After sending out the last message, I updated
http://pro-choicelibertarians.net and
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pro-choicelibertarians/ to reflect the
chipping away of explicit pro-choice language from the platform in 2006
and 2008. (Including taking out "women's rights" in 2006.)

I'll look for a report on what happened in the debates on the topic at
the 2008 convention.  If you have one, feel free to post!

FYI
* See full 2006 LP Platform here
<http://www.lpedia.org/2006_Libertarian_Party_Platform>.
Reproductive Rights Plank
The Issue: The tragedies caused by unplanned, unwanted pregnancies are
aggravated and sometimes created by government policies of censorship,
restriction, regulation and prohibition. Recognizing that abortion is a
sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on both sides,
we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the
question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

The Principle: Individual rights should not be denied nor abridged on
the basis of sex, age, dependency, or location. Taxpayers should not be
forced to pay for other people's abortions, nor should any government or
individual force a woman to have an abortion. It is the right and
obligation of the pregnant woman regardless of age, not the state, to
decide the desirability or appropriateness of prenatal testing,
Caesarean births, fetal surgery, voluntary surrogacy arrangements and/or
home births.

Solutions: We oppose government actions that either compel or prohibit
abortion, sterilization or any other form of birth control. Specifically
we condemn the practice of forced sterilization of welfare recipients,
or of mentally retarded or "genetically defective" individual. We
support the voluntary exchange of goods, services or information
regarding human sexuality, reproduction, birth control or related
medical or biological technologies. We oppose government laws and
policies that restrict the opportunity to choose alternatives to abortion.

Transitional Action: We support an end to all subsidies for childbearing
or child prevention built into our present laws.

* See full 2008 LP Platform here <http://www.lp.org/platform>.
Abortion Plank
Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold
good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept
out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their
conscientious consideration.

Carol Moore in DC
http://carolmoore.net/
http://carolmoorereport.blogspot.com/
http://youtube.com/carolmoore
http://secession.net
http://stopthewarnow.net
http://whatwouldgandhido.net
http://radicalbuttons.com

NOTICE: Due to Presidential Executive Orders,
the National Security Agency may have read this
email without judicial or legislative oversight
or warning, warrant, or notice. You have no
recourse nor protection save to secede from the union.

Fyi to avoid confusion there also is
<pro-choicelibertarians@yahoogroups.com> which is for supporters to
organize in the LP and news items.  However, those who "welcome all
points of view" and more of a free for all also might join Christina's
group of a similar name.
Also see http://pro-choicelibertarians.net

Christiana Mayer wrote:
> Here is a yahoo group that I just started. Everyone is welcome:
> prochoicelibertarians-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 3:55 PM, D'Anne Welch <DAWelch@...> wrote:
>
Carol Moore in DC
http://carolmoore.net/
http://carolmoorereport.blogspot.com/
http://youtube.com/carolmoore
http://secession.net
http://stopthewarnow.net
http://whatwouldgandhido.net
http://radicalbuttons.com

NOTICE: Due to Presidential Executive Orders,
the National Security Agency may have read this
email without judicial or legislative oversight
or warning, warrant, or notice. You have no
recourse nor protection save to secede from the union.

I told them that the platform ought to state that the government has no business
to regulate abortion, except in cases in which someone was coerced into having
an abortion. Otherwise, all abortions ought to be legal, all the way up to
partial-birth.

I also told them that without a strong pro-choice message, the LP would be just
another Republican Party! I refuse to support many Republicans due to the
abortion issue, so why should I support Libertarians who aren't strongly
pro-choice?

If the Libertarians nominate an anti-choice candidate, then I might as well vote
for Obama. They better take my message seriously!

Pablo Wegesend

PS: I know, Obama is very liberal, but why should I choose McCain or any
possible anti-choice Libertarian who panders those who are radical right-wing
conservatives. Then, my choices would be between a Big Government Conservative
(McCain), Radical Right-Winger Pretending to be A Libertarian, and a Big
Government Liberal(Obama)!

