Smither Files for CD-22 Special Election

I read through the piece on website and have yet to find anything that indicates that smithers is REALLY a Libertarian – rather than a pro choice Republican like Neil Boorst. Anyone who is for mass incarceration scams like the Controlled Substances Act, military interventionism, big police and military budgets, and shredding all but the 2nd amendment for national security and public safety is NOT a Libertarian – despite loud pronouncements of such by lapdog media people.

Texans should know what a Libertarian sounds like: they have Ron Paul from the Houston burbs. That guy gave a rousing speech that made Democrats look like the wimps they truly are in denouncing GW’s “War on Islamofacism”. Ron Paul knows where the real fascists live: 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Where does Smithers stand?

I will go to Washington with a goal of making our central government smaller and less destructive, and I will never vote for a spending bill whose funded program is not clearly authorized by our Constitution.

Sounds pretty Ron Paul-like to me. What, you think he’s a dangerous plant put here by Neil Boortz to decieve you?

It’s amazing how the LP is being pummeled by infiltrators from the Democrats, the Boorsters, the Republicans, the Socialists, the Neo-Cons, Pro Life, Pro Choice, The Sinister Reformers….. Seems like EVERYBODY wants to be libertarian these days!

His own statement, as Tim West put it would seem to indicate that Smither would be voting “No” an awful lot. So, maybe he’s not “Dr. No”, but he can be “Mr. No”. The Fairtax is a pretty nasty thing, but his insistence upon Constitutional Integrity as he puts it sure does limit what he would/could do.

Although, the FairTax is in direct opposition to that. Strangely all FairTaxers seem to make that oversight but make the insistence that the 15th Amendment would have to be abolished. If that did happen, then what enumerated power of the Constitution does the FairTax fall under? I keep getting the message from FairTaxers that the Constitution is important, but it’s not important.

It’s too bad that another Libertarian candidate, say Michael Badnarik, is not in this district. I’m willing to agree to disagree with other Libertarian Party members in certain instances, but I’m really uncomfortable with anyone who promotes this “Fair Tax” sham.

I’m not sure where Smithers stands on the war in Iraq, but if he supports it that is a definite deal breaker for me. If he does not support it then he should be more vocal about it because that is one of the biggest issues facing us right now.

If the “Fair Tax” is stupid, which I believe that it is (and I could add evil to that), then why should anyone running as a Libertarian support it? What other stupid ideas do you think that Libertarian Party candidates should include in their campaign platforms? How about supporting the war in Iraq? How about supporting the Patriot Act? Those are really stupid ideas so LP candidates could get lots of votes with those!

Boortz is such a phoney. I wonder if he’s on the Republican payroll. How about book Smithers on The Alex Jones Show (www.infowars.com) so Alex can tear him a new @$$#0!# over his support of the “Fair Tax” scheme? Michael Badnarik has been on The Alex Jones Show several times (opf course Michael and Alex have a lot of respect for eachother), so why not Bob Smithers?

“The reality is that he needs to woo a majority of the Republican voters …”

He must also woo libertarian donors.

If he doesn’t intend to run aggressively on an anti-war platform, then that is fine. But he MUST have a position. I would normally assume he would support a non-interventionist foreign policy, but I’ve seen a lot of “libertarians” recently pushing for War on Islam.

I’m also worried by Mr. Tunstall (TX vice-chair) sending threatening emails to those who have asked about Mr. Smither’s foreign policy views.

Andy, I totally agree with you about the dangers of the Fair Tax. However, from my communications with Bob Smither, I think it would be fair to say that his support for the Fair Tax is based on 1) the current system of taxation is a horrific mess, and 2) the Fair Tax is the best alternative proposition that he’s come across thus far.

In any case, I’m convinced that the Fair Tax is a non-issue in that I don’t see it gaining any serious traction in Congress in the foreseeable future.

Hello Chris and Other Commenters,
Look on the Resources page of Bob Smither’s website and along with “Our Constitution” he provides “Libertarian Positions” with this description:
“In today’s political climate Libertarian positions occupy the rational middle ground between the polarized positions of the two established parties. Here is a summary of Libertarian positions contrasted with those from the Right and the Left.” Click on “summary” and you will find a insightful chart that I think the Washington state Libertarian Party originally published. Bob Smither has adapted it as a handout for his campaign and his contact information is listed. In the chart it contrasts the position held by the Left of “UN Led US Military Actions” with the position held by the Right of “Military Adventurism (Nation Building) with that held by Libertarians: “Non-Interventionist Foreign Policy and a Robust National Defense.” I think this clearly shows that Mr. Smither does not favor the US war in Iraq.

But…I…like…the FairTax. I think it is potentially the best political idea in a long time. It appeals to conservatives who want to get rid of the income tax while, more importantly, is the best way to get liberals to support our economic policies. Seriously, every single liberal I have ever talked to thinks it is the best idea they have ever heard of. By enabling the poorest members of society actually make money, we could actually get rid of welfare and the income tax simultaneously, and that alone should get many libertarians behind it. It also encourages recycling and reusing secondhand goods, so it is good for the environment. More than that, as people realize that by reducing spending they can cut their tax burden, we will see the government forced to shrink itself to the barest essentials. Those who have megamansions and drive big hummers will be hit the hardest, but then they are also the ones who proportionally would require the most gov’t protection for their property.

Oh yeah…and don’t forget anti-corporatism – someday I will write a book on how the rise of socialism has parallelled the rise of corporate power, and thus how the left have committed suicide via centralized government.

I’d prefer Pelosi.

The unfair tax is very dangerous. It puts the whole country on the dole, makes tax resistance a lot harder, does NOT get rid of the IRS (someone has to collect taxes – duh), does NOT shrink government, makes it a lot more attractive to be an employee as opposed to an entrepreneur, and in actual (rather than theoretical) implementation would end up with both a sales tax AND an income tax. That’s the hidden motive behind it – a massive expansion of government to fund more wars abroad and more invasions of privacy and a bigger prison-industrial complex at home.

It could definitely gain tracion as the neocons invade more countries and the regime puts together more fake terrorist attacks on the homeland.

BTW I saw a sticker today that says Bush=Guts. It’s been puzzling me all day if this is true, does Cheny=Sphincter, or Rumsfeld?

Nigel,

Note I said a “Tom Delay type” which would fall squarely in the authoritarian big government department. I’d prefer neither Hastert or Pelosi – a Ron Paul or a Jeb Hensarling would be much better. Actually, I’d just rather have someone from the party opposite the party controlling the Senate so they can kill off each others’ excess via partisanship.

Paulie,

I’ve heard them all before and I still don’t buy them. It’s not nationwide welfare, it’s a rebate of your sales tax costs. It can be collected via states, which is the constitutional form of taxation. It taxes big corporations with the most consumption much harder than small businesses and sole proprietorships. Sales tax infrastructure is already in place. Every person I have ever met who advocates the FairTax also advocates the complete revocation of the income tax. It reminds you that you are sending money to the government every time you buy something. Post a link to a counterargument with substance, please.

There Is No Such Thing As A Fair Tax
http://www.mises.org/story/1975

As much as I’d love to see a libertarian elected to Congress under the Libertarian Party banner (there’s Ron Paul but he’s under the Republican label), I’m really uncomfortable with this Bob Smithers guy becuase of his support of the Fair Tax. I suspect that there’s going to be a big move to get this atrocity passed and I don’t want to see the “Libertarian” label attached to it because it is NOT a libertarian proposal.

I’m not against gradualist proposals if they actually lead towards liberty, such as legalizing marijauna for medicinal use, but the Fair Tax does NOT lead towards more liberty. The Fair Tax does nothing to reduce the size of government. It does nothing to reduce government spending. It does not shut down the Federal Reserve and stop fiat currency. All it does is change the method of extortion.

The Fair Tax could end up making things worse because it will be harder to avoid than the income tax.

His answer to number 10 was very weak. Anyone so minded would savage him. He needs to make a clearer case that entitlement programs designed to work in the 1930′s cannot hope to be reformed as they are becuase they are outdated in 2006 America., and that by not addressing his problem head on, Republicans an Democrats are harming the country. You must make your morality stance more powerful than the oppositions.

Would you still drive a Model T in a era of modern cars? We can do better, and we have nothing to lose by proposing same, unlike the D’s or R’s. We can take the high ground on entitlements.

And, for what it’s worth, Andy was mistaken. He should have said “Everytime I purchase something NEW I’d have to pay it.”

Every person I have ever met who advocates the FairTax also advocates the complete revocation of the income tax.

Irrelevant. It is much easier to implement a new tax than repeal an old one. Even if it is possible to repeal the income tax temporarily, it would undoubtably be back at the first “emergency” – and you can bet one would be forthcoming shortly. There’s a difference between proposals and actual implementation, which involves compromise. The most likely bipartisan compromise is one in the direction of more government – ie both a sales tax and an income tax.

While rank and file sales tax supporters are tricked by promises of doing away with the income tax, the hidden agenda is to have both to create more regime revenue for more wars and more tyranny, which the income tax is becoming inadequate for – especially since more people are stopping their tribute payments. The sales tax is harder to resist, which is one of the real reasons behind it.

Also, Andy already posted links (see comments 27 and 28). What do you find non-substantive?

It makes the full cost of government obvious to every voter/taxpayer with every trip to the grocery store, convenience store or Wal-Mart. Lots of people don’t realize the full cost of government because of the current system. Hell, many people think of their tax refund as free money from the government and, unfortunately, these people are allowed the same vote as those who understand the truth.

http://www.mises.org/story/1975
Problem #1:The FairTax hides the amount of sales tax being paid. Boortz explains how “the FairTax was designed as what’s called an ‘inclusive’ tax””that is, the tax is included in the list price of the product.” He reasons that “since our current income taxes are figured on an inclusive basis””that is, they are taken out of our paychecks, not added to them””it was decided to handle the sales tax in exactly the same manner.”

30% Government Sales tax is a 30% prohibition on buying and selling. They smuggle dope from Mexico for 30% profits, what makes you sales tax supporters think they wont be smuggling toilet paper too? And selling it out of their garages? And what will the Fed do to stop these “Tax Cheats”?

Yes, John, but the agency doing all of that will not be called the “IRS”. So government will have to be less intrusive.

And I really did find the cure for diabetes in Kevin Trudeau’s “Natural Cures” book … and the “Magic Bullet” is the best blender ever … and that GT Xpress waffle-maker I keep seeing on TV must be the greatest cooking appliance ever … and I can receive thousand dollar checks every week sitting on my ass doing nothing … and I can buy real estate for literally less than $200 and resell within days for hundreds of thousands.

I really think Boortz should be doing infomercials. He is the master of product puffery.

… why do the Rapture-ites always have to raise their heads? It saddens a soul. ($50 goes to the first person who can quote to me where in the KJ Bible the word “rapture” is used.)

The number 666 (alternatively in the Dead Sea Scrolls as 606) is the qabbalistic numerological value of the name Nero (the number value changes on the way you spell Nero.) In his day, Nero was refered to as “The Beast.”

“The Beast *IS* a man, and his number is 666.”

… that has NOT ONE IOTA of a thing to do with the modern world, people. Find something realistic to be afraid of, please. Reality has enough boogey-men to offer to keep us from having to start inventing them to get our quota.

For the record, yes; I am an atheist.

Chris Moore — that’s fine and dandy. But comparing it to rapture mythology ain’t one of them.

I’m a strange one on this subject; I don’t really care about it; to me the FairTax thing is a minor third-rail at best. You can boonswoggle people all you want with how the taxes are raised; I don’t give a damn.

I care about how effectively those dollars are spent, what *upon* — we all here agree that too much money is being drawn from our pockets; so does Mr. Smither. So he’s a bit misguided or deluded? Who gives a damn? Elsewise he’s on the money, by and large.

Or at the very least he’s a *damned* sight closer to it than anybody else likely to wind up with the reins to the nation. We gotta start *SOMEWHERE,* right?

Either way; there’s no way in hell he’s going to get the FairTax implemented anytime soon. So let’s first GET HIM INTO OFFICE … and *THEN* start bombarding him with letters against the FairTax if he really starts pushing it.

Know what I mean?

yes, why? The pledge is pure shit.

The idea that someone only becomes a libertarian becuase they sign a pledge writes off anyone that might agree with you otherwise on 90% of your issues. Political parties dont need loyalty oaths. Only secret societys and restricted clubs do that. It’s pretty stupid otherwise. You want as many people as you cn get into a political party.

it doesnt DO anything. Anyone that wants to decieve can do so, and anyone too dumb to understand what it really means wont know what they signed.

It’s useless. Get Rid of it.

Tim West — it’s also completely ineffectual, on an ideological level. I for one read it to mean that I won’t overthrow the government or society at large with firepower. Without a legal aide or guide to oversee and explain the signing, it means whatever the reader *reads into it.* And that’s what I read.

Elimination of the pledge is a third-rail. Getting rid of it certainly wouldn’t suddenly expand LP membership to any degree. And shocker — further where we disagree! — Andrew’s statement only meant that he treats the signing of (granted, *his version of*) the pledge is a *positive proof.*

That doesn’t imply that failure to have signed is a negative proof.

Ahh, well. The whole point is: Support Smithers already! He may be “misguided” … but he is a ‘REAL’ Libertarian, with a shot at CONGRESS.

Suck it up and help him out, people!!

Paulie, you forgot used toilet paper!

Silly me. At some of the better motels, they now charge a deposit on it – per square.

”¦ why do the Rapture-ites always have to raise their heads? It saddens a soul.

While not a Rapture-ite or Biblical literalist, I do find a lot of ominous parallels between corporations’ and the government’s increaing use of SS numbers, interlinked databases, REAL ID, surveillance cameras, checkpoints, RFID chips and implants, etc., with the Revelations account of the mark of the beast.

It also reminds me of the SS number in Nazi Germany, a literal tattoo in the death camps. With today’s technology, it’s an electronic tattoo, but government plans for the roundup have already been drawn,
http://www.oilempire.us/redalert.html

Can the mass slaughter of a people who permit themselves to be treated as cattle be far behind?
http://educate-yourself.org/nwo/nwopopcontrol.shtml

BOORTZ might do all kinds of crazy stuff to help Smither. Maybe a FairTax rally in the district or something. Even BOORTZ would get some cheap pandering and promotion for himself in such a case. Get the guy on fricking BOORTZ.

“”¦ why do the Rapture-ites always have to raise their heads? It saddens a soul. ($50 goes to the first person who can quote to me where in the KJ Bible the word “rapture” is used.)

The number 666 (alternatively in the Dead Sea Scrolls as 606) is the qabbalistic numerological value of the name Nero (the number value changes on the way you spell Nero.) In his day, Nero was refered to as “The Beast.”

“The Beast *IS* a man, and his number is 666.”

”¦ that has NOT ONE IOTA of a thing to do with the modern world, people. Find something realistic to be afraid of, please. Reality has enough boogey-men to offer to keep us from having to start inventing them to get our quota.

For the record, yes; I am an atheist.”

Why do you ASSUME that I’m religious. I’m actually NOT religious. I was just making the comment that the government ID number to buy and sell sounds like the Mark Of The Beast. Does it not sound like this? I NEVER said that I believed in or advocated any organized

“A huge step in doing so would be getting income tax taken out of the Constitution – which he is for. He will not succeed, but he at least has a plan.”

Getting rid of the income tax and replacing it with a national sales tax – aka The Fair Tax – is like taking one step forward and then taking one step back. All they’d be doing is replacing something bad with something that is just as bad, or maybe even worse.

There is a mountain of evidence that the income tax is a complete fraud. Read about by clicking on the links below.

http://www.tax-freedom.com/

http://www.givemeliberty.org/

I’d like to go on Neal Boortz’s radio show so that I could debate him and expose him as a fraud.

Boortz is the crackpot. Don’t tell me you didn’t read the links.

Alex Jones= Illuminti, end of world, George W. Bush worships the son of darkness.
Boortz= adult min wage workers are losers, Islam is a violent relegion.
And you think Boortz is the crackpot?

Boortz=Saddam had more military than Hitler, rich should get preferential treatment in gov’t disaster relief, gov’t should spy on anyone who is antiwar. Crackpot!

As for what Jones says, why not?

Andy — if it quacks like a duck…

Finally; again — the FairTax is a third rail. Get over it.

Smither’s stance on the war… is a real issue.

Tim: Without legal persistance or definitions, the Pledge means exactly what you and I took it to mean.

The key is how significant the initiation of force clause is. Without any grammatical separations, the Pledge does NOT mean that you do not believe in the initiation of force at all. Merely that you do not believe in the initiation of force to cause political or social change.

The sleight of hand is that used by those whom would make the pledge into something more than this. Certainly the “NIFP” *LANGUAGE* is there… but much like the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution, it can only mean what it means, and no sleight of hand can change it.

2nd Amendment: [...], the rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” — clause.

(cont’d)

Furthermore, Ian, what exactly constitues “force” could be debated considering Dictionary.com has 36 different definitions for the term.

To a physicist, force is an influence that causes a change in motion of a body. If you consider that definition in a more abstract sense, then a political party whose mission is to change the “direction” of political thought would be in violation. In fact, using any of more than half of the definitions of force would result in a pledge that allowed NO social or political change. Period.

Chris — given the phrasing, it’s fair enough to use the ‘Randian’ definition of the phrase itself — I’m not too concerned about that issue.

The point that far too many “NIFP”‘ers make — in my admittedly subjective experience — is that the Pledge means we cannot initiate force or permit it to be initiated. That’s not what the Pledge says at all; and while the ‘NIFP’ makes a good guideline for those already aware, as an actual political standard it is a miserable failure.

I’ll take the most common break between what makes one an anarchist in end-goal and a ‘minarchist’ in end-goal: Is taxation inherently, no matter what, theft? The anarchist and those whom use the ideology of anarchism say yes. Those whom recognize taxation as the expectations by the state of the people to fulfill debts to the state due to actions incurred by the people individually, obviously say no.

But this is something none of what I refer to as anti-statists want to hear.

(cont’d)

“I’ll take the most common break between what makes one an anarchist in end-goal and a ”˜minarchist’ in end-goal: Is taxation inherently, no matter what, theft?”

It is possible to believe that taxation is theft and still be a minarchist. There are many that believe that a government should hold the monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force, but believe funding for government could be accomplished through either user fees, donations or some other voluntary method.

“… then how, possibly, can MILLIONS of people agree sufficiently for a cohesive society to be built on said principle?”

That was my point about the pledge.

But some (like me) believe it to be morally wrong to initiate physical, violent force against another, and believe it to be equally wrong to advocate government do the same. I don’t particularly care what MILLIONS of people agree to.

“Alex Jones= Illuminti, end of world, George W. Bush worships the son of darkness.
Boortz= adult min wage workers are losers, Islam is a violent relegion.
And you think Boortz is the crackpot?”

Yes, Boortz is the crackpot. I’ve got a ton of respect for Alex Jones.

libertarians to stay away from it.

Yes, you are right that the war is a big issue, but I also think that it would be really destructive if the Libertarian Party and/or the greater libertarian movement got behind this “Fair Tax” sham. I’d hate to see the “Fair Tax” get lumped in with the word libertarian because it is far from being a real libertarian proposal.

Andy — don’t keep your panties in a knot. I made no assumptions or presumptions about you. I spoke about the words you used and the ideas they represent. Who the fuck cares if it seems like “The Mark of the Beast”? To even BRING IT UP invokes the ‘Rapture.’ So you’re guilty there. You might very well also be an atheist. It’s irrelevant.

Finally — the FairTax isn’t likely to ever pass. Once it becomes a major issue (once taxation itself is up for debate in government) THEN we can discuss it. Now, it’s a third rail. It DESERVES TO BE GLOSSED OVER. Why? Even if misguided, at the very least those whom advocate it are trying to GET SOMETHING DONE.

Sometimes, stirring up the pot is better than letting it sit and fester. Even if all you’re doing is adding more shit.

You’re far from alone on your resistance to the FairTax, even within the LP. There’s absolutely no danger of its passing. It’s a third rail. Let it go.

Mr. Moore, with all do respect, allow me to “clarify” your assertion that I am “threatening” individuals. There are two persons disseminating false and slanderous statements concerning Mr. Smither via email lists. One statement is that Mr. Smither is pro-war. The other statement is that Mr. Smither intends on shifting the tax burden onto the poor of our society. Both of these statements, though acceptable as a matter of opinion, can NOT be made as a statement of fact unless supported by evidence. These “lies” are thus engineered and intended to hinder Mr. Smither’s fund raising activities. As such, these actions constitute Libel!

http://www.medialaw.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Public_Resources/Libel_FAQs/Libel_FAQs.htm

Regardless of how you feel about Mr. Smither, please be advised that my response to actions by these two perfidious individuals remains consistent with retaliation against THEIR aggression. What remains to be seen is what remedy, if any, may be pursued in time.

Ahh.. ‘But he started it!!!’

… not involved, that’s me.

Andy; either shit or get off of the pot. The FairTax isn’t worth the effort at this point. It’s not even close to the floor. The Income Tax wasn’t resisted when IT reached the floor either. Your debate amounts to “Just because we cannot imagine it doesn’t mean it can’t happen.” The same is true in reverse. Apply Occham’s Razor. It’s a Third Rail, one you need to look past.

I’m outta this thread! Have fun, y’all.

“The fact that you would defend those who slandered another speaks volumes in and of itself.”

I have only defended Robert Noval, although he is perfectly capable of doing so himself here:

http://www.smallgov.org/?p=349

I do not know about any others.

Please point to any instance where Mr. Noval libeled Mr. Smither and I will publicly apologize to you. I can’t find a single instance.

The unFair tax is exactly the kind of thing which is likely to pass, since it gives the regime the tools it’s looking for – under the guise of making taxes simpler, fairer or less burdensome. What better way to achieve a total state of tyranny than under the guise of liberty and with the support of the libertarians?

http://www.jpfo.org/fairtax.htm

OK, so the “Fair Tax” is dumb, but as for the rest of Smither’s positions, they’re only objectionable if you make wild and ridiculous assumptions about them.

We’re actually getting stuff done in Texas. We’re distributing WSPQ door hangers, going to community events, fielding strong candidates, and even getting some of those candidates elected.

Personally, I’ve gotten 4 LTEs published in one of the top ten newspapers (by circulation) in the country expounding libertarian views, I extend libertarian viewpoints and encourage support of the LP through my blog, and I’ve convinced friends and family to vote Libertarian. And I’m a 17-year-old college student.

I don’t know whether you anons have done anything for the LP or not, but seeing as you’re too chicken to tell us who you are, I doubt it. Accomplish something before you try to rain on our parade. (If you want to send real rain to Texas, be my guest, however.)

“but as for the rest of Smither’s positions, they’re only objectionable if you make wild and ridiculous assumptions about them.”

Apparently NO ONE knows what Mr. Smither’s views are on the war in Iraq and foreign policy in general. Some claim (rightly) that that in itself is objectionable.