"Neal Boortz has done more for the Libertarian Party"

I've received a lot of email since the effort to remove Neal Boortz from the national convention speaker roster kicked off. A lot of it -- perhaps 50% of the mail opposing our efforts, which in turn constitutes about 50% of the mail relating to the issue -- includes a claim to the effect that "Neal Boortz has done more for the Libertarian Party than anyone [insert 'I know of,' or 'in the nation,' or 'on earth' here]."

Now, that kind of claim is admittedly a subjective matter of opinion. There are lots of ways to "do things for the Libertarian Party" that are difficult to quantify. I could make a case that George W. Bush has done a lot for the LP by making it clear that his own party is, and always has been, the party of big government. Or that the Democrats are doing a lot for the LP by waffling and infighting on the war issue, leaving the anti-war vote to us if we have the stones to step forward and take it.

So, I'm willing to acknowledge that there might be ways in which Neal Boortz has contributed to the LP's current or future success that aren't easily calculated. I say "might," because, to be honest, my own subjective opinion is that any perceived association the LP has with the guy tars us as quasi-Republicanoid morons; so I don't necessarily agree that Mr. Boortz calling himself a libertarian is a "contribution." The mileage of others, naturally, varies.

However, there is one simple criterion by which support for a political party CAN be quantified, and that criterion is ... money. Thanks to the nanny state and its concern for keeping the public informed, finding out who has given how much to what organizations is a simple matter of pointing one's browser at:

http://www.fec.gov/finance_reports.html

... selecting "individual search," and typing in a name. In this case, let's use the name "Boortz."

This search returns five entries. One of them is obviously not our man, as the contribution originates in California and seems to be to an industry or union PAC.

The other four, however, are instructive. Two of them refer to a Neal Boortz of Atlanta, and one of those two specifies as this Neal Boortz's employer "WSB Radio." Sounds like our guy, doesn't it? The remaining two refer to a Donna Boortz, also of Atlanta ... and a quick Google reveals that this Donna Boortz is, indeed, Neal Boortz's better half.

So, four contributions to the Libertarian Party. Wow!

But wait a moment. Actually, only one of those four contributions is to the Libertarian Party, in the amount of $250 from Neal Boortz. Now, $250 is a good deal of money, and I expect that the LP should be grateful.

But what about those other three?

The other contribution from Neal Boortz was ... $1000. To a Republican candidate. To a Republican candidate for US Senate (Saxy Chambliss) running against a Libertarian opponent (Sandy Thomas).

What about Mrs. Boortz's contributions, presumably made with the knowledge and consent of her significant other (Georgia is not a community property state, but generally recognizes property acquired in marriage as marital property, which would mean that that money came, more or less, from both of them)?

One of them was to ... The Georgia Republican Party. $1000 again.

The other was, you guessed it, to a Republican candidate (John Linder), running in a race where the LP was attempting to highlight its own candidate (Carole Ann Rand) and the medical marijuana issue (remember that ad campaign? This was the GOP primary in which Linder unseated Bob Barr after redistricting). Another $1000.

So, in summary, the Neal Boortz family, of Atlanta, GA, has, to the extent that FEC reports tell the story, given $250 to the Libertarian Party ... and four times as much to the Republican Party ... and EIGHT times as much to Republican candidates running against Libertarian candidates.

Of course, as I admitted above, there are other ways of contributing. Mr. Boortz's way of contributing to the LP seems to be to appear at the party's events and improve our image by helping us appear to be a bunch of people who support drug warriors like John Linder and chickenhawks like Saxy Chambliss.

With friends like these ...

Immigration and other topics

Okay, let’s get our bearings.

The primary purpose of this blog is to provide Libertarian Party members with an “information package,” that will help them form a clearer picture of what it means to link Neal Boortz with the Libertarian Party in the public mind.

It’s clear that Mr. Boortz’s viewpoint of the invasion and occupation of Iraq diverges from the party’s stated position. It’s also becoming more clear that this isn’t just a disagreement over a single military action. Past and present statements by Mr. Boortz indicate that he also doesn’t agree with the general foreign policy of the Libertarian Party, which is strict military non-interventionism and zero taxpayer-funded foreign aid.

