On the Boortz radar screen

Mr. Boortz provided his "Nealz Nuze" audience with a link to this blog today, Dec. 31, 2003.

He also chose, along with the blog mention, to print a letter that I believe seriously misunderstands the issues involved in the effort to have Mr. Boortz removed from the list of convention speakers.

In the extended entry section I provide the blog mention and letter in question, followed by a rebuttal that I just e-mailed to Mr. Boortz. In an accompanying message, I asked that my "The Petition and Free Speech" piece (first posted here a few weeks ago) be printed as a response.

Anyone taking the time to read around this site will better understand the intention and thought of some of us, including Tom Knapp, the petition's author.

I should add that while we appreciate the attention Justin Raimondo and other non-LP writers have given to this matter, we who continue to work in the LP do not necessarily agree with or advocate the same responses they do.

Speaking solely for myself:

Although I continue to adhere to the original spirit and wording of the petition, which seeks to remove Mr. Boortz entirely from the list of convention speakers, I realize that the recent LNC resolution represents a serious setback to that position.

My chief intention in contributing to this blog will remain the same, no matter what the outcome of the "Boot Boortz" campaign; that intention is to help provide a concise collection of views, quotes and commentary to better inform Libertarians about what it may mean in the public's mind to prominently feature Neal Boortz at our convention.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

http://boortz.com/nuze/index.htm

THE BROUHAHA CONTINUES

We still have an organized effort out there to get me booted off the speakers list for the Libertarian National Convention in Atlanta next year. Their principal complaint is that I support the war in Iraq. Web Guy forwards a few email messages to me every day from people saying "I'm going to do everything I can to make sure you don't speak to the Libertarian Convention ... blah blah blah."

Here's an email from a different point of view:

Dear Mr.Boortz,

I am amazed that there are Libertarians that want to prevent you from speaking at the national convention in May. In my opinion, those who are attempting to silence you do not deserve to be called Libertarians, but instead deserve to be called totalitarians.

Mr. Boortz, I supported the war with Iraq as well. I supported the war because I believed Saddam Hussein was a threat to this nation and had to be stopped. I believed that we had no other choice and I believed that by ridding the world of this dictator, the U.S. done a great service not only for ourselves, for the people of Iraq, but for the whole world. It was the right thing to do. There are those within the party that do not see it that way. I, like you, followed my conscience, and if that is a crime, then pronouce me guilty as charged.

Mr. Boortz, I believe the war on terror is not only a war on the American People but a war against Western Civilization. It saddens me that some in the party don't see it that way. It also saddens me that the some libertarians want to practice the fine art of political correctness, gagging those that don't agree with their view of purity, instead of practicing liberty. If these forces succeed in preventing you from speaking, then the Libertarian Party should cease to exist. They would be committing biggest crime of them all. The crime against liberty of thought.

I hope you do speak at that convention, and I hope to see you on C-Span giving a great address as I know you can. In the meantime, may God bless you and may God be with you as well.

Your's Truly
Alex Pugliese


I fear that this is going to be a bad year for Libertarians. This country desperately needs the message of freedom, property rights and limited government that libertarianism brings, but the American people are not going to warm up to a political party that will not fight for those freedoms or fight for our security.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

(And, here's my rebuttal. -Jeff S.)


THE PETITION AND FREE SPEECH

While circulating the petition, I've had some LP activists whom I respect a great deal express to me concerns about the intent of the petition.

It's been (very politely so far) suggested to me that those of us supporting the petition are holding rigidly to our own preferences and point of view, to the point of intolerance.

Is this really an issue that involves the right of free speech?

First of all, no one that I know of who had a hand in getting the petition together is afraid of Mr Boortz' views per se. Our concerns are purely strategic, having to do with the link-up in the public mind between these views and the LP.

I ask that those concerned with the free speech issue consider one simple truth.

The Libertarian Party is a voluntary membership organization, in which members have every right to influence the way our organization is presented to the public.

Naturally, those who disagree with the petition have that same right.

It's no different than a private corporation that has just hired a CEO. Suppose that this person absolutely refused to come to work in anything close to proper business attire, while treating prospective customers with outright disdain.

The stockholders would have every right to bring their concerns before the corporation's board of directors, and ask for the new CEO's dismissal.

Those opposing the petition may differ with petition supporters on what the definition of "proper business attire" should be for the LP, but they shouldn't try to make their case on the basis of a perceived violation of rights.

Raimondo on the LNC resolution

Antiwar.com's Justin Raimondo, in the "Notes in the Margin" section of his Dec. 29 column, discusses the recent LNC resolution honoring the 2004 National Convention Committee's intention to keep Neal Boortz on the list of speakers. The relevant portion of Justin's article is pasted into the extended entry section.

www.antiwar.com/justin/justincol.html

My continuing campaign to get loudmouth warmonger Neal Boortz booted from the podium of the Libertarian Party's upcoming national convention has suffered a setback. The Libertarian National Committee recently voted to affirm their invitation to the noted Bush shill: the vote was 9 to 6. Here is the text of the resolution they passed:

"The LNC supports our Convention Committee's invitation to Neal Boortz to speak at our national convention in Atlanta in May 2004. We do not condition participation at our convention on membership in the LP or on 100% compliance with the national party platform. We welcome the continued efforts of Mr. Boortz and many others to further the freedom movement in whatever way they choose."

