QandO

At last! The Libertarian Party has found Dennis Kucinich's soulmate!

Posted by: Steverino at July 16, 2004 01:10 AM

It's this sort of thing that made Ross Perot look so reasonable -- by comparison -- in the 1990s.

Posted by: Pouncer at July 16, 2004 09:56 AM

Why not actually check out Badnarik's site before you feed in the trough of smear job bullshit that guy wrote?

Badnarik is polling better than any other Libertarian candidate ever has as of right now in Minnesota and Wisconsin. The guy who wrote that article is scared.

Posted by: David at July 16, 2004 04:13 PM

So David ... are you saying what Jon has written isn't true?

Posted by: McQ at July 16, 2004 05:02 PM

Actually, I wrote it, but the question's still a good one.

Posted by: Dale Franks at July 16, 2004 05:13 PM

No, it's not true, for the most part. The Liberty article is heavily distorted, and it's obvious to those who know the facts (which is clearly not most of the people quoting the article)

Check out the Badnarik blog (http://badnarik.org/blog), among other sources, for more facts and less fiction.

Posted by: Seth at July 16, 2004 06:02 PM

Sorry Dale, missed the fact it was you.

So Seth ... you claim its wrong.

"He hadn't filed income tax returns for several years."

True or false?

"...he refused to obtain a Texas driver's license because the state requires drivers to provide their fingerprints and Social Security numbers. He has been ticketed several times for driving without a license ..."

True or false.

He also refused to use postal ZIP codes, seeing them as "federal territories."

True or false?

BTW ... I did what you said and found nothing which contradicts the Liberty mag article on the blog. Where might that be located?

Posted by: McQ at July 16, 2004 06:25 PM

McQ:

1) He didn't file. So what? Neither does 1 out of 5 people, according to the IRS itself.

See
http://badnarik.org/blog/blog_a.php?p=390
and
http://badnarik.org/blog/blog_a.php?p=524

2) Requiring a social security number for non-SS reasons is a violation of the law. He refused to let them get away with the violation, and his defense, including in court, was often upheld (ie the charges were dropped). If more people did this, we'd be in better shape today. Yeah, he's THAT principled, he's willing to fight and not give up and do the easy thing.

3) I'm not even going to try and argue the Zip Code issue, because I don't have the facts.

Stop turning the small (and meaningless) points, which Michael has researched and believes and could probably halfway convince you on given a few hours in his class, into major issues.

You want to vote for Kush or Berry because the one guy who would truly reduce government has belief you don't share, go for it. I'll take someone I 90% agree with over the 10% with the Skull and Bones duo.

See you in November...

Posted by: Seth at July 16, 2004 08:28 PM

Seth: You seem a bit hostile about this yet admit two out of three of the points are "true" and you simply point to the third as an "I don't know".

Where's the "smear" if these are true?

Posted by: McQ at July 16, 2004 08:32 PM

does anybody stand for anything? If you believe in something then you stand up for it and you are willing to pay the price.

Would you rather have a principled man who goes after what he believes in or vote for someone who blows with the wind, says what he thinks you want to hear and so gets your vote.....Sucker comes to mind.

It might be well noting that major achievements have been accomplished not by the sheeple but by people who lived by the belief in their convictions.
You want to be suckered vote for the other guy....I would rather go for what you call a principled loon than a waffling idiot....Waffling idiots do not good presidents make

Posted by: John Galt at July 16, 2004 08:35 PM

John Galt: You may want to stay on topic here instead of throwing all the cute little catch-phrases around (I'm so tired of hearing "sheeple" I could puke.

Seth, who I believe runs Badnarik's site just told us that two of the three things Dale cited are true and the third may be true but he just doesn't know. So thanks for the rant about "principle" and all that other stuff, but the question has to do with this blog supposedly participating in a smear.

If the stuff's true, where's the smear?

Posted by: McQ at July 16, 2004 08:41 PM

He didn't file. So what? Neither does 1 out of 5 people, according to the IRS itself.

So, in point of fact, he is an admitted tax evader.

Requiring a social security number for non-SS reasons is a violation of the law. He refused to let them get away with the violation, and his defense, including in court, was often upheld (ie the charges were dropped).