----- Original Message -----
From: Jonathan Wright <jon@...>
Date: Friday, February 22, 2008 12:21 pm
Subject: [pro-choicelibertarians] [Fwd: We need your input, again!]
To: pro-choicelibertarians@yahoogroups.com

> For anyone who hasn't seen this...
>
> The proposed abortion plank is completely unacceptable, as it has
> completely erased the most critical sentence ("We oppose government
> actions that either compel or prohibit abortion, sterilization or any
> other form of birth control.") The proposed language isn't even
> imaginably pro-choice.
>
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> From: Libertarian Party <info@...>
> To: libertarian@...
> Subject: We need your input, again!
> Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 09:35:15 -0800
>
>                           Libertarian Party
>
>                                     February 22, 2008
>
>
>
>                          FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY:
>                            Dear fellow Libertarian,
>
>                            Last month 5,047 of you
>                          responded to my request for
>                          your opinions about what the
>                           Libertarian Party Platform
>                          Committee should do with our
>                          difficult task of rebuilding
>                              the party platform.
>
>                           Thank you again for giving
>                          us so much insight into what
>                           the committee could offer
>                            that would have the best
>                             chance of adoption by
>                           delegates at the upcoming
>                          convention in Denver in May.
>                            If you didn't see those
>                          results yet, you can access
>                               them on the Web at
>                    http://www.lp.org/platformresults.pdf.
>
>                           Reading your opinions gave
>                          us confidence that we could
>                             offer you a series of
>                              recommendations that
>                          fulfills the desires most of
>                           you expressed.  I hope we
>                               accomplished that.
>
>                               If the Committee's
>                            recommendations were all
>                            adopted by the national
>                            convention delegates, it
>                           would result in an entire
>                           replacement platform that
>                           would fill topic coverage
>                              gaps in our current
>                           platform, but do so with a
>                           shorter and less detailed
>                             document that is still
>                              boldly libertarian.
>
>                             The language of these
>                          proposals may look familiar
>                           to you. That's because we
>                          constructed the planks with
>                             language recycled from
>                              previous platforms.
>
>                           The Committee adopted this
>                              approach in order to
>                           increase the likelihood of
>                             achieving the 2/3 vote
>                             necessary to adopt new
>                             planks at convention.
>
>                          In a few places the Platform
>                            Committee realizes that
>                          recycled language may not be
>                            sufficient for what we'd
>                           like to accomplish. So in
>                           those places we'll present
>                           you with two options: one
>                          with language recycled from
>                            previous platforms, and
>                             another with some new
>                          language that the Committee
>                           finds necessary to fill a
>                                     need.
>
>                          I'm excited to show you the
>                           recommendations adopted by
>                          the Committee. There are 26
>                            planks in the Committee
>                          proposal, and I hope you'll
>                             again do me a favor by
>                                completing this
>                            questionnaire about our
>                                recommendations.
>
>                           If you need to review the
>                           current Libertarian Party
>                          platform, you can find it on
>                              the national party's
>                                    website.
>
>                                 Best Regards,
>
>                                 Alicia Mattson
>                            Chair, Libertarian Party
>                               Platform Committee
>
>
>
>                          ____________________________
>
>                          Paid for by the Libertarian
>                                National Committee
>                             2600 Virginia Ave, N.W.
>                           Suite 200, Washington D.C.
>                                           20037
>                            Content not authorized by
>                           any candidate or candidate
>                                     committee.
>
>
>                          ____________________________
>
>                             --- You are currently
>                                 subscribed as
>                          libertarian@....
>                            To unsubscribe, send an
>                                     e-mail
>        to: leave-4549-
> 54188.e87f9feb1c5eaa39c06f57b4e112d171@.... ---
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Here is the link to the questionaire:
http://www.lp.org/phpQ/fillsurvey.php?sid=23


