable level of theft".  Based on the principle that 'theft is still theft, even by government'--how can the projection that 'there's some 'acceptable level of theft', make any sense to any thinking person looking for a political home? 

As I see it, there's not room under the tent for everybody.  To even suggest otherwise is to state that your view is that libertarians have 'no' discernible identity.  At what point is ballot access for sale? 

We welcome everyone who's disenfranchised politically, but out invitation is to 'join us, not to change us'.

From my vantage point, a hollow victory at the polls, is still a hollow victory.      


Comment by Ernest Hancock
Entered on:

"Do Libertarians want to win the hearts and minds of voters, or do they just want to be intellectually and morally superior?" 

If being 'intellectually and morally superior' is not the way 'to win the hearts and minds of voters' then what are we hoping to salvage of this planet?

 Just wondering.

Comment by Don Wills
Entered on:

Powell writes "Th[e] LP is shrinking. Libertarianism is growing."

Those are true statements, but not in the way that Powell, Barry and Ernie would have you believe. The non-pure type of libertarianism claimed by W.A.R., Glenn Beck, Alan Greenspan and others is what is growing. The number of pure libertarians (ie. anarchists) like Ernie and Barry is not growing.

I agree that not everyone who calls himself libertarian is telling the truth (e.g. Bill Maher), but the concept of being libertarian is not a true/false proposition. There are degrees of being libertarian, and yes, W.A.R. isn't as libertarian as Christine Smith. Then again, most people will listen to W.A.R. without thinking he's crazy, which is not the case with many purists.

The question is simple - Do Libertarians want to win the hearts and minds of voters, or do they just want to be intellectually and morally superior?

Comment by Powell Gammill
Entered on:

Th LP is shrinking. Libertarianism is growing.   Everyone learns later an early age that it is wrong to steal.  And it is wrong to start fights.  They intuitively understand fairness. 

Some grow up to not care and participate in theft and violence themselves...they are called Republicans, Democrats and unfortunately Libertarians.

Comment by Don Wills
Entered on:


So there's a litmus test for joining the shrinking Club Libertarian, and W.A.R doesn't pass the test? He's not allowed to call himself Libertarian? That thinking is simply incoherent since W.A.R. was chosen by the members of the Libertarian Party to be their 2008 LP VP candidate!

Absolutism in electoral politics is a big loser.

Comment by Barry Hess
Entered on:

The problem is that Wayne seems to think a 300 year-old philosophy is 'his' to change.  "W.A.R.-ism" is not libertarianism.  He's just the guy the Republican/Democrats (Faux News, CNN and MSNBC) want to say 'represents' libertarianism.  He doesn't.

Free Talk Live