What hypocrites! If Boortz opposed the legalization of, say, marijuana, cloning, or any of the other favored left-libertarian hobby-horses, we all know he wouldn't be able to get within a country mile of the speakers' platform in Atlanta. Leave it to the politically clueless "leadership" of the LP to consign the party's opposition to the war – the one platform plank with potentially broad appeal this election year – to the junk heap. No wonder they've begun to limit their pathetic electoral efforts to getting elected to local county water board and community college and sewer districts. The LP doesn't care about the bad public relations this decision is already generating – they stupidly believe that any publicity is good publicity. What a way to commit suicide.

Oh well, don't get mad – get even! There's just one way to register your disapproval of the LP NatCom's decision: if you're planning to contribute to the Libertarian Party, to renew your membership, or vote for their generally dumb-ass candidates, don't do it.

And let them know why.

Send email to the convention coordinator, Nancy Neale (who just happens to be the wife of the current National Chairman), at torchess@austin.rr.com.

Or call the National Libertarian Party, at: (202) 333-0008, or contact members of the Libertarian Party National Committee.

– Justin Raimondo

Boortz the religious bigot?

I have provided some commentary to excerpts from the Nealz Nuze installment for today, Dec. 29, 2003.

http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html

Boortz:

Speaking of the election .. as the cover of National Review says, PLEASE nominate Howard Dean. Here is a man who isn't sure if Osama is guilty, and wants him tried in an international court of some kind. He attacks America, and Howard Dean wants him tried in an international court. This is a man who also said he would have more than happy to deal with Saddam Hussein, but only if the United Nations gave him permission. This is a man prepared to surrender the sovereignty of the United States as soon as he gets into office.

1. Howard Dean wasn’t commenting on whether or not he personally thinks bin Laden is guilty. Instead, he was expressing concern that our traditions of law, order and due process not be shoved aside by “string ‘em up” lynch mobs led by the likes of Neal Boortz. In fact, Dean’s later comments indicate that he personally has accepted the notion of bin Laden’s guilt. See here:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/12/26/elec04.prez.dean.bin.laden/

2. Mr. Boortz speaks critically about Dean relying on United Nations approval, but anyone reviewing Boortz’s own list of past war justifications (which were previously posted here) knows how much they relied --regardless of how questionably-- on previous UN resolutions regarding Iraq.

Indicative of Mr. Boortz’s humanity is the fact that even as Iran is in the throes of a major disaster, one perhaps claiming the lives of 40,000 people, he can’t resist kicking them when they’re down:

"The Islamic Republic of Iran accepts all kinds of humanitarian aid from all countries and international organizations with the exception of the Zionist regime." That means Iran will accept no help form Israel. Now there's a country that really cares about the welfare of its own people. Quite some religion, that Islam. A few years ago a school for girls caught on fire in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Muslim enforcers stopped little girls from escaping the building because they weren't veiled.

1. It may be that the Iranian government’s policy reflects the will of its people.

2. In saying “Quite some religion, that Islam,” Boortz baselessly indicts the religion of Islam.

3. Without knowing any specifics about the alleged incident regarding school girls in Riyadh, it’s impossible to comment.

Back to Boortz:

Speaking of Islam .... General Electric is going to pull its advertising from the Paul Harvey syndicated radio program. Why? Because Muslims demand it, that's why. Muslims are upset because Harvey said that Islam is "a religion that encourages killing." Anyone out there see a problem with what Paul Harvey said? I don't. As for me, I really can't really see buying any GE product in the near future.

Boortz should read the Old Testament if he’s interested in how people can get the idea that God blesses his followers by allowing them to kill those who don’t belong to the privileged group. He may also be surprised at how literally that attitude survives in the Jewish fundamentalism now informing the settlement movement in Israel.

Or, maybe Mr. Boortz should try applying the same standards he applies to Muslims to the tens of millions of Evangelical Christians in this country who believe (unlike Muslims) that anyone not believing the way they do is going to Hell, and that other religions are the work of Satan.

Yes, there are extremist Muslims who believe God has called them to a holy war against the United States and Israel. But will the day come when Mr. Boortz acknowledges that the mirror image of this extremism exists in those American Christian leaders who initiate their followers into a worldview that requires a final showdown with the Islamic world?

Will it ever concern Mr. Boortz that these Armageddon “holy war” ideologues, (who ironically spend much of their time painting Islam with the same brush), increasingly find direct expression through US foreign policy?

Boortz again:

While Muslims around the world preach violence and death to the "infidels" Muslim organizations in the United States and elsewhere insist that the media adhere to the official "Islam is a religion of peace" line or face actions such as the one taken by GE. Muslims can prove their love of peace by spending .. oh, say about three-fourths of the time they spend plotting against those critical of Islam in actual efforts to bring their radical elements under control.

And you, Mr. Boortz, might provide an example by spending any of your well-publicized time pointing out that the United States (or for that matter the Israel you uncritically support) has been and continues to be an aggressor against the Islamic world.

Removing this “log” from the “eye” of US foreign policy is the proper Christian prerequisite to offering Muslims advice on how to bring their own house into order.


Safety according to Boortz

I came across a nice example of Boortzian logic in the Dec. 26 edition of Nealz Nuze.

http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html

Neal has been really getting after Howard Dean for saying that we are “no safer” since 9-11-01. Continuing today in that vein, Boortz says:

Following Saddam's capture about three weeks ago the ever-irate Howard Dean sneered that the U.S. is no safer now than it was the day before 9/11. I hope some reporter asks him that question again today on one of his campaign appearances.

