Wednesday, December 19, 2007

Plans B, C, D, and E -- A gracefully-decaying strategy for winning increasing levels of individual liberty

The Ron Paul Blimp and massive donation days are great! They will likely win Ron Paul the NH primary, and maybe the IA primary! ...But, even if they don't, the smart, well-organized pro-freedom movement has a plan B and a plan C and a plan D. Down along the pike at plan F, it becomes important that we never gave up our guns...

But I want to focus on the coming shift from plan A to plan B, because _libertarians_always_screw_this_one_up_! I've seen this happen many times. My theory?: The same part of our brains that is good at assigning values and picking up on contradictions gets us motivated at the chance of winning office with a good candidate (a high value to us). We overlook their minor practical shortcomings in favor of their philosophical strengths. We see their value, and think others do too. But they don't, the candidate fails to win election, and then the "losertarians" throw up their hands in despair and drop out of politics after the disappointment.

Often, a simple plan would have kept them "in the game" longer, and that "longer" would have been enough to reap massive rewards (like in IL in 2006, one of our more spectacular recent failures, where we set the stage for major party access during 3 long years of hard work, and then let a few dilletantes take the LP over, remove us from the ballot, and allow the Green Party to use our prior efforts to run a nobody who then won the Greens major party status in IL).

Let's face it, are the state-worshipping socialist masses more intelligent than most libertarians? No. --But they have historically been more MUCH MORE determined to win office than we have.

Ron Paul is the only libertarian thus far to put a friendly face on freedom long enough and strong enough to win higher office. As such, he's got a good chance at winning BOTH elections, because people want freedom, but they don't want to learn a new word and define freedom consistently as libertarianism (this is a minor oversimplification for the sake of brevity).

But Paul still might not win. We have to face reality.

And that's why the LP is welcoming him with open arms (should he not win the R primary) they rightly should.

Now then, there is a movement within the libertarian party that seems to not care about a candidate's electability. They have a 'pie in the sky' idea that we will continue to ignore the electability of our candidates, and gradually people will seek us out. Perhaps this is true. However, it would probably take the elimination of elections to get people to pine for the days when they had a libertarian choice. ---At which point we will no longer be an option anyway.

Therefore, I strongly support giving Mr. Paul the LP's ballot access to work with, IF/WHEN he does not win the Republican nomination.

Were he to accept the LP's offer, and choose someone like Wayne Root ( ) as his VP running mate, it would open up the libertarian movement to electoral success before we are pushed through the rapid succession of plans C, D, and E.

I don't recommend anyone else for the VP slot, unless someone like Walter Williams wants it (I can dream, can't I?). The other declared LP candidates have not grasped the basic concepts inherent in successful marketing of the libertarian message. Kubby is seen as "the pot candidate" and would marginalize us even more than Badnarik did. (I roughly agree with Liberty magazine's "darkhorse" assessment of Badnarik, although I believe him to be a fairly good speaker, and more than principled enough to represent us.) I think Badnarik is a great person, but a weak presidential candidate. I also believe he lost to two vastly superior _candidates_. By underlining candidates in the previous sentence, I differentiate a libertarian candidate from the following:
1) libertarian philosophers
2) consistent libertarian radicals (often dedicated to a single principle within a platform of many principles, above all other factors)
3) libertarians who agree with a certain strategy or approach (but who may or may not be electable, or even likeable)
4) libertarians who are good speakers, but not good at: accessing the major media, fundraising, targeting and motivating libertarian demographics.

It is vitally important that we, the libertarian movement, provide a viable avenue for Ron Paul's success in the coming election, NO MATTER WHAT.

A Paul / Root ticket has already been suggested by Root (as has a Paul / Kubby ticket by Kubby, in all fairness to Kubby). The difference between a Paul/ Root ticket is that a Paul / Root ticket could actually win the presidency, and would almost certainly win well over 5 million votes.

Coming from a National election where the Libertarian Party totalled 5 million votes would be a HUGE achievement, and one that is easily built on, if we keep our eyes on the prize: A "night watchman" government that is limited to protecting individual freedom.

As a final note, both Root and Paul openly support a Fully-Informed Jury Amendment, so even if you don't like the fact that Root is not a radical anti-war libertarian philosopher, if he won the VP nomination, and then found himself in the presidency, we would still see the wars against private property crippled overnight, via the FIJA Act, and via the executive pardon.

So let's keep the blimp flying, and let's send Paul another big Money "Shot", on the anniversary of "the Shot (at the Presidency!) heard 'round the world!" April 19, whether he wins the Republican Primary or not. (A nice aspect to the viral marketing would be to show an animation of a google map of all of the meetups for the mainstream candidates, and then show all of Paul's meetup groups! He blows all their numbers away, clustering North America, and even has groups all around the world.)

...And no defeatism if we don't win in 2008 (on the first serious try!) We're up against the weight and resurces of a gigantic socialist police state. Small victories are still victories. They keep us in the game, and can be built off of. If we walk to where the play is, we are still in the game and can still win. If we throw our hands up in disgust, give up, and go home, we are certain to lose. Electoral freedom is well worth fighting for. If you think about the alternative, you know I'm right.

