Posted on 12/08/2003 5:17:21 AM PST by DeuceTraveler
MAYBE A NICE CRUISE IN THE GREEK ISLANDS WOULD BE FUN ....
Well ... it looks like I might want to make some alternative plans for next Memorial Day. Right now I'm scheduled to stay in Atlanta to deliver a speech to the Libertarian National Convention. We now have a "Libertarians for a Boortz-Free National Convention" petition online. The petition reads:
To: Libertarian National Committee and 2004 Convention Coordinator
We, members and supporters of the Libertarian Party, object to the scheduled appearance of talk radio host Neal Boortz as a speaker at the Libertarian Party's 2004 National Convention.
We further request that said appearance be cancelled.
The reasons for our objection and request are as follows:
1) Mr. Boortz's publicly stated opinions on foreign policy, especially with respect to the US invasion and occupation of Iraq, diverge wildly from the Libertarian Party's positions;
2) Mr. Boortz's publicly stated opinions on the FBI's investigations and surveillance of anti-war demonstrators are flagrantly at odds with the Libertarian Party's positions on privacy, freedom of expression and the proper function of law enforcement in a free society;
3) Because of Mr. Boortz's prominent public profile, it is likely that any appearance by him at the LP's 2004 national convention will have a substantial impact on the public's perception of what the LP stands for;
4) It is not in the best interests of the Libertarian Party to facilitate public misidentification of its positions on foreign policy with Mr. Boortz's divergent views.
This petition will be presented to the Libertarian National Committee at its December 13-14, 2003 meeting in St. Louis, MO, with all signatures gathered to date appended. The petition itself will remain available for signing through May 26, 2004, the day prior to the opening of the Libertarian Party's 2004 national convention.
Sincerely,
The Undersigned
You can view the signatures and the comments of those who signed by clicking here. http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?noboortz You will note that some of the signatories seem to think that I'm being paid to address this convention. Just to set the record straight, I spoke to the 2000 Libertarian National Convention in Anaheim, California and did not charge a fee. I spoke to the 2002 national convention in Indianapolis .. and only asked for a hotel room for that evening. No fee, no travel expenses.
I think I'm beginning to understand why the Libertarian Party has a tough time getting the respect one would like to see. Keep me posted folks. I'm loving the attention. One thing for sure .... If I remain on the speaker's schedule, the speech is going to be one helluva lot different than my two previous efforts. Then again ... I could be hiking outside of Zermatt.
WHAT DID I SAY THAT MADE THEM SO MAD?
Just trying to stir the puddin' I guess ... but here's a bit I put in Nealz Nuze about two weeks ago about the FBI spying on anti-war demonstrations in the United States. This is one of the things that have the Boot Boortz crowd so upset. Knowing, as we do, that communists and Islamic radicals have been behind much of the planning of anti-war demonstrations around the world, why is it so surprising that we would be gathering information on who is running these demonstrations in the US? Didn't 9/11 teach us anything?
WE MAY BE COMMUNISTS AND ISLAMIC RADICALS .. BUT DON'T INVESTIGATE US! The FBI is investigating the backgrounds and organizational methods of antiwar demonstrators in the US. Hopefully that doesn't come as a surprise to you. It is safe to assume that a large number of these demonstrators are out there in the streets because they want America to fail in its efforts to fight terrorism and its efforts to bring secular representative governments to Iraq and Afghanistan. Translated: Many of these demonstrators are pro-Saddam and anti-US. So, who wouldn't want them investigated by the FBI?
The demonstrators, that's who. Now we have so-called "civil rights advocates" and (God help us) "legal scholars" who are saying that these investigations could signal a return to abuses directed against civil rights protestors of the 1960's 70's.
Remember, as you've already learned, the organizers of the demonstrations last week in London were largely anti-American communists and Islamic radicals. So we're supposed to assume that all of the protestors in the United States are Boy Scouts and volunteers at nursing homes?
Know your enemy .. and keep him close.
Nealz Nuze, Monday, November 24, 2003
Does the blue guy ring a bell?
Most libertarians were against the war on purely technical terms...
On the other hand, look at all the "conservatives" (especially here at FR) who supported the war on purely emotional terms. Many of them were pumped up because they saw it as a way to somehow get back at those Muslim maniacs who attacked us on 9/11. As it turned out, Iraq didn't have anything to do with those attacks, so I'm not sure why you would say that libertarians are merely being "anal" about this war.
LMAO. I remember him now.
I'm very unhappy with the socialist GOP and would like to give them up as a party. The thing is as much as I agree with them at times, I could never throw my lot in with these people.
Too many goofballs (the "blue guy" lol) and a horrid platform.
Was this not good enough for the citizens of Iraq? I guess that according to them (the Libertarians) all despotism must be countered, without aid, through revolution and the sweat, tears, and blood that accompany it.
Hey, didn't France help us? Yea, sure, they did gouge us and they were serving their own interests...hmmm this is sounding familiar.
I think that's a fair statement of many Americans including some conservatives. It's too bad Bush waited more than a year after the bombing to use that emotion to attack Iraq. Think how much easier it would have been to just run in there in October 2001?
As it turned out, Iraq didn't have anything to do with those attacks, so I'm not sure why you would say that libertarians are merely being "anal" about this war.
IMHO that remains a subjective conclusion. You may want to periodically reevaluate that position as more evidence comes out about ties and support from Saddam's family and the Iraqi intelligence service for Al Qaeda. In the end, I think it is a measure of how much that support aided AQ's ability to carry out the 9/11 attacks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.