In other words, his defense was not always upheld and he was convicted.

I'm not even going to try and argue the Zip Code issue, because I don't have the facts.

Translation: So, yeah, that might be true, too.

Stop turning the small (and meaningless) points

Like, you know, tax evasion, and driving without a license. 'Cause it's, principle that's the important thing rather than, say, obeying the law.

Evidently Mr. Badnarik beleives the laws of the United States and the State of Texas either do not apply to him, or that he has the privilege to disobey those laws with which he doesn't agree.

If you are uncomfortable with the public characterization such an attitude opens Mr. Badnarik to, then that's too bad. But it certainly isn't a smear to point out that he has such an attitude.

And it's my privilege to characterize it as cranky, if I desire.

And I do.

Posted by: Dale Franks at July 16, 2004 09:02 PM

For the record, yes, I'm on the Badnarik blog staff. I'm the one who trackbacked in the first place, because this is one site (among many) I found that linked to the smear article.

Smear? Yes, Smear. You can take facts and use them in a smear, by loading the way you present and use them.

1) Compare this interview:
http://www.libertyunbound.com/archive/2004_08/badnarik-an_interview.html

with the facts in this story by the same author

http://www.libertyunbound.com/archive/2004_08/bradford-dark_horse.html

Notice that they don't quite agree.. because the author wanted to skew with a bias.

2) Go read a variety of OTHER reports of the same convention:

http://www.carolmoore.net/libertarianparty/convention2004report.html
http://www.hollywoodinvestigator.com/2004/lpcon1.htm
http://www.rationalreview.com/strinward/061404.shtml

Note the difference in facts and perceptions.

3) Go read about the Browne fiasco a few years ago (google for George Phillies's book about it, which has a version in text online), and then notice that some people are still grinding axes over it.

Badnarik wasn't a part of that history, but that article doesn't make that distinction at all, instead painting the entire LP as screwed up and confused and not even knowing who they've elected.

Badnarik supporters (and he has lots, including at the Convention) knew exactly who he was and what he stood for, he'd personally met with hundreds of them.

Posted by: Seth at July 16, 2004 09:07 PM

Seth: This may come as a shock to you but I voted for Harry Browne last election. So its not like this is simply shooting at the LP.

If two of the three things pointed to here are facts (i.e you verified their truth so we'll accept them as fact) then there's no smear HERE.

You may not like what's being written, but the opinon HERE is based on facts that you admit too. So the question: How, should by some miracle he win, does Badnarik say this:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

If he's such a man of principle, how can he promise to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States" when he's admited to evading the 16th Amendment to that same Constitution?

Posted by: McQ at July 16, 2004 09:22 PM

Clearly, you didn't bother (like I asked the very first post) to visit the blog for accurate info.
So much for wanting to know more...

You would have seen:

Libertarian Party (transcript of live internet townhall meeting conducted by the Washington Post)

[took place today]

http://badnarik.org/blog/blog_a.php?p=517

Albany, N.Y.: I had read somewhere that you do not recognize the legality of the federal income tax. If this is true, how do you account for the 16th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution?

Michael Badnarik : There is a two volume book called THE LAW THAT NEVER WAS that makes a very convincing argument that the Sixteenth Amendment was never properly ratified. Nonetheless, a Supreme Court decision called BRUSHABER .vs. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD concluded that "the Sixteenth Amendment confers no new power of taxation on the government". In other words, Congress can't do anything now that it couldn't do before the Sixteenth Amendment.

There are millions of people who have asked the IRS to show us the laws and statutes that make the average American liable for taxes. The IRS refuses to answer, asserting that these are "frivolous arguments". We aren't arguing anything, we are simply asking a government agency to justify its actions. That is something I think we are clearly entitled to do.

The Constitution was ratified in 1789, and the IRS came into existence in 1913. If America could survive without an a income tax before, I'm sure we can find a way to do so again.

Posted by: Seth at July 16, 2004 09:31 PM

Yeah, I know Seth ... one of those great conspiracy theories foist upon the "sheeple".

All that to say you avoided my question like a spokesman for Kerry or Bush would have.

Congrats I guess ... you're an official political spin-meister.