We should fight hard in 2008 no matter what, knowing that we will not likely win, and we should be scaled up to win in 2012 or 2016 or 2020. If we had been fighting this way since 1980, we'd already be in the whitehouse. Root has already said he will run again, and has PROMISED to bring in at least 3 million votes THIS TIME (from his loyal base of gamblers as well as a built-upon coalition), NO MATTER WHAT.

He can deliver, with Paul or without, but he is also not delusional (a good sign!). With Paul, he might actually be elected as VP. Without Paul, he will bring in around 3-5 million even if Paul doesn't run.

We don't want to split the pro-freedom vote (and yes, I know it's machiavellian, but we don't have IRV yet or proportional representation yet, so we have to plan around the deficiencies of our zero-sum game system). We want a plan going into the LP convention that makes sense, and decays gracefully. We have a national LP that seems fairly intelligent, and seems to understand this (something that was rarely true in the past).

So let's make April 19 a money "shot heard 'round the world!" Let's bring Paul's supporters into the fold. Let's announce it loooooong in advance, and channel it to whatever the best choice for freedom is AT THE TIME. Let's know in advance what we're going to do, and then follow through with it.

...And let's have it go to Paul as a Republican (plan A), to Paul + the LP candidate (plan B), or just to the LP candidate if Paul is then out of the picture (plan C).

I don't want that last option. It is a suboptimal choice, and it would be the worst option of the three. ...But we would still be in the game, and the IDEAS OF FREEDOM would still be well-represented in 2008, allowing anyone who actually researched Paul to vote their principle(s).

The last time that I failed to attend the LP national convention, I erroneously believed that one of the "top two" candidates would certainly win.

I hadn't counted on the ability of "losertarians" (who richly deserve that hated title) to screw up absolutely anything. Sadly, I found 10 people who agreed with me, and had also written off attending for the same reason. So if we had all showed up, Gary Nolan or Aaron Russo would likely have brought in well over 1,000,000 votes, establishing us as a serious threat to the establishment.

...But that's what happens when you go into battle without a battle plan!

I strongly suggest that we correct the areas in which we have traditionally been weak, so that we are not supporting a weak candidate that has no ability to communicate with people who are not already radical libertarians. Let's make sure that --no matter what-- we have such a strong libertarian showing in the next election that the political world sits up and takes notice, and starts offering to sacrifice the more odious parts of its police state if we will only agree not to oppose "their candidate". Let's wield our political influence like a brick bat, and stop allowing doors to be broken down during 2am drug raids, because we wanted to run a candidate who was a 100% purist libertarian philosopher.

I'll take someone who is 90% libertarian and can win over someone who is 100% libertarian and has no media, no money, and no ability to run a serious campaign.

April 19th this year should be our "Battle Of Saratoga". Our "Timothy Murphy" may be unknown at this point, or he may be Ron Paul, who has already shown so much promise as a marksman. But we should be certain that we have at least one more marksman, in case Timothy doesn't show up for the battle.

...Because we can't afford to lose our "Battle of Saratoga". The Country of America needs to be reborn, because it is unrecognizable in its current state. If we fail our American tradition of moving towards a new liberty, we will deserve the hatred of our children and their children.

I encourage the adoption of multiple backup strategies that are optimized for success AND for damage control (optimax strategy), because I don't want to be a member of America's "hated generation". I don't want myself to be a contributor to the phenomenon described in Leonard Peikoff's "The Ominous Parallels". And I am, and you are, as libertarians, smart enough to plan ahead.


Jake Witmer

Ron Paul for President of the United States of America
Wayne Allyn Root for President of the United States of America

Sunday, November 25, 2007

Eric Dondero is hereby Banned From Posting on this Blog.

Since Eric Dondero cannot refrain from using fallacious arguments, he is hereby banned from posting on this blog. Recently, several friends of Eric's have mentioned that his political rantings appear to be financially-motivated. Since he's backing "Ghouliani", AKA "Nosferatuliani" AKA "the cross-dressing, fascist, former prosecutor from New York City", we can only infer that perhaps that particular minion of big government authoritarianism is the one paying him. Bruce Cohen, a California libertarian indicated that Dondero wanted to be put in contact with the higher-level Ghouliani campaign in California, so perhaps he finally landed a job with them. Either way, this statement, marks Dondero as both a traitor to mainstreaming libertarianism and an authoritarian not worth dealing with.

Any posting of Eric Dondero that avoids 'ad-hominem' arguments, 'repetition' (especially to previously addressed issues), and 'straw man' arguments will be allowed on this board in the interest of open exchange. However, since Eric clearly doesn't understand what those things are, and uses them constantly, this translates into: "Eric Dondero has hereby been banned from posting on this blog."

Saturday, November 24, 2007

My updated comments on whom I think the most effective Libertarian Petitioner in the nation is...?