Today we wake up to news that intelligence experts believe that a terrorist attack was probably averted by the cancellation of those Air France flights on Christmas Eve. Investigators (unfortunately they're French investigators) are looking for some people who didn't show up for one particular cancelled flight ... including a trained pilot. I guess we'll never know for certain, but the suspicions are that there may have been a plan to use one of the Air France aircraft as a missile to attack Las Vegas.

If this story is accurate, then it is clear that U.S. intelligence services are doing quite a job protecting Americans. There is no way they can make this country our the American people 100% safe from the intentions of Islamic terrorists, but bit by bit they're hacking away at the terrorist infrastructure. Al Qaeda leaders and operatives are being captured or killed, and not it looks like planned terrorist attacks.”

And then, further down, Boortz continues:

Here's something else many of us just learned over the past few days. The Homeland Security folks have installed outdoor sensors in over 30 cities in the United States. These sensors are designed to detect biological pathogens that might be released in the air by Islamic terrorists. These devices would provide an early warning in the event of a biological attack. In Howard Dean's world this does not make us one bit safer.”

In Neal Boortz’s worldview, (and I have so far seen nothing to contradict my assessment of it), the past and present aggression of United States foreign policy has absolutely zilch to do with our safety or lack thereof.

So what if intelligence operatives are successful in averting an attack? The fact that there are any attacks at all, including 9-11-01 and before, should elicit critical thought in any sane individual; especially when countries that aren’t forcing their will on the rest of the world (or aiding those that do) experience no problems with “Islamo-fascists.”

And now we’re supposed to be delighted (if this is true) that “Homeland Security” has installed some weird “sensors” in 30 of our cities?

This is evidence that we’re “safer?”

Maybe if people would’ve given some serious thought to the three grievances stated by bin Laden after 9-11-01, (which were consistent with what he’d been saying for years), instead of buying into the government/media’s various attempts to draw attention away from those grievances, we would be on our way to truly becoming safer.

This wouldn't mean that we were "giving in to terrorists." It would simply mean that we as a nation had finally reacquainted ourselves with the moral and practical relevancy of a truly Jeffersonian, Libertarian foreign policy; a policy of military non-interventionism and zero foreign aid through coercive taxation.


Atlanta newspaper blasts Boortz

The senior editor of Atlanta's Creative Loafing newspaper has authored this substantial piece, which gives a lot of information and insight into Boortz and his views. Apparently the author is responsible for "outing" Boortz as a chickenhawk, having revealed what is known about Boortz' evasion of service during the Vietnam War.

The piece also discusses the LP National Convention situation in depth, and even plugs the petition.

I've copied the entire piece into the extended entry section.

--------------------------------------------------------------------


http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/2003-12-18/fishwrapper.html

Neal Boortz is no John Galt

Libertarians will ensure their irrelevance if they embrace radio ignoramus

BY JOHN F. SUGG

Atlanta's radio offerings are so, so, so very awful that, yes, on my drive to the office, in desperation I am forced to tune in to the city's pinnacle (or is it pit?) of know-nothingness, Neal Boortz. But I have a rule. At his first lie, gross misrepresentation of the truth, or race baiting, I go to a book on tape. Often, I don't make it out of the driveway. Seldom do I travel the five miles to I-85, and never have I completed the 30-minute drive to the Loaf without Boortz bellowing some deceitful absurdity.

Neal dissembles, John hits the off button.

For example, just last week Boortz proclaimed that the Bushies told no fibs to con Americans into supporting the war. Huh? I paused for a minute before switching on my current recorded book to make sure Boortz wouldn't qualify that astounding fiction or giggle and say, "Just kidding," since all the world now knows George Bush lied. So did Colin Powell, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and the rest of the contemptible gang. They politicized and distorted intelligence, and when that didn't work, they fabricated and uttered gross untruths. They have even admitted it, but now claim it doesn't matter.

I sometimes jot down Boortz's lamest deceits. It's a long list. Ranking at the top was his hysterical claim, in the days before Bush's invasion of Iraq, that Saddam Hussein's military might surpass that of Nazi Germany. I slapped my forehead at that one -- the claim went beyond mere bad information and makes me wonder if there isn't serious impairment of Boortz's reasoning capacity. The fellow needs a 12-step program for the chronically dishonest and incorrigibly stupid.

The truth, by the way, was that in 1939 Adolf Hitler boasted 98 divisions, with 1.5 million well-trained men, for the invasion of Poland. For the Western offensive, Germany had 2.5 million men, and 2,500 tanks. In June 1941, Hitler had available 3 million men and 4,000 tanks to invade the Soviet Union. Saddam, prior to our invasion, never had more than 400,000 troops and 2,200 tanks, and the demoralized and largely broken-down Iraqi military was never in the same universe as the Wehrmacht.

In other words, Boortz equals bullshit.

I don't want to argue the war here, but it was just so Boortzian for him to proclaim that pure lunacy as truth. And the sheep that follow him bleat their belief that they are actually getting "information."

That Boortz struts about touting himself as a libertarian would make his daily mission of mendacity a good laugh -- except for one thing: For Big Brother to win, the Bush regime needs to bovine-ize America. Ignorance and the Orwellian capacity to simultaneously believe glaring contradictions are the essential intellectual diet of the Bushies. Force feeding America the swill are Faux News and the phalanx of talk show screechers, of which Boortz is, to his chagrin, merely a farm team lightweight.

