What follows is a revised and expanded version of a post from earlier
this morning on Smith2004-discuss. It consists entirely of my own
personal opinion. It was not written on behalf of, at the behest of,
or with the knowledge or permission of, Aaron Russo's presidential
campaign, on which I am a volunteer. As a matter of fact, I rather
expect to be dismissed from that campaign for writing it.

However, it needed to be written. The presidential campaign, so far,
has been one-sided in terms of close scrutiny of the candidates. The
LP chooses its nominee next week, and we need to get it right. That
means arming ourselves with knowledge, not closing our eyes.

Tom Knapp

On Friday 21 May 2004 12:36 am, DC Collins wrote:
> I seem strangely on the 'other' side of this one.
>
> If I were an employer, I feel I have the right to ASK for anything
> I want *record-wise*, from a potential employee. If they choose
> not to give it, no skin off my nose. But as its MY business, i.e.
> my property, I am not ever, EVER, required to hire ANYONE - under
> libertarianism that is.
>
> It may or may not be Smart to ask for those records - but I can use
> ANY hiring criteria I like.

Absolutely agreed.

Next week, the Libertarian Party will be "hiring" a presidential
nominee.

It's not unreasonable for anyone who is concered about the health of
any of the candidates to ask for information on the subject, and to
withhold their support if they aren't satisfied with the answers.

The same applies to anything else about the candidates.

From that perspective, here's my personal view of the three
candidates on the issue of openness:

* Michael Badnarik is pretty much an open book. It's easy for him to
be one, because, frankly, he doesn't have a long record of public
activism to explain. I don't regard that as an especial weakness,
because what he _has_ done in his short time in public life has been
principled and characterized by hard work.

* Aaron Russo is pretty much an open book, too, but a longer, more
detailed one. He's been involved in causes. He's run for office. He's
had a public career in the entertainment industry. Over the course of
the campaign, any number of questions about his past have been
brought up ... and ANSWERED. I don't know if everyone will consider
every answer that's been given to be satisfactory, but there's been
no veil of secrecy or anything of that sort. Russo's record is there,
warts and all, for examination.

[Insertion: An Internet piece advocating a Nolan/Badnarik ticket was
published within minutes of the original of this post, holding that
a) Russo is embarrassing in some way and b) that Nolan has a higher
public profile than Russo.

As far as the first point is concerned, I'll leave judgment to the
readers after they've perused the following. On the second point, it
isn't even close. While neither Russo nor Nolan are household names,
Russo clearly had a higher public profile than Nolan coming into this
campaign, and clearly has a higher public profile in the context of
the campaign. This is supported by any objective attempt at research
on media mentions, etc.]

* Gary Nolan, however, is a cipher.

He, too, has a longer career in "public life," and he has traded on
that career (as a radio talk show host, president of Capitol Watch,
board member of Free the Eagle, etc.) to establish his credibility
within the LP.

However, when one starts looking into that public life, one can reach
only one of two conclusions: Either he's had a very minimal impact in
that public life, or he has systematically removed as much
information about that public life from the public domain as he's
capable of.

When questions were first raised within the LP about Nolan's
association with "Free the Eagle," a pro-war, anti-immigration
organization which made its original name rallying public support for
the Iran-Contra figures, the response from the campaign was that his
involvement was recent and that the group had shed its past and now
concentrated on tax issues.

When more detailed questions, with more detailed information, began
to pop up on the left (specifically on IndyMedia sites around the
country), they weren't answered at all -- the campaign just removed
the reference to "Free the Eagle" from its web site and kept mum,
although it apparently answered some private correspondence with a
statement that he had resigned from "Free the Eagle's" board.

Here's what I can tell you about "Free the Eagle" and about Nolan's
association with it:

* Nolan's association with "Free the Eagle" goes back at LEAST five
years, to 1999, when he joined the LP and announced (in LP News) the
formation of a group called "Americans for Freedom and Independence."
Nothing ever seems to have come of that group, but the LP News
article which mentioned it included an address, phone and fax number
... the same address, phone and fax number listed as belonging to
"Free the Eagle" on that organization's web site.

References --

LP News article:
http://archive.lp.org/lpn/9906-Nolan.html

Google cache of currently non-functioning "Free the Eagle" site:
http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:TTtajmU-xqIJ:www.freetheeagle.or
g/+%22Free+the+Eagle%22+Diplomat&hl=en or
http://tinyurl.com/3d6cy

* At LEAST as late as 2002, long after Nolan became an LP member and
definitely within the timeframe of his association with the group,
"Free the Eagle" executive director Tammy Lyles kicked off "a
petition which demands the deportation of 17,000 people whose native
countries are sponsors of terrorism."

Reference --

"Tom Ridge should screen our foreign visitors," by Vincent R.
Caravan, Valley News, January 19, 2002:
http://www.valleynewsonline.com/news/2002/0119/Viewpoints/084.html

* "Free the Eagle" is often associated in print with an organization
called "Ruff-PAC;" Lyles serves as treasurer of Ruff-PAC and
executive director of "Free the Eagle" (and is pictured with Nolan in
the photo section of his campaign site).

Nolan represented Ruff-PAC on a panel at the 2000 Conservative
Political Action Conference (this, once again, would have been after
his much-publicized joining of the LP). His old email address is
listed as the admin contact for Ruff-PAC's also non-working web
site.

Ruff-PAC is the creation of Howard Ruff, a Utah "religious right"
conservative. It's a Republican PAC which, during the time of Nolan's
apparent affiliation with both it and the LP, has financed Republican
candidates running against Libertarian opponents, including, right
offhand, George W. Bush v. Harry Browne in 2000 and Jim Talent vs.
Tamara Millay in 2002.

References:

Page linking to photo of Nolan and Tammy Lyles:
http://www.garynolan.com/photos.shtml

2000 CPAC schedule referencing Nolan as representing Ruff-PAC:
http://www.cpac.org/cpacschdule.htm

"Whois" listing for RuffPAC.Org showing Nolan as admin contact:
http://www.directnic.com/whois/index.php?query=ruffpac.org

Ruff-PAC contribution listing from the FEC:
http://herndon1.sdrdc.com/cgi-bin/com_supopp/C00124040/

There's obviously a limit to how much one can attribute the views of
an organization to an individual associated with that organization.
However, there's an abundance of evidence that Nolan has a long,
abiding, deep relationship with "Free the Eagle" and Ruff-PAC ... and
to the extent that information is available on them, they both seem
to be firmly in the neo-con mold on foreign policy and on the "keep
the furriners out" line on immigration.

* Most references to the actual content of Nolan's radio show seem to
have disappeared from the web (or perhaps his show had very little
real presence or impact). Here, however, is at least one interesting
quote from the show's discussion group, and two references to other
appearances he's made:

-- Nolan on homosexuality (direct quote)

"Kevin, get some counseling. There is NO genetic link to
homosexuality. There are thousands of former homosexuals. I can
connect you to them if you want. (with discretion) If at the end of
the day you decide that you can't change then be careful and try to
be discreet. Good luck!"

-- Gary Nolan, on the "Nolan at Night" discussion forum, December 28,
2000

http://www.modernman.com/forums/DCForumID36/23.html#4

-- Nolan on American Indians (reference)

"Last nights presentation just by coincidence was The Jim Bohannon
Show from the Westwood One Broadcast Services
(http://www.westwoodone.com/ ). I got an earful of Racist Diatribe
from a guest host (Gary Nolan [EMAIL PROTECTED]) who really was a
misplaced DJ.

"http://www.modernman.com/nolan/ He ranted on about Native peoples
only wanting Casinos from the white man. He talked about war drums,
referred to smoking a peace pipe so Indians would know he didn?t mean
any harm, and spoke in Pidgin English about Native people. He then
made fun of a Young Native woman who called in to express her concern
with his opinions, he pretended to search through a garbage can for a
story that he threw away that she was referring to, all the time
while he was chuckling at her, and after she hung up he said she made
no sense. "

http://www.mail-archive.com/native_american@topica.com/msg01093.html

-- Nolan on people who don't want to say the Pledge of Allegiance
(reference)

"The country you HATE is underwriting your education and you can't
pledge allegiance to it?! BULL SPIT!"

http://boisdarc.tamu-commerce.edu/www/d/dees/Pledgewhine.html

It's difficult to avoid the conclusion that Gary Nolan has been
living a double life -- Libertarian presidential candidate facade,
covering conservative Republican interior with very definite
anti-Libertarian connections.

[Insertion: Why? And how?

There are several possible answers to why.

Perhaps, having only joined the LP in 1999, Nolan has been underoing
a process of ideological conversion that is only now leading him to
begin shedding his anti-Libertarian political connections. If that's
the case, both that fact, and the fact of his campaign's reticence
in addressing those connections, have implications for his
candidacy. Are we ready to nominate someone who is just now becoming
an actual ideological Libertarian ... and who doesn't want us to
know that?

There are of course other, more sinister, possibilities. Over the
last few years, the LP has begun to demonstrate an ability to make
itself the "balance of power" in close elections. A number of
Libertarian candidates have been credited as "spoilers" of
Republican Senate and other candidacies. While the case is far from
airtight, it's worth considering whether the LP is under covert,
external attack by a conservative ideological cabal, intent upon
ensuring that the LP _doesn't_ "spoil" anything for George W. Bush
this November ... and that that cabal has a candidate in the race.

How? That is a simpler question to answer.

The LP is a small, insular organization. We're the size of a small
town -- and we all read the same newspaper. It's not especially
difficult to achieve name recognition within the Party, nor is it
difficult within the party to frame accomplishments that to most
Americans would seem mundane and not especially noteworthy, as
political endeavors of great import.

In the past, I have posited that it would be possible to simply
directly take over the Libertarian Party for an investment of half a
million dollars in dues payments for the members of an organization
having some use for a political party of its own. How much more
elegant would it be to take over -- or at least immobilize -- the LP
using the money, activism and support _of its own existing membership
base_?]

Tom Knapp