This larger disagreement with our foreign policy has been exhibited most recently by his attempts to justify the invasion of Iraq on purely humanitarian grounds, saying that those who didn’t support the invasion would prefer that Saddam were still in power, his tyranny over the Iraqi people still in place.

(My apologies; embedded links still aren't working out. -J.S.)

See Tom Knapp's comments and reference here:

http://www.freedom2008.com/bootboortz/archives/002571.html

Or, scroll down this link for the following quote:

http://boortz.com/nuze/200401/01012004.html

..this is the man that Howard Dean wishes was still in power in Iraq. No ... don't give me any flack on that statement. If Dean was opposed to the action that ousted Saddam .. then that means he necessarily wishes Saddam was still in power. Sorry, Deanie Babies. You can't have it both ways. Dean is sure he wants Bush out of power .. but he says it only "might" be a good thing that Saddam has been captured. Oh .. and ditto for many libertarians, I'm sorry to say.

Boortz's view contradicts the Libertarian Party's position in two ways: He would use America's military for reasons other than the direct defense of this country, and also (in contrast to his domestic policy) provide a welfare program for Iraqis.

(It should be pointed out that the LP Platform prohibits these acts only when sanctioned by government. Private individuals should be free to aid whatever foreign cause they choose.)

In addition to his foreign policy views, Boortz has made objectionable statements in support of federal intrusion into the affairs of anti-war activists:

http://boortz.com/nuze/200311/11242003.html

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?

While his questionable statements involving civil liberties have so far concerned only isolated government policies, it also seems that his feelings about the Patriot Act itself may be a bit ambiguous:

http://boortz.com/nuze/200312/12092003.html

I frequently get inquiries as to why I don't spend more time railing against the Patriot Act. Read this essay from from two University of Chicago law professors. Is the Patriot Act really the monster that some say it is? You may be a bit surprised.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004403

But now, in addition to foreign policy and civil liberties, he has also come out against the Libertarian Party's position on a third issue of high current significance, that of immigration. On Jan. 7, he had this to say:

http://boortz.com/nuze/200401/01072004.html

It's pandering for votes time. This time Hispanic votes. Bush is going to propose some grand plan whereby people who broke the law to get in the United States, and then broke the law by obtaining employment, and then broke the law by using false Social Security cards to avoid arrest ... how these people can "earn" a legal status by signing a few documents and promising to follow the law from now on.

Arizona, Florida, California ... all key states with large numbers of Hispanic voters. If the 2004 election is close Bush is going to need these Hispanic votes ... and he's paying for them today by trashing the rule of law in America.

One may argue that the primary issue here isn’t necessarily the spirit of open immigration, but rather the technical means by which such a policy is brought about. For example, one could argue that in Bush's proposal those who have violated the law are receiving better treatment than those who have pursued citizenship while obeying the law.

Be that as it may, and although the Libertarian Party hasn’t made an official statement yet on the Bush plan, one may remember that prior to 9-11-01 President Bush was considering a plan very similar to the present one.

Steve Dasbach, the party’s executive director at the time, penned this press release, outlining the party’s view of the matter:

http://www.lp.org/press/archive.php?function=view&record=223

Amnesty for immigrants is "a great leap forward," Libertarians say

July 19, 2001

[July 19] WASHINGTON, DC -- President George W. Bush's proposal to grant amnesty to 3 million illegal Mexican workers is "a great leap forward in immigration policy," Libertarians say, because immigration is good for America.

"Immigration is the sincerest form of flattery," said Steve Dasbach, national director of the Libertarian Party. "Every industrious immigrant who comes here is making a statement that they want to live and work in the freest, most prosperous nation on Earth -- as so many millions of our own forefathers have. America should welcome them."

In an attempt to woo Hispanic voters and address the issue of illegal immigration, Bush has floated a controversial proposal to grant amnesty to the approximately 3 million Mexicans working illegally in the United States and create a "guest worker" program for seasonal workers.

But in response to criticism from some conservative and anti-immigration advocates, the administration has shown signs that it is retreating from that position.

"George Bush, stand your ground and defend America's proud tradition of accepting new immigrants," said Dasbach.

Here's why immigration is good for America:

* Immigration creates jobs. "Since 1962, the U.S. economy has expanded by 126 million jobs, despite hundreds of thousands of immigrants arriving every year," said Dasbach. "That's because so many immigrants start businesses that employ American workers."

For example, a recent Cato Institute study found that the top five immigrant-founded firms in Silicon Valley, CA, alone employ more than 80,000 people. And an analysis of the 85 largest cities reported that those with the highest number of immigrants create jobs at twice the rate of other cities, according to the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution.

"The fact that immigration and a record-low unemployment rate coexist indicates that immigrants create new jobs," said Dasbach.

* Immigrants stimulate the economy in general. "More workers increases the demand for all products and services, which fuels economic growth and creates a greater need for workers throughout society," said Dasbach. "That's because immigrants aren't just workers, they are consumers as well. In fact, in the 1980s, the U.S. accepted 7 million new immigrants, while unemployment fell sharply and family incomes rose. So the immigrants-are-taking-our-jobs argument just doesn't make sense."

* Immigrants provide immeasurable cultural benefits. "What would America be like without sushi, pizza, wiener schnitzel, burritos or any of the other foods brought to our shores by immigrants?" Dasbach asked. "Or imagine radio stations and concert halls devoid of salsa, flamenco, techno, or classical music, all of which originated in other nations. Or try telling sports fans that baseball would be the same without Sammy Sosa, tennis would as exciting without Monica Seles, or basketball would be as much fun without Dikmbe Mutombo.

"The point is that American culture would be more bland without our rich tradition of immigrants."

Dasbach acknowledged that many Americans are concerned that more immigration drives up welfare costs, thereby increasing the size and power of government.

"Democrats and Republicans have worked for decades to create a powerful welfare magnet, and they shouldn't be surprised when it attracts millions of Americans and non-Americans alike," he said. "The solution isn't to reduce immigration; it's to eliminate the welfare state.

"President Bush should ignore his critics, recognize that immigration is far more American than welfare -- and grant amnesty to every hard-working immigrant who comes to America in search of a better life."

Follow-up to the 'bigot?' piece

I came across an interesting article that I thought would shed additional light on Neal Boortz's attitude toward Islam and Muslims; particularly in the context of how he views the Israel/Palestine issue.

This May, 2002 article appeared in an Atlanta Jewish newspaper. It highlights various Jewish viewpoints on Neal Boortz, and how he affects public perceptions of the Middle East.

http://atlanta.jewish.com/archives/2002/051002cs.htm

Oh -- for those of you who think this doesn't have anything to do with the Libertarian Party, scroll down to the bottom of the article and see what his "ambition" is.

Here are a few Boortz quotes from the article that seem relevant to his on-air view of Islam and Muslims:

To a caller:

"The Muslim religion has undergone many transformations since Mohammed stopped being a rug merchant and founded the religion. It has become a religion of hatred and violence. . . . We are now in this era when the Muslim religion is the scourge of the earth. . . . If Muslims like you don't get a grip on your leaders and rein them in. . ."

And here's a quote to put next to his agreement (with Paul Harvey, see previous 'bigot?' piece) that Islam "encourages killing":

"Of course I know that Islam is not an inherently violent religion, just like Christianity is not, even though it has gone through violent periods, with the Crusades and what have you," Boortz said. "But I do think that Islam is going through a period where it is largely under the control of people whom Muhammad would not necessarily want to have dinner with."

Perhaps the most telling is this:

In an interview in his office last week, Boortz says he takes the "Israeli situation" seriously because "Sept. 11 has forced all of us to look at it." But he insists he is primarily an entertainer, "not educator, not journalist."

"I only have one purpose in that studio, and that is to attract an audience to listen to radio commercials," he said. "That's what I'm there for. That's why I always include that caveat in my show - 'Don't accept anything as true that you hear on this show. I will flat out lie to you if it serves the entertainment value of this program.' I want to make people curious, and then I want them to go out and do their own research. I don't want anybody to take my word."

And, in the same spirit, I encourage you to thoughtfully read the entire article and make up you own mind.

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.

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

#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.

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?

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.

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?