(In October a University of Maryland survey measured how much false information -- such as that weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq -- people believed and whether they primarily relied on Fox, CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN or print. Those relying on Fox were far less likely to know the truth about critical world and national issues, and far more likely to believe distortions of the truth. Boortz, of course, gets it wrong more often than the heavy-hitting propagandists he worships on Fox.)

America needs real libertarians, whose origins are firmly rooted in the Bill of Rights. The Libertarian Party (libertarians with a big "L") is holding its national convention in Atlanta in May, and the party has invited Boortz to be a speaker.

I'm told by Libertarian activists the decision was rooted in the group's cheapness -- they didn't want to foot the freight for major talent.

Well, you get what you pay for -- free traders such as the Libertarians should understand that. In lib -- or Lib -- ertarian land, there has been a howl of protest over the invitation to Boortz.

One of the few points on which Boortz's rants coincide with the Libertarians is ending the Drug War. Hell, there are a lot of tokers out there who can't even spell Libertarian who are in tune with the party on that point.
Boortz is no libertarian. He is a sorry shill for the Bush big-government, interventionist, xenophobic, authoritarian regime. Imposing our will on the world, looting resources and guaranteeing Halliburton billions in profits -- that isn't free trade; it's empire. Gutting the Bill of Rights, spying on law-abiding citizens, manipulation through agitprop -- that isn't freedom; it's slavery.

"The Libertarian Party is so desperate, it has led them to abandon their issues in favor of seeking popularity," says Eric Garris, who helps run a libertarian website, antiwar.com, and who has long been involved with the party at the national and state (California) levels.

On the key issues confronting America, Boortz clearly stands on the side of those who attack freedom, and those who want to turn Big Government into Gargantuan Government (as long as someone besides rich people and corporations pay for it).

Examples: He applauds the FBI investigating anti-war demonstrators, making a broad smear recently on his website (that could have been authored by Karl Rove, and maybe was) that activists should be hounded by the feds because they are "pro-Saddam and anti-U.S.," and that they are "largely anti-American communists and Islamic radicals."

Likewise, in the same epistle, he applauded the police riot last month against trade demonstrators in Miami. I never met someone who claimed to be a libertarian but was so antagonistic toward the First, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth amendments. It just doesn't compute.

In Boortz's best imitation of Joe McCarthy, he has insinuated that Justin Raimondo -- a nationally prominent Libertarian since the 1970s and the prolific editor of anti-war.com -- is a red. Raimondo "doesn't like me," Boortz huffed on his website last week, "because I approve of our actions in Iraq. Fair enough. Do you know who else doesn't like our Iraqi actions? Well, communists, for one."

Slimey, slimey, slimey.

On economics, Boortz worships Ronald Reagan -- ignoring the fact that government grew much faster under the Gipper than under, say, Bill Clinton, who the talk show host blames for just about every ill that has ever happened (another script line from Karl Rove). And, of course, Boortz has nothing but gushing praise for Bush's economics, somehow equating fiscal responsibility with pumping up government spending to $21,000 per American household, compared with $16,000 during the Clinton administration -- the biggest increase in more than 50 years.

That remarkably un-libertarian accomplishment, coupled with Bush's tax cuts for the plutocrats, has created record deficits that will indenture our children and grandchildren -- hardly what Ayn Rand, the spiritual guru for Libertarians, had in mind in Atlas Shrugged.

It's the war, however, that has real libertarians frothing at the invitation to Boortz. The Libertarian Party platform is decidedly anti-war, stating: "We call for the withdrawal of all American military personnel stationed abroad. ... There is no current or foreseeable risk of any conventional military attack on the American people, particularly from long distances. We call for the withdrawal of the U.S. from commitments to engage in war on behalf of other governments and for abandonment of doctrines supporting military intervention such as the Monroe Doctrine."

Pretty clear writing, and it's at the heart of Libertarian thought. An irony is that since Boortz is peachy happy with the FBI snooping on anti-war activists, and since most Libertarians are anti-war, the radio blowhard is all in favor of the government investigating the very people who invited him to address their convention. And, in the witch-hunting delusions that substitute for thought in Boortz's diseased mind, it's quite likely all those Libertarians are really either commies or radical Islamists.

Boortz doesn't like me. I outed him as a chickenhawk. He keeps changing the story about how he evaded military service during Vietnam (was it the asthma or your eyesight, Neal?). Last week, he was claiming the military wouldn't take him. More precisely, when he couldn't get a relatively cushy job as a pilot, he wasn't about to get dirty (or dead) crawling through rice paddies. It's so easy to be bellicose when it's the other guy -- probably an oh-so-expendable member of the working class and a minority -- who is getting shot.

But that's Neal Boortz, the apotheosis of cowardice. He doesn't like to debate when he can't be in control. He keeps his finger on the disconnect button so that when callers start to score points, he can quickly cut them off.

If that's who the Libertarians want to hear, the party -- already victim to several internal scuffles -- might as well admit that it's history. If its program is to imitate the Democrats' emulation of the Republicans, the Libertarian Party stands for nothing.

Neal Boortz was offered space for his unedited remarks on libertarians' "boot Boortz" efforts. Boortz apparently preferred to pout in silence. For those who would like to sign the petition to give Boortz the heave-ho from the Libertarian convention: www.petitiononline.com/noboortz/petition.html.

Senior Editor John Sugg -- who says, "Neal, you gutless bag of wind, this is a challenge to a smackdown" -- can be reached at john.sugg@creativeloafing.com or at 404-614-1241.