Posted by: McQ at July 16, 2004 10:10 PM

Dude, have you ever even read BRUSHABER? The reason the court said that the 16th amendment didn't confer on the Congress a new power of taxation was because they already had that power. As Chief Justice White wrote in the opinion:

That the authority conferred upon Congress by 8 of article 1 'to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises' is exhaustive and embraces every conceivable power of taxation has never been questioned, or, if it has, has been so often authoritatively declared as to render it necessary only to state the doctrine.

In other words, the court said that the Congress had the power to tax anything they damn well pleased, because they already have every concevable power of taxation.

Moreover the Court thrashed every single argument Frank Brushaber's counsel made, often in fairly disparaging terms, because they contravened black-letter law.

Brushaber lost, for cripe's sake!

How Mr. Badnarik thinks that this reinforces his position is utterly beyond me. He's taken a single line in an opinion that contradicts his position, and has subverted it to imply exactly the opposite of what the court plainly stated. That's precisely the kind of thing that makes Mr. Badnarik a crank.

If he's a self-taught Constitutional scholar, then maybe he needs to sue his teacher for malpractice.

Or, maybe his primary shool teacher for failing to teach him how to read for frickin' comprehension.

Posted by: Dale Franks at July 16, 2004 10:12 PM

Its amazing how many people who claim to be libertarians will not stop to think for a second before bashing Libertarians--- and then defend doing so when their errors are pointed out!

If you've been paying attention, you would know that recently a prominant Tax Evasion case was decided IN FAVOR of the evader, a FedEx pilot, who sent letters to the IRS asking for a citation of their authority to collect the taxes in the law.

Finally, since what you are quoting is heresy, you need to defend it. You don't get to sit there and say "so you haven't proven it false, therefore its true."

Badnarik gets the benefit of the doubt from honest people.

And his position papers show him to be well edcuated and quite articulate on the issues.

But don't let the facts get in the way of bashing a Libertarian-- it seems to be a popular sport among so-called "libertarians".

But really, I think you're just annoyed because the Libertarians are actually getting the message out there. What have you done?

Posted by: Don Galt at July 17, 2004 07:01 AM

Facts are facts...no doubt about it...
The matter that he hasnt filed taxes and doesnt have a drivers license is true...
The point that I am trying to make is if someone lives his convictions is that wrong? specially when has a basis for it...if there was a bigger issue I am sure he would be behind bars.
In my mind that is exactly the kind of person I want as President...who has a basis for his line of thought and is willing to live by it.
Can this be said of the other candidates?
Enough said...

Posted by: John Galt at July 17, 2004 08:11 AM

The point that I am trying to make is if someone lives his convictions is that wrong?

That would depend on his convictions. If he's convinced that man never landed on the moon, he's still a kook, no matter how passionately he believes in his position.

I'm a registered Libertarian, which makes me a very rare creature here in Nevada. But I am ashamed at the kooks we nominate for office. They won't compromise on a single point -- which means that (a) they won't get elected and (b) in the highly unlikely event that they do get elected, they won't get a single thing done because they won't be able to build a majority consensus behind them. It's like insisting on the right-of-way when you're driving: there is such a thing as being "dead right".

Posted by: Steverino at July 17, 2004 12:03 PM

If you've been paying attention, you would know that recently a prominant Tax Evasion case was decided IN FAVOR of the evader, a FedEx pilot, who sent letters to the IRS asking for a citation of their authority to collect the taxes in the law.

I note, however, that you don't provide a case citation.

Posted by: Dale Franks at July 17, 2004 07:25 PM

Its amazing how many people who claim to be libertarians will not stop to think for a second before bashing Libertarians--- and then defend doing so when their errors are pointed out!

A) Maybe that's because Libertarians are tired of being unable to get the party away from the whiff of crankery that so often emanantes from it.

B) Since, even Mr. Badnarik's web guy has admitted that the facts I quoted were, if fact, truem as far as he knows, it doesn't seem that anyone's actually pointed out any errors.

Well, except for me, where I pointed out that Mr. Badnarik's reference to BRUSHABER was erroneous.

No "Libertarians" seem interested in addressing that, though.

Posted by: Dale Franks at July 17, 2004 07:28 PM