Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Libertarians turn against Neil Boortz [Title Mine]
Neal's Nuze ^ | December 8th, 2003 | Neil Boortz

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


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: boortz; libertarians; neilboortz
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-95 next last
To: optimistically_conservative
Obviously it was not, but I'd be curious which of our past conflicts - without the benefit of 20/20 hindsight - would have been in your opinion.

Clarify the question please. Does this ask which of our wars I would not have supported in advance?

61 posted on 12/08/2003 8:06:45 AM PST by Protagoras (Putting government in charge of morality is like putting pedophiles in charge of children)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: sheltonmac
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.

BS!

62 posted on 12/08/2003 8:09:07 AM PST by cinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

Comment #63 Removed by Moderator

To: cinFLA
Quite a few libertarians are PRO-ABORTION and PRO-DRUGS and that is why I am a Republican.....
64 posted on 12/08/2003 8:24:27 AM PST by Gopher Broke (Abortion: Big people killing little people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: billbears
Now that's not the 'conservative' answer.

Not sure how to respond to that except that it's my answer. I've found that not everyone agrees with my answers, regardless of their ideological predilection.

How is it when this very request was broached before the war it was practically 'anti-American' to suggest such a plan? And now is any different? 'We' have access now where it wasn't allowed in the past and still no WMDs.

I think the counter-argument to calls for proof of WMD stocks and programs before the war (and before going to war) was that we weren't being allowed the access, as you point out. Other than that, I interpret your complaint as now having that access, we have not in a matter of months found all, or more, of those answers. That's a fair, if not ambitious, complaint. I think I've heard the same complaint from within the ranks of the GOP, be they 'conservative' or not.

On a side note, I see FoxNews hardly discusses WMDs anymore, why not? Now it's about building a democracy isn't it?

I don't get FoxNews, so I'm not in a position to answer what they are or are not discussing now, or anymore. Perhaps you could ask FoxNews?

65 posted on 12/08/2003 8:27:45 AM PST by optimistically_conservative (Beware the Dean Mujahideen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Protagoras
Does this ask which of our wars I would not have supported in advance?

If it would be easier to provide example(s) of the wars you would have supported, please do. The question is probing your anti-war motivation. Anti-war motivations are sometimes based on strict constitutional complaince to form, pacifism, ideological enmity, etc. In cases other than pacifism, sometimes I find it helps me to understand a person's opposition by asking the counter question of which wars meet approval and why.

66 posted on 12/08/2003 8:40:09 AM PST by optimistically_conservative (Beware the Dean Mujahideen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: DeuceTraveler
I'll vote for Boortz over the 'Star Trek convention' segment of the Libertarians.
67 posted on 12/08/2003 8:43:36 AM PST by Diddle E. Squat (www.firethebcs.com, www.weneedaplayoff.com, www.firemackbrown.com, www.firecarlreese.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: optimistically_conservative
Your first assumption is incorrect. I am not anti war per se.

I am in favor of any war which defends our country or the rights of it's citizens. I am opposed to any war which has any other purpose. And I am well aware that people in favor of nation building and adventurism will aways attempt to paint their favorite wars as doing those two things. Some are tricked, I am not.

Therefore, I support WWII and the War against Afghanistan. Off the top of my head I can't think of any others.

68 posted on 12/08/2003 8:53:14 AM PST by Protagoras (Putting government in charge of morality is like putting pedophiles in charge of children)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: billbears
As for the reasons you listed as being given, one could easily argue that almost every Arabic nation there, some even considered 'allies' (i.e. Saudi Arabia), have not only been in support of terrorism in the past but are still supporting it. Are 'we' planning to go after them next? If not, why not?

From what I can tell, no nation in that region is unaffected by our current operations.

Do I think we should have simultaneously gone to war on all the nations in the Middle East and North Africa that support(ed) terrorism? No, I think the "why not" of such a decision is self-evident.

Do I think a decision not to go to war with all those nations simultaneously excludes going to war with the two we have to effect a strategic change regionally? No, picking our battlefields, both in location and timing, makes sense to me.

Are 'we' planning to go after them next? I am not privy to the future 'plans'. I would imagine 'next' and the when of 'next' has to do with who puts themselves in the line of fire at this point and how much the American people will accept. I think we're pretty max'd out right now barring another attack within our borders.

Human rights violations? I'm sorry but that's not even a reason. It may be an excuse to make the masses feel happy but it's not a reason.

You may certainly discount that reason, and it has historically been one emphasized after the fact. However, if it makes the masses feel happy, if not better or more committed, to a war - it often is a reason not easily discarded.

69 posted on 12/08/2003 8:55:52 AM PST by optimistically_conservative (Beware the Dean Mujahideen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Drango
Does the blue guy ring a bell?

LOL - or the Druid, or the guy who fled to Canada...