12.18.03

Boortz's Iraq war justifications

I thought it was about time we had a look at Mr. Boortz's actual reasoning behind his support for invading Iraq. Maybe later, when I have the time and inclination to do so, I will respond to each of his points in turn; but for now, I'm more interested in hearing what other people have to say on the subject.

First, I've pasted below a "Nealz Nuze" entry from May 7, 2003.

There's also an April 29 WorldNetDaily column, which uses reasoning much the same as the above. I didn't copy this article below, but here's the URL:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32290

Lastly, we have his more recent (but very similar) thoughts, as expressed in an excerpt from his Oct. 7 WorldNetDaily column, also pasted below.

*************************************************************


http://boortz.com/includes/archive/

May 7, 2003

WHY DO WE HAVE TO GO OVER THIS TIME AND TIME AGAIN?

Well, the answer to that question is clear. We have to go over this time after time because there are certain people out there, we'll call them "liberals," who are still in a state of despair and shock over President Bush's successful removal of Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and the liberation of the Iraqi people.

Day after day we read newS stories, columns and various opinion pieces from the Molly Ivins brigade trumpeting Bush's failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. This presumably means that the entire Iraqi effort was illegitimate and, perhaps, that Bush ought to be defeated in 2004, at best, or impeached, at worst for his failure.

OK, folks. One more time .. by the numbers ...

1.Both the UN and the United States had knowledge of Saddam's WMDs.

2.The UN ordered Saddam to destroy his WMDs.

3.Saddam agreed to destroy his WMDs.

4.Saddam agreed to provide evidence of the destruction of his WMDs

5.Before destroying his WMDs Saddam kicked the UN inspectors out of Iraq.

6.After Saddam kicked out the inspectors there was evidence that he began a program to hide his WMDs

7.Saddam now claims that he destroyed his WMDs, after he kicked out the weapons inspectors.

8.Saddam has never failed any evidence that he destroyed the WMDs.

9.Three UN resolutions, Numbers 678, 687 and 1441 authorize either the UN or any member state to use force against Saddam Hussein if he fails to abide by his agreements to destroy his WMDs, and to document that destruction.

10.The United States, Great Britain, Australia, Spain and about 38 other nations banded together to act against Saddam in compliance with those three UN resolutions.

It's just that easy. Any questions?

------------------------------------------------


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34961

Demonizing George Bush

Posted: October 7, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern

(excerpt from complete column)

Do the facts matter here? I think that they do, and if a little spoon feeding is necessary, spoon feeding it shall be.

OK, we knew that Saddam had the weapons. We also knew that he had used those weapons, as did the families of the thousands of people who ended their lives locked into grotesque poses of death in the streets of Iraq coated in Saddam's chemical residues.

Further, Saddam had taken steps to bring an end to the weapons inspections in 1998. Those inspections were discontinued until four years later, and then resumed to suffer the constant harassment of Saddam and his henchmen. For a little icing on the weapons cake, we have Saddam's refusal to abide by any of the 17 resolutions passed by the U.N. Security Council from 1991 onward.

So, America invades. Documents are found, equipment is found, scientists who worked on the weapons are found, but the weapons themselves aren't. This, according to the Democrats and their sycophants in the media, is all the evidence we need to condemn Bush's war to oust Saddam.

Is that so?

So, what to do? Do you let him go? Do you apologize for the raid? You know he had those bills. You know that because he actually passed them! He has the press, the paper, the ink and the plates … but no bills. Was your whole effort a miserable failure?

Of course, it wasn't a failure. The counterfeiter is out of business. He won't be printing any bogus bills any time soon. To turn him loose simply because he didn't have any actual bills on him, or you couldn't find any bills he had hidden away would be pure idiocy.

OK, I'll put away the spoon. If this little allegory hasn't turned on a light somewhere you need to reset your circuit breakers.

One argument at a time

There's been some talk of having a Libertarian "debate" Neal Boortz at the Atlanta convention. I happen to think that this is a very bad idea.

Why?

It's pretty simple. Anyone even nominally acquainted with the facts can dispose of Mr. Boortz's arguments handily.

And they'll never get a chance to.

Mr. Boortz is an entertainer. He's a radio talk jock. His currency isn't reasoned argument, it's audience-capturing one-liners. This is a guy who has years of experience at sounding right to an audience whether he is right or not.

I'm not saying this to put down Mr. Boortz. Talk radio is an art, and he excels in it. However, his skill set lends itself to capturing an audience without going to the trouble of referencing the facts if those facts are inconvenient, and he'd be stupid not to put that skill set to use in any "debate." And I don't think we have anyone who can match him at a game of "your mommie is a commie."

That said, I'm going to start offering some notes on how to rebut Mr. Boortz's arguments. Hopefully, these notes will be useful to anyone who gets to actually "debate" him -- or, more likely, to anyone who comes up against one of his listeners in an argument on the war issue.

So, forthwith, I will begin with Boortz's argument of the day, from "Nealz Nuze" for 12/16/03:

-----
Let's not tip toe around this. If you believe that the United States should not have initiated its military action against Iraq, then you believe that Saddam Hussein should have been left to do whatever it is he was doing as the Iraqi dictator. Simple linear logic. To say that you oppose the very action that deposed the dictator is to say that you would prefer that Saddam still be in power. Don't give me that "Yes, I'm glad that Saddam is out of power, but we shouldn't have done this" nonsense.