On Fri, 2008-02-22 at 14:21 -0600, Jonathan Wright wrote:
> For anyone who hasn't seen this...
>
> The proposed abortion plank is completely unacceptable, as it has
> completely erased the most critical sentence ("We oppose government
> actions that either compel or prohibit abortion, sterilization or any
> other form of birth control.") The proposed language isn't even
> imaginably pro-choice.
>
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> From: Libertarian Party <info@...>
> To: libertarian@...
> Subject: We need your input, again!
> Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 09:35:15 -0800
>
>                            Libertarian Party
>
>                                      February 22, 2008
>
>
>
>                           FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY:
>                             Dear fellow Libertarian,
>
>                             Last month 5,047 of you
>                           responded to my request for
>                           your opinions about what the
>                            Libertarian Party Platform
>                           Committee should do with our
>                           difficult task of rebuilding
>                               the party platform.
>
>                            Thank you again for giving
>                           us so much insight into what
>                            the committee could offer
>                             that would have the best
>                              chance of adoption by
>                            delegates at the upcoming
>                           convention in Denver in May.
>                             If you didn't see those
>                           results yet, you can access
>                                them on the Web at
>                     http://www.lp.org/platformresults.pdf.
>
>                            Reading your opinions gave
>                           us confidence that we could
>                              offer you a series of
>                               recommendations that
>                           fulfills the desires most of
>                            you expressed.  I hope we
>                                accomplished that.
>
>                                If the Committee's
>                             recommendations were all
>                             adopted by the national
>                             convention delegates, it
>                            would result in an entire
>                            replacement platform that
>                            would fill topic coverage
>                               gaps in our current
>                            platform, but do so with a
>                            shorter and less detailed
>                              document that is still
>                               boldly libertarian.
>
>                              The language of these
>                           proposals may look familiar
>                            to you. That's because we
>                           constructed the planks with
>                              language recycled from
>                               previous platforms.
>
>                            The Committee adopted this
>                               approach in order to
>                            increase the likelihood of
>                              achieving the 2/3 vote
>                              necessary to adopt new
>                              planks at convention.
>
>                           In a few places the Platform
>                             Committee realizes that
>                           recycled language may not be
>                             sufficient for what we'd
>                            like to accomplish. So in
>                            those places we'll present
>                            you with two options: one
>                           with language recycled from
>                             previous platforms, and
>                              another with some new
>                           language that the Committee
>                            finds necessary to fill a
>                                      need.
>
>                           I'm excited to show you the
>                            recommendations adopted by
>                           the Committee. There are 26
>                             planks in the Committee
>                           proposal, and I hope you'll
>                              again do me a favor by
>                                 completing this
>                             questionnaire about our
>                                 recommendations.
>
>                            If you need to review the
>                            current Libertarian Party
>                           platform, you can find it on
>                               the national party's
>                                     website.
>
>                                  Best Regards,
>
>                                  Alicia Mattson
>                             Chair, Libertarian Party
>                                Platform Committee
>
>
>
>                           ____________________________
>
>                           Paid for by the Libertarian
>                                 National Committee
>                              2600 Virginia Ave, N.W.
>                            Suite 200, Washington D.C.
>                                            20037
>                             Content not authorized by
>                            any candidate or candidate
>                                      committee.
>
>
>                           ____________________________
>
>                              --- You are currently
>                                  subscribed as
>                           libertarian@....
>                             To unsubscribe, send an
>                                      e-mail
>         to: leave-4549-54188.e87f9feb1c5eaa39c06f57b4e112d171@....
---
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

For anyone who hasn't seen this...

The proposed abortion plank is completely unacceptable, as it has
completely erased the most critical sentence ("We oppose government
actions that either compel or prohibit abortion, sterilization or any
other form of birth control.") The proposed language isn't even
imaginably pro-choice.