...And no, it's no longer Eric "straw man" Dondero. Eric is now the most effective _political pragmatist_ political petitioner in the nation. The following quote:

"Eric Dondero is simply the most effective, reliable, and consistent Libertarian political petitioner in the country." Jake Witmer, Libertarian Party of Alaska

attributed to me on ED's website went out-of-date on 11/20/2007. It was at this time that Eric indicated that he cared nothing for truth, and everything for the range of the moment paycheck (Which ideologically makes him more of a "Democrat" than anything else). (Eric apparently is trying to get a job as a political whore with the Giuliani campaign, and he realizes that he needs to sell his soul to that bucktoothed devil before they'll even consider him.)

Sure, it's possible to be an "interventionist libertarian", as Eric Dondero claims to be. I personally think that that stance requires a kind of gullibility regarding the perceived competence of both the federal government, and America's religious enemies, but it is philosophically possible and philosophically legitimate (stemming from the idea that it's the job of the government to provide for defense of the nation and thus prevent the anarchy of continual attack from threatening rogue nations). However, Eric is not a pro-war libertarian. He is a pro-war RINO (Republican in name only).

If domestic liberty mattered to Eric Dondero, THEN, and only then, he could be called a libertarian. --But Eric doesn't give a rat's ass about free trade, gun rights ( ), drug rights, medical rights ( ), jury rights ( ), or objective currency ( ). If he did care about any of those things, he would swallow his pride, and support his old boss's presidential campaign.

But Eric's pride is the biggest thing in the world. And pride is what fires neurons in the prion-infested sponge that is his brain.

Eric would have to be insane in order for him to turn against his former boss, Ron Paul, at the very height of his (Ron Paul's) electability. Luckily, Ron Paul is as correct about Eric Dondero as he is everything else. Ron Paul has a perfect track record in his 20 years in congress. PERFECT. His opinion on Dondero? “If Eric Dondero is all I have to worry about, I don’t have much to worry about."

Giuliani (who is currently touted by Eric Dondero as a "libertarian") is just another goddamned corporate fascist who in no way stands for individual liberty. Even a cursory look online will reveal this, and anyone who "googles" Giuliani in any depth will find that he was a terrible tyrant of a prosecutor who stood squarely against property rights of any kind. (Google: Milken Giuliani to see what he did to stockmarket traders for the 'horrible crime' of investing their money in low-priced stocks.)

Therefore, to support Giuliani over Paul is not just anti-libertarian, it's also demonstrably stupid. Eric convinced no intelligent person that Giuliani was libertarian. Moreover, the only thing he is doing is getting a few unintelligent people to mistakenly think they are either libertarian (if they like Giuliani) or mistakenly think they are not libertarian (if they dont like Giuliani). Either way, the only thing Dondero has done is to create a small amount of confusion amongst a small number of already confused people.

Before throwing himself full force into the job of selling his own soul, Dondero actually was a good mostly-libertarian petitioner. (He would get around 200 signatures per day in a location where a really good petitioner would get around 300). But, admittedly, he was consistent. He took no days off, and he would steadily do those 200 signatures. Well, shit, I guess I'd better give the military some credit for training him.

In 2006 he helped me out by going to Anchorage, Alaska to try to repeal a socialist-sponsored ban on smoking that wound up passing anyway. The passage of this local ban made me realize that although Alaska might be worth fighting for, there needs to be a media war waged against the socialist assholes who run Anchorage before it will make any difference.

...So I gave Eric a compliment at his website that he no longer deserves. Incidentally, I also recently blocked him from all of my email accounts, for not replying to any logical point I raised (as a legitimate adversary would have done), but for merely repeating his earlier and fully-refuted arguments. (Eric follows the mantra of Hitler, believing that if something is said often enough, people will start to believe it. Hence, he is a busy beaver online, repeating his lies and distortions on as many webpages as possible, and promoting his own lie-filled blogs to the maximum.)

Sadly (for Eric), now that he has entered the ranks of political pragmatist petitioners, there are thousands of more effective petitioners all across the nation. Moreover, if Dondero is hired by you, you can't really be sure where his loyalties lie. (After all, just look at the teensy-tiny, ineffective smear campaign he's tried to mount against his former boss, Ron Paul. He tried every trick in the book, and a few political insiders and a few liberal reporters even briefly paid a bit of attention to him!) Perhaps Eric's loyalties are in the same dark anus where his head is currently located! The questions: is it Giuliani's or his own? ...and... ...does it really matter?

As far as the most effective libertarian petitioner in the nation, I think the title currently goes to Russell Bagget, who was referred to me by Richard Winger of ballot access news ( ). Russell has pulled a minimum of 250 signatures per day out of post offices every single day this past week. He has regularly cleared the 300 signature mark, in rural areas in Illinois' 17th and 18th districts.

Of course, he has the distinction of working for Ron Paul, Eric's old boss (who is an actual libertarian Republican).

Russell Baggett is certainly one of the most effective petitioners in the nation. His per signature average is MUCH higher than Dondero's ever was. And he gets up earlier and dawdles less than Eric.

From my conversation with Russell, he sounds like a libertarian Republican. ...And of course, he actually has the distinction of working for one, ...unlike Eric.

To recap: I am glad that Eric has done libertarian work in the past, but I am not glad he's currently working in favor of pure undiluted fascism. This marks him as a mark, a hired gun, an apolitical pigeon of political pragmatism -NOT a libertarian. And if one is a petitioner, but not a libertarian petitioner, then who cares? ...Any young ruffian can be plucked off the streets and paid a buck a sig from the taxpayer's wallet.

...So 'good luck' with pimping "Ghouliani" AKA "Nosferatuliani" AKA "drag-queen anti-gun fascist from NYC", Eric. I hope that works out for y... ...uhh... ...actually, I hope it gets you exactly what you deserve.

Saturday, April 21, 2007

The Most Important Defense of the Second Amendment Published in Years... :)

"In Search of the Second Amendment"

A fellow freedom fighter named David T. Hardy made this documentary, titled "In Search of the Second Amendment". The video is a deep investigation of the origin, history, and necessity of the Second Amendment. Hardy has been (and continues to be) the most law-literate defender of freedom in the United States. This documentary righteously demolishes the mountain of lies and disinformation propagated by the inane "crockumentary" that Michael Moore recently slapped together called "Bowling for Columbine".

If you want to see a documentary that deserves to be called a documentary, (Especially if you spent your hard-earned cash on 'BFC'), you need to watch this movie.

The video is a steal, at $24.95 plus $2.00 shipping and handling, especially when you consider the potential cost of even one gun-control bill that could have been prevented by this DVD reaching a wider audience. This video needs to be seen by as many people as humanly possible. If you think people need to be more educated in order to pursue individual freedom, then you need to own a copy of this video. I completely agree with Michelle Malkin's review, located on the link above.

That said, it's not just conservatives who will benefit from seeing this video. Indeed, it will be hard for any liberal who sees this DVD to remain in favor of gun-control, with a clean conscience. Don Kates, the famed civil rights lawyer reveals just how important the Second Amendment was to the 60s civil rights movement. Indeed, he sets the course necessary for the next major party to achieve control of Washington DC: by reversing course on "gun control" (AKA "victim disarmament").

Buy this video today, and make sure you show it to at least one friend. The country you save could be your own!

Wayne Root's Latest Message Regarding His Candidacy for President of the United States of America:

***Please post my message on Libertarian web sites across the USA.

This is Wayne Allyn Root, potential Libertarian Presidential candidate. I've heard the argument among Libertarians that "Wayne is really a Republican." I want to address that statement publicly among my fellow Libertarians:

This statement is a natural thing to say or think. But you are thinking about my background the wrong way. It's time for Libertarians to think "out of the box." The fact that I've been a lifelong Republican is a HUGE positive for the LP. It may be the BEST thing to ever happen to LP. Yes, I was Republican until recently...that's exactly why only I can make the following statement as LP Presidential candidate to millions of American voters:

"I know how hard it is to vote LP. I know many of you listening to me right now are loyal Republicans.
I know many of you are loyal Conservatives who have supported Ronald Reagan, Barry Goldwater and yes even George W. Bush in the past. I know you think voting Libertarian is a wasted vote. But until a few months ago...I was one of you...until recently I also thought voting LP was a wasted vote. Well no more. It's all become crystal clear to me. If a strong lifelong Republican like me could take a chance...and make the change of his LIFE- I just became a lifetime Libertarian- so can you!

Remember I'm the best-selling author of "Millionaire Republican." If you go to, you'll see photos galore of me with President Bush at White House...with Rudy Guliani...with Mitt Romney...with Karl Rove at the White House and at my home...with Republican Senators...with Florida Governor Jeb Bush and NY Governor George Pataki. My entire adult life has ben spent among powerful and influential Republicans. But I have made the switch. I haven't left the GOP. The Republican Party has left me. And I'm not alone. Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater must be rolling over in their graves at the big government antics of today's GOP.

If I made the change from lifelong Republican to "Lifetime Libertarian"...if I'm's time for millions of Republicans and Conservatives to admit they are disgusted and show your anger at the big government Bush the wasteful the the warrantless the online gaming the loss of your freedoms and the Terri Schiavo the greatest expansion of government in the lack of oversight over Pentagon our lying Attorney the secrecy and lack of transparency of our the removal of our individual rights and the mismanagement of the post-war.

It's time for a change- and the change is certainly not to vote for even bigger spending liberal Democrats like Hillary Clinton, or Barack Obama, or Mr. Lawsuit himself John Edwards. It's time for smaller government, lower taxes, balanced budgets, drastically reduced federal spending, and drastically increased rights and freedoms for the individual...and states rights. It's time for non-stop vetoes by the President. I'll veto most every increased spending bill that comes across my desk. It's time for transparency in government- NO MORE SECRECY. If I'm the LP nominee, I pledge a government FOR the people, by the people, and about the people. I pledge to reduce government in your life. I pledge to give the power back to the American people the moment I'm sworn in. I promise you, your vote will NOT be wasted. You have my word."

No other LP candidate can make this argument- PERIOD. The fact that I'm a "reformed" lifelong Republican is a positive for the LP. I'm the messenger who can talk common sense to millions of voters who have never considered the LP before. It's time for them to see the light. These millions of voters who are Libertarians, but don't know it yet, will feel comfortable making the switch when they hear my story. That's something no other LP candidate can accomplish. Today's GOP is not Barry Goldwater's GOP...or Ronald Reagan's GOP. This is a BIG government GOP...only slightly better than an even BIGGER government Democrat Party. Send a message that the 2-party system is corrupt and failing- vote for ROOT for America!

Wayne Allyn Root- finally a W.A.R. you can vote for! ROOT for America!"

Wednesday, January 24, 2007

Wayne Allyn Root's Libertarian "Awakening"

This is the epiphany of Wayne Root, a "Goldwater libertarian". Wayne is the author of the book Millionaire Republican Wayne is likely going to announce a Presidential bid with the Libertarian Party, later this year (and it would be one of the best things to happen to the Libertarian Party since John Stossel started calling himself a libertarian). I haven't heard Wayne call himself an "objectivist" yet, but Ayn Rand herself supported Goldwater's very "objectivist" policies. You can draw your own conclusions. Rand herself never figured out what Root has figured out: you need to cast a large net to win an election. Yet she did support peaceful elections over a scenario that decays into violence, like the one portrayed in Atlas Shrugged.

Thus, the Root campaign will be reaching out to anyone who is dismayed that the Republican Party seems to have abandoned its core values of limited government, and property rights. (Including Democrats alienated with the "big government" parties!) The strict Constitutional protection of property rights would mean an end to prohibition. An end to the prohibition on peaceful gun ownership. An end to drug, alcohol, and tobacco prohibition. An end to online gambling prohibition (as well as other prohibitions on the ownership of wealth and money, such as gold and silver). An end to eminent domain abuse (and perhaps the use of 'eminent domain' entirely). And a return to Constitutional government (libertarian government) that defends America from force and does very little else.

But here's Root's "Awakening" in his own words, (and without any educational links):

By Wayne Allyn Root

It’s not easy to change your identification. I’m the guy who wrote the best-selling book “Millionaire Republican.” My political identification has always been Republican- literally since birth. Just as I’ve always been a S.O.B. (Son of a Butcher). Yes my dad was a butcher. But not just any old butcher. David Root was a Jewish Republican butcher from Brownsville, Brooklyn- now that’s unique! Dad was my inspiration in life- and he will always be my hero. (He died in 1992). In 1964, at the age of three, wrapped in his strong arms, he had me passing out political campaign brochures for Barry Goldwater.
My father loved his Republican party and instilled that love in me.

“Son,” he would say, “When the Democrats try to knock the Republicans for being the party of the rich, they have it all wrong. The GOP is not the party of the rich. The GOP is the party of anyone who wants to be rich…and desires the freedom to make it happen.”

That creed has guided my lifelong support of the Republican Party. And while it’s still true today that the GOP is more supportive of freedom as compared to big-government Democrats (but only a little bit more); and it’s still true that the GOP is more supportive of small businessmen like me (but only a little bit more); and it’s still true that the GOP is more supportive of lower tax rates, so that the taxpayers who take the risks and create the jobs get to keep more of their own money so they’ll create again (but only a little bit more); and, it’s still true that on most economic issues Republicans are still better than Democrats (but only a little bit more); the fact is that the differences between Republicans and Democrats are narrowing. For example, how can it be that Republicans under George W. Bush expanded government more than under any modern President? Or that Republicans under President George W. Bush expanded spending to the point where our treasured tax cuts will almost certainly be eliminated to reduce the now expanded budget deficit.

Of even more concern to my Republican roots and sensibilities is the fact that on a number of non-economic, social issues I find Republicans to be even worse than Democrats. The fact is, today’s Republicans leaders have moved away from personal freedoms and the Libertarian conservative ideals of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan that I, and millions of long time Republicans so cherish. When it comes to issues like abortion, gay rights, stem cell funding, assisted suicide (think Terri Schiavo), online gaming, censorship of television - the GOP is actually in favor of big government moving into our bedrooms, telling us what to do in our own homes, what entertainment we are allowed to choose on our own computers, and what to watch on our own TV sets. Democrats, of course, aren’t much better with their Big Brother views on issues such as seat belt laws, smoking restrictions, and gun control. The truth is, despite the fact that voters have said again and again that they want smaller, less intrusive government, and more individual freedom, it’s difficult to find a politician to vote for who is a true believer in Libertarian rights. Unfortunately both parties now embrace Big Brother at its worst- looking out first for their own vested interests at the expense of what I value most- MY INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM!

The Democrat version of big government is all about limiting our economic freedoms. Democrats want to tell us what to do with our own money. They are continually pilfering our bank accounts in the name of “fairness.” But fairness has nothing to do with it. In reality it’s the Democrats attempt to steal from the rich and successful, in order to bribe the poor to vote Democrat (by keeping them dependent on Democratic politicians and big government handouts). Republicans, on the other hand are for big government when it comes to our bedrooms. They want to step all over the constitution, imposing their moral views by controlling what we can and cannot do in our personal lives. While Democrats support Big Brother in order to win over low-income voters and extreme left-wing activists, Republicans support Big Brother to win over extreme right-wing religious voters.

Some choice that leaves us, huh? A cynic might question if either party actually believes in any of this, or are they are simply willing to violate our rights and destroy our freedoms in order to amass enough special interest votes to win elections? I believe the latter is true, simply because I find it hard to believe that any intelligent human being could possibly think bigger government is better- hey, just call me a cynic!

I can’t stand big government or government bureaucrats whose true function is not to help me, but only to protect their own vested interest. Likewise, I can’t stand liberal animosity towards businesses like Wal*Mart that create millions of decent jobs; liberals trying to steal my property in the name of eminent domain; or liberals destroying jobs and trampling the rights of small businessmen in the name of a rare desert cockroach. But I also can’t stand, over-reaching laws and governmental intrusion into areas that unnecessarily erode every American’s personal rights and freedoms- like abortion, gay rights, stem cell research, assisted suicide, medicinal marijuana laws, or the new Prohibition- banning online poker and gaming. That wonderful new law by the way has little or nothing to do with morality. The ban on online gaming just happens to carve out exemptions for online horserace gambling and online lotteries (which produce hundreds of millions in tax revenues for state governments). So once again we have more proof that government isn’t out to help people- only to protect its own interests and profits. And if banning online gaming just happens to add a few million votes from religious extremists who want online gaming banned for morality reasons- well then that’s one heck of a bonus. Let’s just declare Prohibition and put all the credible, legal, licensed gaming web sites out of business, and overnight hand control of online gaming to fly-by-night frauds, criminals and organized crime. Smart, huh? So perhaps government bureaucrats and politicians claiming to be against gambling on morality grounds were actually taking bribes (or perhaps large legal “contributions”) from the Mafia? This new version of Prohibition should be renamed “The Sopranos Support Bill.” Doesn’t it just make you sleep well at night knowing your government is out to protect you?

The fact is there is no longer much difference between the two major parties. However, since nothing is more important to me than my economic freedom and my right to keep more of my own hard-earned money, I’ll always support Republicans over Democrats- if that’s my only choice. And I’ll continue to write checks to select Republican politicians who still hold the Libertarian limited government ideals of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan sacred. The thing is that over the last couple of years I’ve come to realize that isn’t my only choice. I’ve had what many would call a cathartic experience. I call it “My Libertarian Awakening.” I have no doubt that both Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan are turning over in their graves at the big government agenda of today’s GOP (big government expansion, growth of earmarks, growth of government spending, trampling of the rights and freedoms of the individual). I believe neither Goldwater nor Reagan would today call himself a Republican. They’d both label themselves as Libertarians. And amazingly, that’s what I now call myself. I have to pinch myself when I say it out loud - but yes, I am a Libertarian. Perhaps a Republican-leaning Libertarian, but nonetheless a Libertarian.

Yes, I still think that when it comes to fiscal issues (money), the GOP is a far better alternative than bleeding-heart, do-gooder, socialist-leaning Liberal Democrats- if that’s our only choice. It’s just that I no longer believe that “Republican” and “Democrat” are the only viable choices for American voters. For the past 20 years- virtually my entire adult life- I’ve been America’s most successful oddsmaker and prognosticator. My accurate predictions and gut instincts have made me wealthy, famous, and in-demand as a TV media expert. I’ve appeared on all the major networks: ABC, CNBC, MSNBC, CNN, Fox News Channel, ESPN, Spike, etc. My political predictions have been even more accurate than my sports predictions. I picked George W. Bush to win re-election in the days before the 2004 Presidential election, when most every major political pollster and pundit predicted a Kerry victory. My exact prediction was Bush by 30 to 35 electoral votes and 3 points popular- the exact final margins of victory. For the 2006 election, I predicted the GOP would lose control of Congress many months before any political experts came to that same conclusion (the week of the Teri Schiavo government intrusion was what I call the epicenter of the decline of GOP power).

Today I will make a much more powerful prediction- one that literally screams from my gut, and from every cell of my body. There is a political revolution brewing. The two party system is failing. Never before in modern American political history has the time been more ripe for a third party to successfully do battle with the two major parties. Americans are no longer “connecting” or identifying as Republicans or Democrats. One size no longer fits all. I believe a majority of Americans are exactly like me- fiscally conservative, but socially moderate to progressive. Only one party fits that description and it is neither Republican nor Democrat- IT IS LIBERTARIAN!

The number one goal of Libertarians is to drastically reduce the size and scope of government. Do American voters agree? After the 2006 election, a new poll proved that a vast majority (you might call it “the Silent Majority”) of Americans supports smaller government- and more rights and freedoms for the individual. Yet this same group of voters obviously voted for Democratic Party candidates in 2006, handing them majorities in the Senate and House. What a contradiction! The Democrats don’t support this “Silent Majority.” The Democrats have nothing in common with this majority. They do not think like you or me. Barack Obama (my Columbia College Class of ’83 classmate) certainly doesn’t think like you. His political ratings as a Senator (as ranked by liberal organizations) rank him to the left of John Kerry, Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton. No Democrat with views as liberal as Barack Obama has ever been elected President of the United States. Presidential candidates that have possessed anything close to Obama’s liberal leanings have all lost in landslides- McGovern, Carter, Dukakis, Mondale. America is a “center right” country. Republicans have dominated American politics at all levels for so long because they have been the closest party to “center right.” What I have come to realize of late is that the Republican Party has lost the right to that claim. Today, the true definition of “center right” is Libertarian.

Democrats like Hillary “I want to socialize medicine” Clinton; Barack “I’m to the Left of Ted Kennedy” Obama; John “I’m a Trial Lawyer who Has Made Millions by Suing Doctors” Edwards; or John “American Soldiers are Murderers and Baby Killers” Kerry; do not think anything like that majority of Americans that want smaller government. These bleeding heart, socialist-at-heart Democrat Presidential hopefuls actually think the very opposite of a majority of Americans on important issues like downsizing government, reducing spending, cutting entitlements, cutting taxes, eliminating the death tax, protecting the rights of property owners, affirmative action, tort reform, gun control…the list goes on and on. American voters are “center right” on all these crucial issues. Up until now, the Silent Majority that supports smaller government had no other choice but to vote for the GOP- that same Republican Party that is only slightly more Libertarian on fiscal and economic issues, yet in some cases even more pro-Big Brother than Democrats on social issues. Some choice, huh?

But I now believe that our voting choices are expanding in a dramatic way. The time has come for change- and for choice. I believe most Americans are now open to voting for a credible, common-sense third party candidate- who can explain, debate, and defend a fiscally conservative/socially moderate position. If this lifelong “Millionaire Republican” is ready to make the move, I know, without a doubt, that millions of other Americans are ready to make the change as well. Politics as usual is not working. The “one size fits all” structure of our two major political parties just doesn’t feel right anymore.

Longtime Republican Congressman Bob Barr recently announced his defection to the Libertarian Party. When I talk about my own political awakening, I am shocked, amazed, and pleased at how many of my fiscal conservative/socially moderate Republican (and even a few Democrat) friends now openly admit to me that they now call themselves Libertarians. I sense something big happening in the heartland. Lord knows it hasn’t reached the tone-deaf ears of the D.C. establishment or Eastern media. But the train has left the station and it’s barreling down on the traditional 2-party system and the infamous “Beltway Insiders.” Ross Perot, Jesse “The Body” Ventura and even Kinky Friedman have all paved the way for a serious third party candidate on a national level. As Bob Dylan would say, “The times, they are a-changin’.” The window of opportunity has opened for the Libertarian Party to become a competitive mainstream party.

As a very wise man once said, “Timing Is Not Important- it’s everything!” It’s time for the Libertarian Party to stop “hiding its light under a bushel,” take its next growth step and prove it can play with the big boys. I’m confident that when voters know there’s an alternative- a SERIOUS winnable alternative- a majority of Americans will experience (as I have) “a Libertarian awakening.” I’ve made my decision- I’ve always been a leader, not a follower. I will continue to vote for, support and contribute to Republican candidates with Libertarian ideals and principles. But I’ve decided to join the Libertarian Party as a “lifetime member.” And I’ve begun work on my new book tentatively titled, “The Conscience of a Libertarian.” Yes in fact, the times they are a-changin’. I believe that like my hero Barry Goldwater’s book “The Conscience of a Conservative” my new book will have the power to inspire and energize a national movement. And spur the “inner Libertarian” to come out in millions of American voters who are tired and disgusted with the two party system, but just don’t know it yet, or are afraid to admit it.

Stay tuned for coming announcements as to how I will choose to play a major role in this growing Libertarian political revolution and how you can join it too. But I will announce my first step. Many Libertarians from across the country have called or emailed me in the past few weeks to encourage me to consider becoming the Libertarian Party Presidential nominee in 2008. The Libertarian Party has now invited me to participate in their Presidential Panel at The Libertarian State Leadership Alliance Conference in Orlando, Florida on March 18th - and I have accepted. I have a feeling that a great journey is about to begin. I hope you’ll join me on that journey.

Sunday, January 14, 2007

My Current Opinion Regarding A Viable 2008 Libertarian Presidential Candidate

Let me just say that it fills my heart with joy to live in a country, such as the USA, that is even semi-capitalist. A friend of mine named Praveen Puri recently told me that I could make money, by doing something as simple as creating a blog, and allowing Google to advertise on it. I believed Google to be a fine company, and so decided to give collude with them, that they might peddle their wares, hitching a ride on my various and sundry opinions (and the occasional piece of breaking news).

In this mood, let me just announce that I am supporting Wayne Allyn Root for President of the United States of America. It occurs to me that:
1) Wayne can reach many millions of Americans with basic libertarian principles, in a way that doesn't sound like a basic economics text, or an intruduction to Objectivist epistemology.
2) Wayne can do #1 because he has media connections, personal wealth, and lots of energy!
3) None of the other candidates seeking the LP nomination, thus far (as of 01-15-2007) , have these qualities.
4) The Libertarian Party needs the media attention, and no candidate of their is likely to win. Thus, they can nominate a Libertarian who takes "libertarian purity" to another level, but cannot reach Joe sixpack, or the major media, or even semi-interested voters in most states, or they can take a bunch of Republican and Democrat votes away from the bastards, and force the major parties to reckon with us, or lose elections.
5) The "libertarian purity" question is a non-issue, so long as he doesn't grossly misrepresent the LP (Which Wayne is clearly smart enough not to do). Moreover, this non-issue is the reason we don't have a serious shot at the Presidency in 2008. The sooner the public knows who we are, the sooner we can worry about who would win a moderated debate in a college classroom full of pontificating objectivists. Until then, we are idiots if we neglect to get serious about our presidential vote total! <---NOTE: Ayn Rand was a towering mental giant in some areas (her stated political philosophy, her fictional works, some of her ideas about art), and a mental midget in others (homophobia, domineering over her hubbie, adulterous and thus contract breaking, critical of political allies making due with the voters they had to work with, and still do, politically stupid and mindlessly supportive of socialist "Republican" candidates like Reagan and Nixon. She is a large part of the reason why many Americans wrongly remember these dimwitted puppets as "capitalists". Compare John Hospers candidacy to that of Reagan any day of the week and he's a genius compared to Rand in the arena of US politics.).--->

Having said my piece (roughly), I urge you to consider this quote that was graciously sent to my inbox by the Free Market News Network:
"If you're serious about changing the world and you know that your philosophy is correct, you owe it to your philosophy to study how to win [elections]." -- Morton Blackwell

I heartily agree. You can check out Libertarianism MAINSTREAM.

Nevermind that he's a "Republican". So is Ron Paul. But intellectual forces are always changing partners and battlefields. Let's welcome Root to the only Party that can protect a Constitutional Republic in our fight for freedom. Who doesn't like Ron Paul now? Every libertarian in any way associated with winning elections likes him. But the "purists" bitterly opposed Paul at first. Is it because they'd rather lose freedom than compromise on one single battle?

One battle does not win or lose a war! But sitting out every battle loses without fail... We can nominate Root, or we can sit on the sidelines and get around 340,000 votes for President of the US, and pat ourselves on the back when it's all done, slide further towards abject socialism, and blame America for "not doing their homework".

But if we do that, should we castigate fellow libertarians who haven't done their homework on something important?

I know very few libertarians who are in great physical shape, and altering their diet for maximum longevity. I know very few libertarians who are familiar with the concept of a (technological) singularity. I know very few libertarians who know the difference between a "molecular assembler" and "nanoscale chemistry" as it pertains to nanotechnology. These are life and death ideas too. They are every bit as likely to shape the outcome of politics in the 21st century.

Most libertarians resent their "fellow man" voting away their freedom out of sheer ignorance. How many libertarians are resented by an even smaller number of scientists who resent them for not knowing enough computer science to help shape Artificial General Intelligence into a constructive force? Like elections, if not enough brainpower is devoted to this task, the result could be "mass death", possibly even to the extinction of the human species.

Should technology ignorant libertarians (and everyone else) be fed to the "roving macrophages" because of their staggering ignorance? Or do the people who know what is at stake need to consider strategy to prevent the worst from happening, if only due to their own self-interest? Christine L. Peterson's (and founder Eric Drexler's) Foresight Institute posits that engineers who are on the cusp of building such powerful machines have a responsibility to themselves and the public to build with self-imposed caution. Scientists currently working on AI such as Hugo DeGaris have posited what might happen if there is no debate, or if the debate (about strong AI) is not constructive.

I would argue in favor of the latter. When the libertarians that currently comprise the LP finally get serious about strategy, they will reap the benefits of their philosophical consistency. Winning any battle requires pain, but it need not require undue sacrifice. Our enemy is willful ignorance, and there is a way to beat it: We have to interest the public in the defense of freedom -if we don't they will continue to let it slip away, undefended.

If Sam Adams could do it, without an internet, TV, or (largely sympathetic) radio, WE CAN DO IT.

Strategy requires a charismatic candidate who has "get up and go". Wayne Root has it, the others don't. Therefore, the others won't attract a following necessary to break 1,000,000 votes.

Vote for Wayne.

-Jake Witmer