This is like telling a friend "Yes, I'm glad to see that that nasty little compound fracture of your left leg is healed, but I'm still really upset with you for going to a doctor." If you didn't want your friend to go to a doctor, then you didn't want your friend's leg to heal. If you didn't want the US to take military action against Saddam Hussein, then you didn't want him deposed. You wanted him to remain in power.
-----

Simple, yes. Logical, no. This is the kind of lame claim that Boortz knocks down every day on his show -- when it's used to support something that he's against.

To demonstrate the fallacious nature of the argument, let me put myself in Mr. Boortz's place for a moment:

"Let's not tip toe around this. If you believe that the poor should be fed, then you believe that the US government should issue food stamps to people in the lower income brackets. Simple linear logic. "

"Let's not tip toe around this. If you believe that business benefits a town, then you believe that the local government should be able to seize homeowners' property under eminent domain in order to put in industrial parks, department stores, etc. Simple linear logic."

"Let's not tip toe around this. If you believe that the war on drugs is a bad idea, then you believe that everyone should lie around the house all day, snorting coke and shooting heroin. Simple linear logic."

Approving of an end and approving of a particular means to that end are two entirely different things.

I'm no fan of Saddam Hussein's. That doesn't mean that I believe that the correct way to get rid of him was for the US government to forcibly extract money from the US taxpayer and use that money to launch a destructive military invasion of Iraq that has resulted in the avoidable deaths of young Americans in uniform and in harm to the security of the United States.

For years prior to the invasion, the US pursued an idiotic policy of embargo on Iraq, when open trade would have been much more likely to have weakened the Ba'ath Party's hold on the country.

For years prior to the invasion, the US designated a number of anti-Saddam groups -- Kurdish groups like PKK, Iranian/Shi'ite groups like SCIRI and Mujahadeen El Kalq and pan-Islamist groups like al Qaeda -- as terrorist organizations and forbade Americans to finance those groups in their attempts to wrest control of Iraq from Saddam. In the case of al Qaeda, the US even continued to pick a fight over an issue where it was clearly in the wrong -- the continued presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia -- and continued that fight to its logical culmination on 9/11/01.

Would Saddam still be in power had the US minded its own business both with respect to the combatant groups in the Middle East and with respect to whom its own citizens choose to lend their support to? I don't know. He might be out of power, or he might simply be in a considerably weakened position. But I can tell you this: hundreds of Americans who have died in Iraq would be alive today, and thousands who died on 9/11 probably would be too.

To return to Boortz's example, his recommendation on the broken arm, according to his own logic, would have to be the creation of a single-payer socialized health care system instead of a visit to a local doctor or ER -- and a condemnation of anyone who suggested the latter.

If we take Boortz's arguments on their merits, he loses. The tricky part is to get him away from talking smack and actually pin him down on those arguments. Can we do it?

Tom Knapp

Report from the LNC meeting

The Libertarian National Committee is meeting this weekend in St. Louis, Missouri.

As discussed on the Libertarians for Peace list, I attended with a view toward making the case against the Boortz appearance to as many LNC members as possible on an individual basis, rather than asking for time to propose any resolution or address the committee in session. I've been able to talk to several, but not all, members, and may be able to talk with more before the weekend is over.

The news I have to report is not good, but it's not as bad as it will appear at first either. I'm reporting it in a particular order for a particular reason, with what would appear to be the "bad news" first.

The LNC passed a resolution, on a roll call vote, as follows:

"The LNC supports our Convention Committee's invitation to Neal Boortz to speak at our national convention in Atlanta in May 2004. We do not condition participation at our convention on membership in the LP or on 100% compliance with the national party platform. We welcome the continued efforts of Mr. Boortz and many others to further the freedom movement in whatever way they choose."

Votes for the resolution:

Ken Bisson, Bill Redpath, Austin Hough, Mark Nelson, George Squyres, Sean Haugh, Mark Cenci, Fred Childress, Steve Givot.

Votes against the resolution:

Mike Fellows, Bette-Rose Ryan, R. Lee Wrights, Mike Dixon, Steve Trinward, Joe Dehn.

Abstentions: Mark Rutherford, Geoff Neale

At first blush, this appears to be serious reverse. I don't think it is as serious as it looks, though.

First of all, The LNC didn't reach the issue.

Those who object to Mr. Boortz's appearance do not object because Mr. Boortz isn't in "100% compliance with the platform." We object because he is a public figure whose public stature makes any appearance on his part prima facie representative of what the Libertarian Party stands for and because he is in complete disagreement with the Party's position on the preeminent public policy issue of the day.

From that standpoint, the LNC's resolution is faulty. It doesn't address the actual issue involved. They might as well have passed a resolution to the effect that "We support wearing galoshes in rainy weather because Major League Baseball should get rid of the infield fly rule" or "We oppose socialization of medicine because Fordland, Missouri is the geographic center of tornado activity in the United States."

Because the LNC did not, for whatever reason, choose to address the actual issues involved, the matter remains very much open.

Also note that the resolution carried on a one-vote majority of 9-6-2. This is an LNC which is divided not only on the issue itself, but on what is relevant to the issue. It is an LNC that is, in my opinion, open to persuasion between now and May.

I also had a chance to talk, cordially, with three members of the convention committee: Nancy Neale, Bette-Rose Ryan and Sean Haugh. I believe that all of them are committed to publicly presenting the LP in a way that is not at odds with the party's position on the war. That doesn't mean that they are contemplating a cancellation of Mr. Boortz's appearance, but I believe that it bodes well for whatever efforts we intend to make to highlight that position.

More later.

Regards,
Tom Knapp

#1 FROM THE BOORTZ ARCHIVE

While wandering yesterday through WorldNetDaily's Neal Boortz archive, I unearthed a commentary dealing with a theme so pregnant with irony, that I felt compelled to pass it on. Mr. Boortz entitles this missive:

"The War on Individualism"

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29119

(Embedded links to this haven't worked out, sorry.)

Articles like the above really bring home for me a growing realization:

When someone like Mr. Boortz is accepted over time as an authority on libertarian thought, through a trust built by correctly outlining individualist positions on certain issues, it then becomes possible for him to lead his followers into accepting on another issue a collectivist viewpoint, that under less relaxed circumstances might elicit more critical thought.

Interested followers learn, little by little, to accept statist thought along with their libertarian truth.

Upon discovering the above-linked article on individualism, I realized that I had ended my first entry on Boortz and LP “Purity” with an inquiry into Mr. Boortz’ core philosophic principle relative to foreign policy; stating that it couldn’t be "individualist" in nature.

Hadn't intended to return to that theme, but.....

Perhaps heading the list of ironies suggested by Boortz’ article "The War on Individualism" are these:

1. Mr. Boortz’ most passionately defended Bush Administration policy, the "War on Terrorism," is also an example of the government act that most effectively, in a multitude of different ways, sacrifices individual rights to the notion of collective good.

As Randolph Bourne said: “War is the health of the State.”

2. Mr. Boortz beautifully expresses the fundamental importance of property rights, although apparently he believes -- when it comes to foreign policy -- that the principle should only apply between Americans and other Americans; excluding relationships between Americans and the rest of the world.

I’m sure that others could point out more, if they cared to.

Justin on the "Commie" thing

Scroll down this article to "Notes on the Margin."

"Is the Libertarian Party also part of the Commie conspiracy against this war? That's the question Neal Boortz should be asked, by the party leadership. Boortz insists the antiwar movement must be watched by federal agents. Should members of the Libertarian Party, too, be spied on by the government because they hold antiwar views and participate in antiwar protests?"

Thanks, Mr. Jet Pilot

Another segment on our situation today, from Justin Raimondo.

Scrolling down to the "Notes on the Margin" section, we find included a generous mention of this little blog.

Justin also sums up what many of us must be feeling:

"Why am I making such a big issue of this? Because I'm sick unto death of the intellectual and political atmosphere generated by the War Party: they have poisoned the very air with their talk of "sedition" in the antiwar movement, and their bloodthirstiness is mixed with an abject cowardice that any decent person is bound to find repulsive. In a world permeated by Evil (yes, I do mean to capitalize it), is there not one spot that remains untouched, a refuge for those of us who don't buy into the general malevolence? "

The Petition and Free Speech

While circulating the petition, I've had some LP activists whom I respect a great deal express to me concerns about the intent of the petition.

It's been (very politely so far) suggested to me that those of us supporting the petition are holding rigidly to our own preferences and point of view, to the point of intolerance.

Is this really an issue that involves the right of free speech?

First of all, no one that I know of who had a hand in getting the petition together is afraid of Mr Boortz's views per se. Our concerns are purely strategic, having to do with the link-up in the public mind between these views and the LP.

I ask that those concerned with the free speech issue consider one simple truth.

The Libertarian Party is a voluntary membership organization, in which members have every right to influence the way our organization is presented to the public.

Naturally, those who disagree with the petition have that same right.

It's no different than a private corporation that has just hired a CEO. Suppose that this person absolutely refused to come to work in anything close to proper business attire, while treating prospective customers with outright disdain.

The stockholders would have every right to bring their concerns before the corporation's board of directors, and ask for the new CEO's dismissal.

Those opposing the petition may differ with petition supporters on what the definition of "proper business attire" should be for the LP, but they shouldn't try to make their case on the basis of a perceived violation of rights.

Pot, kettle, black

"Justin Raimondo doesn't particularly like me. He doesn't like me because I approve of our actions in Iraq. Fair enough. Do you know who else doesn't like our Iraqi actions? Well, communists, for one. The chairman of those anti-war protests in London is the leader of the British communist party. So ... is it a bit odd that Raimondo's rants against me show up in a Pravda chat room?"

-- From Nealz Nuze, Dec. 10, 2003

Well, gee, Mr. Boortz. Can't beat the taint of association as a debate tactic, that's for sure. Of course, in case you haven't noticed, the Soviet Union fell a long time ago and Pravda is no longer a state communist paper. It appears to be a market entity carrying a pretty broad range of material now.

But, come to think of it, by endorsing the invasion of Iraq, aren't you associating yourself with the chief US ally in that operation, Tony Blair? You know, Tony Blair, Prime Minister of England -- and president of the Socialist International?

More Air Support From Raimondo

Check out this new article from Antiwar.com.

It sounds like Justin is starting to "pick up steam" too.

What about Raimondo's exhortation urging us to withold financial contributions unless Boortz is removed? Is this going too far?

A recent fundraising letter/survey I received from National said they were considering mounting a "major" outreach effort to the Left. According to our executive director, "dozens" of people have made this suggestion.

I expressed great appreciation, and indicated that I would up my monthly pledge if they followed through on this.

I then suggested that if they were serious about making inroads to the minds and hearts of left-leaning people, they could start by dumping Boortz from the convention.

Boortz and LP "Purity," pt. II

I chose in my first entry to actually address the purity issue. Now I'd like to point out that in significant ways Boortz' raising of the purity issue in this context functions as a diversion.

As someone else very insightfully put it, the purity argument is a "straw man."

A few thoughts on this:

The issue of Bush's imperialistic foreign policy is not, at this time in our country's history, just another issue that Libertarians have divergent views on. Any person looking at the world objectively can see this, and the concerns of most Americans reflect that.

It makes sense and is justified that Libertarians place such great emphasis on Mr. Boortz' variance on this single issue.

Further, this level of concern really requires very little discussion of principle.

Mr. Boortz' fame and influence have real effects in the physical world. Particularly when it comes to Iraq, he is a major source of disinformation. The mere fact that there is a legion of people who can thank Boortz for their view that President Bush is just "doing what needs to be done," attests to the real world effects of this disinformation.

Boortz' painting of petition supporters with the "purity" brush just serves to detract from this reality.

It's quite likely that Boortz' influence has, since 9-11-01, done more to undermine the attainment of a non-interventionist foreign policy than the entire LP has so far done to achieve it.

And yet the LP leadership honors Mr. Boortz' fame and its effects.

Debate: Neal's Pre-Emptive Strike Doctrine

Here's your scenario: Kim Jung Il launches a three-stage rocket over Japan all the way to the equator in the middle of the pacific. At that point the world, and the United States knows that Kim Jung Il has a missile that could reach virtually any portion of the United States. The little hedgehog then announces that in exactly 60 hours he is going to launch another such missile aimed at Los Angeles, and this missile is going to be carrying a nuclear warhead.

So, what would you "no pre-emptive war" idiots have us do at that point? Common sense would suggest that we should send out the long-range U.S. bombers to destroy as much of Kim Jung Il's military capability as possible ... especially his nuclear and missile facilities.

But wait! That would be a pre-emptive strike, wouldn't it? We just couldn't do that, could we? After all ... he hasn't attacked us! How can we strike at him until he actually attacks us?

Now .. if that isn't enough to make you "no pre-emptive war" whackos hide under your blankets, they you have lost all capabilities for logical thought. But, then ... you're liberals, aren't you. It goes with the territory.

Discuss. (Post comments below.)

Why this site?

The Boot Boortz Blog was formed to provide a thorough and organized presentment of the facts and issues underlying the controversy surrounding Neal Boortz's scheduled appearance at the 2004 LP national convention.

It will also likely serve as an action & organizing center, as well as a place to debate the issue with the curious and the opposed. Please join the debate!

In the short term, we have built up a quick background collection with the basic information for newcomers.

Boortz and LP "Purity"

Someone mentioned yesterday that Mr. Boortz was talking about the petition on his show, and complaining about how the people supporting it were too concerned about "purity." Although I didn't hear this myself, I'm assuming that Boortz didn't specify which LP principle relative to foreign policy he believes we are overzealously trying to protect.

I'd like to know which principle that is.

I'd also like to know at what point Mr. Boortz feels that we need to let go of that principle and give our allegiance to another.

Of course the next question would be to what principle Boortz does lend his ultimate allegiance, when push comes to shove and he's past the point of throwing around cool libertarian catch phrases.

As long as Boortz thinks he has the right to extract money from those of us who oppose Bush's foreign policy, and use that money to pursue said policy against our will, you can bet that ruling principle of his ain't individualist in nature.

It's been said that everyone has a philosophy of life, some just don't know what it is.

What's yours, Mr. Boortz?

Boot Boortz Debate - Round 1

Want to argue with us, or amongst yourselves? Post your points as comments below, and we can have a rolling debate without cluttering up other places. After a while, we'll open up a new round of debate, or start debates on specific issues.

A note to the opposition

Today's installment of "Nealz Nuze" (no permanent URL yet) mentions the effort to cancel his appearance at the Libertarian Party's 2004 national convention, and quotes the text of the petition. Consequently, the petition is starting to fill up with ... the signatures of people who disagree with the effort.

HELLOOOOO ... Signing this petition amounts to asking the Libertarian National Committee and/or its convention coordinator to not have Mr. Boortz as a convention speaker, regardless of what comments you attach to your signature. If you want Mr. Boortz to speak at the convention, then signing this petition is counter to your interest in the matter.

Tom Knapp: Boot Boortz?

Boot Boortz?

Tom Knapp sums up the case for keeping Neal Boortz out of the spotlight at the 2004 convention, simply and clearly.

Neal's Nuze: "Know your enemy"

boortz.com: Nealz Nuze November 24, 2003

Excerpts:

One protestor says she was just standing there confronting the police and waving a peace sign in the face of a police officer when WHAM! she got a club in the puss. Wish I could have been there to see that.

----

So, what would you "no pre-emptive war" idiots have us do at that point? Common sense would suggest that we should send out the long-range U.S. bombers to destroy as much of Kim Jung Il's military capability as possible ... especially his nuclear and missile facilities.

But wait! That would be a pre-emptive strike, wouldn't it? We just couldn't do that, could we? After all ... he hasn't attacked us! How can we strike at him until he actually attacks us?

Now .. if that isn't enough to make you "no pre-emptive war" whackos hide under your blankets, they you have lost all capabilities for logical thought. But, then ... you're liberals, aren't you. It goes with the territory.

----

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?

Powered by
Movable Type 2.64

design by blogstyles.