Libertarians turn against Neil Boortz [Title Mine]

Neal's Nuze ^ | December 8th, 2003 | Neil Boortz

[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

[trajanus_red]

It is not established or true that Iraq had no relationship with the attacks on American soil. In fact, there is evidence of the contrary: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34841

[sheltonmac]

Protagoras: Going to war at the beheast of world government?
optimistically_conservative: The UN asked us to go to war with Iraq? Strange, I thought the argument was we unilaterally went to war with Iraq without the world's permission, but did it based on the statutory powers granted by Congress

If having the United States running around the globe enforcing U.N. resolutions isn't a world government, then what is?

[Liberal Classic]

Bless you, Neal.

[optimistically_conservative]

If having the United States running around the globe enforcing U.N. resolutions isn't a world government, then what is?

>sarcasm<Our government?>/sarcasm<

The US led the war against Iraq in 1991, the US negotiated the cease fire directly with Iraq on the battlefield, the US codified that cease fire in the UNSCR 678, the US kept the lid on Iraq for the last 12 years.

We weren't running around the globe enforcing the UN's resolutions, we were driving into Baghdad against the UN's wishes enforcing our own resolutions we pushed through the UN.

The truth is, concerning Iraq, we used the UN for diplomatic cover while pursuing our agenda, and when they balked, we dropped them and went in anyway.

You will find that I am much more sympathetic to the concern that the US government is currently the world governing body than worrying if the US government is subordinating itself to the UN at this time.

That should be fairly evident, although the precedent it sets opens us up to the charges of hypocrisy for not running around enforcing the UN resolutions we don't like. Fine, see my previous point above.

[optimistically_conservative]

I hate when I screw that up:

<sarcasm>Our government?</sarcasm>

[DeuceTraveler]

"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."

And you don't believe freedom abroad helps freedom at home? If the entire world was Communist except the United States it would crush us ideologically. We are already being attacked ideologically due to the lack of freedom in the world. How can we compare the progress of a liberal economy compared to a state economy when we are one of only a few nations that have a liberal economy and we have those in our country that swear it is American social programs that make us great and not our businesses?

[LowCountryJoe]

Ya know, I really like the fact that you've used the word "liberal" when referring to our economy. In fact, I think that we should don the box-cutters and hijack the word; taking it back from the socialists in the "central planner party". Imagine the confusion!

From now on I'm going to call myself a "liberal" but with the qualifier that it's meant in the classical sense.

[185JHP]

Attacking Bob Barr, one of the finest conservative men in politics, because he wasn't in favor of their drug-lusting degeneracy kind of exposed the druggietarians.

[Protagoras]

And you don't believe freedom abroad helps freedom at home?

If you think we can spread freedom abroad by attacking other countries and nation building I say you are naive to say the least.

We can help freedom abroad by practicing it here, something we aren't very good at anymore.

[DeuceTraveler]

Heh. You got me onboard.

[185JHP]

Good thinking.

[xrp]

Quite a few libertarians are PRO-ABORTION and PRO-DRUGS and that is why I am a Republican.....

What do you think about the Republicans who are PRO-ABORTION (Johnny Isakson R-Ga, 6th District) and Republicans who are PRO-DRUGS (obviously, Rush Limbaugh)? And that is why I am a libertarian-conservative.

[Central Scrutiniser]

I am libertarian in my beliefs, but I think the party is a huge joke. Boortz has a great show, and I'd love to see him give a great speech there.

[Steven Nason]

Good reply.

It is funny to hear people who call themselves conservatives using the U.N., of all things to justify this when one considers that the best thing to do with the U.N. is to get out of it and it out of America.

As for Boortz, well, as "liberals" are fond of saying about folks who come around to their brand of thinking, "Neal has grown." He has gone from being a typical product of L.P.org to a neo-con on most issues.

A better venue for him would be the American Enterprise Institute. Who knows, Bill Kristol himself might come down to the podium and give Neal a pat on the head for his part in selling this war.