70 posted on 12/08/2003 8:56:46 AM PST by Hacksaw (theocratic Confederate flag waving loyalty oath supporter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Gopher Broke
Quite a few libertarians are PRO-ABORTION

Libertarians For Life

71 posted on 12/08/2003 9:00:27 AM PST by jmc813 (Help save a life - www.marrow.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
So you think that we only need 2 (or should I say 1) parties? With the way the GOP is going, they will become another Democrat party. That was 11 years ago, get over it.

Had Ross not freaked out, he might have ended up in the White House. He is no longer the man of the Reform Party. I lean more towards the Reform Party platform, myself. I vote for the best candidate, regardless of party. I will never toe the line no matter what party I am affiliated with. It's is called free thinking and choice.
72 posted on 12/08/2003 9:13:18 AM PST by looscnnn ("Live free or die; death is not the worst of evils" Gen. John Stark 1809)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Protagoras
I support WWII and the War against Afghanistan.

I think there are interesting contrasts and analogies that can be made between those two.

For example, the attack on Pearl Harbor by the Japanese and the attack on the WTC/Pentagon by Al Qaeda based in Afghanistan governed by the Taliban.

Hitler's declaration of war on the US after the Japanese attack and our status of a "hot" cease fire with Saddam's Iraq (including Saddam's provocations after the cease fire was put in place), and Saddam's reaction to the WTC/Pentagon attack.

Our adventurism in Africa and Europe as part of the WWII alliance, and our adventurism in the Middle East as part of (and leader of) a NATO alliance in Afghanistan and a (rouge, from world government's view) coalition in Iraq.

I think there are analogies and contrasts with the wars I imagine were intentionally left off the list:

Our intergenerational commitments in Europe and Asia in national building as victors in WWII combat, our intergenerational commitment to South Korea, Bosnia/Kosovo, and our predictable intergenerational committment to Iraq and Afghanistan. Another interesting contrast might be our intergenerational commitment to what might be called anti-nation building toward Vietnam and Cuba.

So much to consider...so little time to debate....

73 posted on 12/08/2003 9:22:25 AM PST by optimistically_conservative (Beware the Dean Mujahideen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: billbears
Oh, I see how it works. That is kinda like the "free thinking" scientists and radical religious people, if it does not fit their perception of the world it is incorrect. Why not believe him? He could trying to stay in the good graces of the US and still be telling the truth.

All that top of the line technology didn't do diddly squat to find the centrifuge and the jets that I had mentioned in a previous post. It is going to take more than the thousands of man hours by anybodies inspectors to find anything. But of course the anti-war, there is no WMD people can't seem to comprehend that. Just as you don't.

FYI, here are links for your consideration:
Centrifuge
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/2020/iraq030626_nuclear.html

Jets
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/08/01/1059480557364.html
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/8/6/105528.shtml
74 posted on 12/08/2003 9:25:54 AM PST by looscnnn ("Live free or die; death is not the worst of evils" Gen. John Stark 1809)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: buffyt
One time I wrote an email to him and instead of ignoring it or writing back to tell me he disagreed with me, he wrote back using all foul language, four letter words. I thought that was totally inappropriate. I lost all respect for him right then. I am a lady and I don't even know him personally. My worst enemies wouldn't use language like that. He is course and rude and his 'fame' has gone to his wee little head.

Yep... I made the mistake of sending him a link to an article here- foolishly thinking that the information would be at least appreciated, and got a thoroughly nasty "don't you EVER send me anything from Free Republic!" reply.

Needless to say, he made an enemy with that. He did not have to be rude and crude.

75 posted on 12/08/2003 9:31:22 AM PST by backhoe (--30--)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: optimistically_conservative
I have no intergenerational commitment to anyone except my progeny and generations of Americans to come. I am commited to doing my best to return the country to it's freedom roots.
76 posted on 12/08/2003 9:37:48 AM PST by Protagoras (Putting government in charge of morality is like putting pedophiles in charge of children)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Protagoras; optimistically_conservative
Post#58! Game, set, match. Those stipulations in the cease fire agreement and the U.N. resolution gave America the legal and moral authority for the war in Iraq.

It is clear at this point that we will probably never see eye to eye on this issue in the foreseeable future. Only finding banned weapons will bring us together - you to our position - because regardless of any discovery, this war, IMO, was completely justified.

77 posted on 12/08/2003 10:28:26 AM PST by LowCountryJoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: LowCountryJoe
What is my position?
78 posted on 12/08/2003 10:39:52 AM PST by Protagoras (Vote Republican, we're not as bad as the other guys.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: DeuceTraveler
PJ is a Republican.

Small-l libertarian, no doubt, but registered with the GOP.
79 posted on 12/08/2003 11:05:15 AM PST by Britton J Wingfield (TANSTAAFL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DeuceTraveler
but it will never happen if the Libertarians can't even spout out a cohesive policy.

As long as they insist on "don't want no war," and the open borders nonsense, I will remain a small 'l' libertarian.  In the gap created by entrenched leftism and a rightward moving polity, libertarianism is a good fit.  Something like it should erupt.
80 posted on 12/08/2003 2:15:22 PM PST by gcruse (http://gcruse.typepad.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-95 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson