DISCLAIMER: We are a Republican Blog. We do not usually highlight or support candidates running on the Libertarian Party ticket. However, we are also a staunchly Pro-Defense. Any candidate who is Pro-War in Iraq, even if they are running on the Libertarian ticket, will get a hearty Attaboy or in this case "Atta-girl" from LR. Excerpt from TrannyWebUSA, 01/22/08:
Trannyweb member Bennie Lee Ferguson has recently announced her candidacy. Bennie will be challenging Republican incumbent Michael O'Neal for the Kansas House of Representatives seat in Kansas District 104.
Ferguson resides in America's heartland, Hutchinson, Kansas, and is bravely facing the challenge of being an openly transgender candidate for the House seat, and may be the first openly transgender candidate for the office of President. She is a staunch Libertarian, and is the official Libertarian candidate and her name will be on the ballot.
RW: For those unfamiliar with it, how would you characterize the basic political philosophy of the Libertarian Party?
BF: You could ask this question of a hundred Libertarians and get a hundred different answers. For me, the most attractive aspect of the Libertarian Party is its insistence on the maintenance of basic civil rights and liberties. Of course, the methods used to achieve this goal are a source of considerable debate within the party. For instance, one Libertarian recently referred to me as a "hypocrite" because I generally support U.S. military operations and goals in the Persian Gulf, her rationale being that the very civil rights and liberties I insist on are being denied to Iraqis because of our military presence. I disagree with that contention, but it is illustrative of the debate within the party concerning this issue.
RW: How would you characterize some of the current front running major party presidential candidates?
BF: An in-depth analysis of each of the front-runners would prove to lengthy for this interview. I am a former Republican and member of that party's Log Cabin GLBT (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgendered) organization and am, therefore, inclined to be supportive of fiscally conservative, national security-oriented, and socially enlightened candidates from the moderate ranks of the GOP. My gut feeling is that Clinton is primarily in it for the power and glory. Obama is too inexperienced and too far to the left. Of the Republican candidates, Giulliani most exemplifies the mix of fiscal conservatism, national security concern, and social enlightenment to which I just referred.
RW: The principle issue confronting President Bush and all of the 2008 presidential candidates is the war in Iraq. What is your view with regard to a continued American military presence in that region?
BF: Our goal in these conflicts should be victory and nothing less. Our government and the American people should do whatever is necessary to support our troops in the field and victory in these conflicts. Whether or not these conflicts are the result of ill-advised policy is beside the point. Having become involved, it is incumbent upon the United States to see these conflicts through to a successful conclusion. This is increasingly becoming an issue which affects individual states since so much our fighting force in this conflict is drawn from National Guard and Reserve units.
Posts
20 comments:
"and may be the first openly transgender candidate for the office of President.".
Did I miss something? Where did it say she is running for President?
I'm confused on the Presidential run thing? Is she declaring for the LP Presidential Nomination? Someone in the Kansas LP needs to pin her down on this. She'd be better than Phillies of Kubby for sure.
But then again, since she's Pro-Defense, the LPers probably wouldn't accept her.
I think this is a really interesting endorsement from Dondero because he always claims he doesn't like unelectable "losertarians", but here is a candidate that is clearly unelectable and he's gung-ho about her. Clearly the thing that Dondero can't support is not an unelectable candidate, but a pro-defense candidate. He can't stand candidates who would prefer the United States to be a country on the defense, he must have a candidate who is openly for an aggressive offensive-based foreign policy. Which explains why he prefers above all other, Rudy Giulianni, who openly states he wants the US military on the offensive against the rest of the World. Thanks for the enlightening post Eric.
Scott,
Here is the only major article to my knowledge that Giulani has written on world affairs
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070901faessay86501/rudolph-giuliani/toward-a-realistic-peace.html
I don't see where he calls for an offensive against the world. You have been reading American Conservative magazine too much.
Andrew, can you maybe use tinyurl for that link? I can't past it because it's cut off on your comment.
Hey Scott,
Just go to the Foreign Affairs website and do a search for Giuliani and it should come right up. I think it was in the last FA issue
www.foreignaffairs.org
Hey Scott,
Just go to the Foreign Affairs website and do a search for Giuliani and it should come right up. I think it was in the last FA issue
www.foreignaffairs.org
Oh joy, that will really help the libertarian movement.
Can I just respectfully ask how invading another country is defending the homeland?
Very much agreed sun-stealer. She/he will fit in nicely with the anarchists and other unusual elements in the LP. Ironically, she won't have a chance not because of the transgender issue, but because she supports the war. That's the LP for you, loosing one moderate libertarian at a time.
I'm glad you asked 'adrien', the question has been asked (and answered exhaustively)but let us give it a go one more time, shall we?
The attacks of the 11th of September were systematic acts of war aginst the United Sates, resulting in the murders of over three thousand Americans. The attacks were perpetrated by a well organized and well funded terrorist organization (Al Qaeda) that has entities throughout the globe with the sole purpose of launching attacks against the U.S. Her interests, and our allies. Now, Al Qaeda is motivated in great part by an Islamic -extremist ideology that has the destruction of the great Satan (U.S.) and the little satan (Israel) as its ultimate core principle. The ideology that motivates Al Qaeda is a global movement with tentacles that reach far beyond any one organization, network, nation-state, or individuals. Much like Communism, Nazism, Totalitarianism etc. The objective, through military, economic, diplomatic and other means, is to neutralize this worldwide movement to whatever extent realistically possible. Or morever, to ensure that United States vital interests are protected and preserved. Which means first and foremost, preventing and repelling terrorist attacks on U.S. soil.
The Iraq war is one theatre in the current war on terrorism or war against Islamic extremism. The Iraq war is a continued war of self-defense that commenced on the 11th of September when U.S. soil was attacked, and intital theatre being Afghanistan. Since this is a global movement, it is implied that other enemy elements that seek to attack the United States and Her interests, plot and plan in other nation-states.
Saddam Hussein constantly violated the Gulf War armistice treaty by refusing to comply with the terms set forth in the treaty, such as unfettered weapons inspections, and his constant firing upon of Allied jets in the No-Fly Zones, the terms of which were crucial to the peace treaty. These brazen violations of the peace treaty went unchallenged and a plot was soon discovered that involved Iraaqi elements assisting in the funding of Palestinian suicide bombers, and a Hussein supported plot to assassinate Former President Bush. After the attacks of September 11th, the United States embarked upon a war on terrorism and those who sponser, support, harbor terrorists etc. The Hussein regime was ordered by the United Nations to comply with the dozen plus resolutions that it had violated. The Hussein regime refused to comply, especially in regards to allowing unfettered access for International weapons inspectors. This compliance was a key element of the original Gulf War peace treaty and a violation of these conditions could result in the use of force to bring the Iraq regime into compliance. The Iraqi regime still refused compliance and the President sought a use of force authorization that was considered by, and consented to, by Congress. The Congress authorized the use of force if the regime continued to be in direct violation of its obligations, and if weapons inspections were hindered by Hussein's regime. Saddam Hussein refused to comply with the original peace treaty, all of the subsequent United Nations resolutions, and the use of force authorization passed by the Congress. The terrorist regime of Saddam Hussein was given forty eight hours to cede power or face military action. Saddam Hussein remained in defiance and with his support, harboring, and sponsoring of terrorism and terrorist elements, the United States and Her allies struck Iraq militarily to bring the regime back into compliance as the coalition of several dozen nations supported the United States in its war of self-defense against a terrorist regime and its support elements. The ongoing war of self-defense against Islamic Extremists can be thought of in the same way as WWII. When the nation of Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, the United States launched a war of self-defense not only against the direct attacker, i.e. Japan, but in addition the allies of Japan whose stated shared goals and military objectives were the same as that of the attacker, these nations being Germany and Italy, of course. Germay and Italy did not attack the United States, but because they were alligned in a global movement, they were enemies of our nation, just the same as if they had launched the initial attack themselves.
Since the Iraq war is winding down at last, I hope we don't have to keep plowing the same intellectual ground much longer.
When you guys say "defense" do you mean "offense"? Or did (as one american told me while I was driving across your country) Iraq already invade America?
You must be joking. Complaining about Hussein not obeying some UN agreements is just making excuses for war. And complaining about Iraq & terrorists is just plain dishonest (assuming you're not an idiot). By some standards you could link 100 countries to terrorism. By reasonable standards, Iraq wasn't much of a problem.
And in case it needs to be spelt out, war is generally a bad thing if you believe in life & freedom.
Stop trying to micro-manage the world America. You offer such a story of hope, freedom and progress and then you screw it all up by being militaristic expansionists. The foreign actions of America makes it difficult for non-American libertarians to explain why freedom is good.
If you could just be the beacon of hope then it would be much easier for the world to follow you. As it is... I have to use Hong Kong to explain how the free-market works, and explain that America used to be the land of the free.
Fix that headline, He's not running for the a US Congress seat. He's running for the Kansas State House of Representatives.
And not for president, either?
I don't see where he calls for an offensive against the world. You have been reading American Conservative magazine too much.
Okay, first off I don't actually have any magazine subscriptions. So....
Second, he calls for an open offensive platform against Islam. That's what? 20% of the World's population?
Sure, you'll say only the islamo-fascist terrorist peoples, not the moderates, but then he states repeatedly that the Iraq war is a good example of remaining on the offense against terrorist, despite the fact that Iraq was a largely secular nation prior to our invasion.
He also buys the myth that they hate us for our pop stars and rich people, and dismisses the notion that American foreign policy could possibly have any blowback, which makes him a decidedly dangerous individual to be commander in chief of our military. Especially in our post-war declaring era.
Will Eddie Izzard be his press secretary?
John Humphreys,
The only one I see giving offense around here is you and in a way that is at once patronizing, wrongheaded and off-topic.
What does the fact that 40 million people in two countries now enjoy, thanks to conflict, lower rates of death, higher standards of living and more personal control over their own destinies with a much brighter future mean to you?
Does the fact that the US pays precisely the same for Middle Eastern oil (indeed, we get only a very small percentage of our oil from that source) as any other nation, despite the fact that we are spending considerably more in blood and treasure than all other nations to stabilize that region tell you that ours is a policy of expansionism?
Peace is not the absence of conflict; it is the absence of coercion. If we had the balls to export the American Revolution against every tinhorn totalitarian, the world would be a much better place. Even for you.
O why o why are leftists so dishonest? OK John Humphries, I will be kind and give you the benefit of the doubt and only grant youignorance. Saddam Hussein was one of the people most responsible for terrorism in the world prior to his removal. As a quick example I will use his direct payment of $25,000 to the families of the Palestinian killers who would go into Israel and kill teenage girls.
Now since Americans were killed in these bombings that Saddam Hussein paid for (09 April 1995 near Kfar Darom in the Gaza Strip; 21 August 1995 on a Jerusalem bus; 09 August 2001 Sbarros Jerusalem, to name three) he was committing acts of aggression against the USA. Much like the Barbary pirates in the early 19th century. For the contract murder of Americans Saddam Hussein was deservedly removed.
O, and to think the Coalition had no right to resume hostilities when he violated the ceasefire is beyond the pale. If losers don't have to obey their signed agreements, why bother having peace? Peace at any price, no, I prefer Live free or die. Slavery and capitulation suits leftists just fine tho.
Curious thought... I read once that pro-war libertarianism and anti-war libertarianism could be viewed as looking at the issue of self-defense from a female vs. a male orientation.
Being female, I object to the notion that I must remain in enforced vulnerability in the face of an understood threat.
It would be a bit like, oh, not shooting a stalker (or at least getting someone to beat the snot out of him for you) because he hadn't actually raped you yet.
Interesting that a trans gender person, likely to face personal physical threats, supports active rather than passive defense.
Saddam's connections to terrorist groups and acts extend well beyond the Arab war against the Jews in Israel. Saddam worked with Al-Qaeda in planning, training, logistics, and networking. This is all extensively documented. Start with www.regimeofterror.com and follow the links, research the refrences to govt., academic, and think-tank reports, and read the books on this story. If you don't grasp the implications of a "deeply secular regime" having a twenty-five to thirty year relationship with religiously motivated terrorists/jihadists in an age when those same people are attempting to wage an assymetrical war on the U.S. homeland and in the streets and cities of our NATO allies...well, in that case, you're a goddamned moron and there's nothing anyone can do to help you.
Post a Comment