-------- Forwarded Message --------
From: Libertarian Party <info@...>
To: libertarian@...
Subject: We need your input, again!
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 09:35:15 -0800

                            Libertarian Party

                                      February 22, 2008



                           FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY:
                             Dear fellow Libertarian,

                             Last month 5,047 of you
                           responded to my request for
                           your opinions about what the
                            Libertarian Party Platform
                           Committee should do with our
                           difficult task of rebuilding
                               the party platform.

                            Thank you again for giving
                           us so much insight into what
                            the committee could offer
                             that would have the best
                              chance of adoption by
                            delegates at the upcoming
                           convention in Denver in May.
                             If you didn't see those
                           results yet, you can access
                                them on the Web at
                     http://www.lp.org/platformresults.pdf.

                            Reading your opinions gave
                           us confidence that we could
                              offer you a series of
                               recommendations that
                           fulfills the desires most of
                            you expressed.  I hope we
                                accomplished that.

                                If the Committee's
                             recommendations were all
                             adopted by the national
                             convention delegates, it
                            would result in an entire
                            replacement platform that
                            would fill topic coverage
                               gaps in our current
                            platform, but do so with a
                            shorter and less detailed
                              document that is still
                               boldly libertarian.

                              The language of these
                           proposals may look familiar
                            to you. That's because we
                           constructed the planks with
                              language recycled from
                               previous platforms.

                            The Committee adopted this
                               approach in order to
                            increase the likelihood of
                              achieving the 2/3 vote
                              necessary to adopt new
                              planks at convention.

                           In a few places the Platform
                             Committee realizes that
                           recycled language may not be
                             sufficient for what we'd
                            like to accomplish. So in
                            those places we'll present
                            you with two options: one
                           with language recycled from
                             previous platforms, and
                              another with some new
                           language that the Committee
                            finds necessary to fill a
                                      need.

                           I'm excited to show you the
                            recommendations adopted by
                           the Committee. There are 26
                             planks in the Committee
                           proposal, and I hope you'll
                              again do me a favor by
                                 completing this
                             questionnaire about our
                                 recommendations.

                            If you need to review the
                            current Libertarian Party
                           platform, you can find it on
                               the national party's
                                     website.

                                  Best Regards,

                                  Alicia Mattson
                             Chair, Libertarian Party
                                Platform Committee



                           ____________________________

                           Paid for by the Libertarian
                                 National Committee
                              2600 Virginia Ave, N.W.
                            Suite 200, Washington D.C.
                                            20037
                             Content not authorized by
                            any candidate or candidate
                                      committee.


                           ____________________________

                              --- You are currently
                                  subscribed as
                           libertarian@....
                             To unsubscribe, send an
                                      e-mail
         to: leave-4549-54188.e87f9feb1c5eaa39c06f57b4e112d171@....
---

Shane Cory claims below he was misquoted and he tried to
get them to correct the quote but they did not respond.
Considering that George Phillies had NO problem getting
a comment published correcting Cory's statement, it is obvious
Mr. Cory also could have commented if he REALLY had the big problem
he claims he had with the quote.  My guess is he was perfectly
happy with it until he got caught. (I'll admit the author was hostile.)
Again, the quote in question and the response as forwarded by my LNC
representative:

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=ron_pauls_abortion_rhetoric
<http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=ron_pauls_abortion_rhetoric>
"Shane Corey, executive director of the Libertarian National Committee,
said in a phone interview, "Pro-life libertarians -- I'm one of them --
understand and feel that children in the womb should have the same
rights and liberties that we enjoy." Pro-life and pro-choice
libertarians, Corey continued, agree that "it's not an issue for the
federal government to address." The Libertarian party's official
position is support of repealing /Roe v. Wade/ and leaving abortion
"remanded to the states." Paul's view, it happens, is pretty much the
party line: It's okay to restrict abortion at the state level, just not
the federal one. Respect for the rights of state government trumps the
rights of women."
______

-------- Original Message --------
Subject:  Re: LP Director MIS-represents Libertarian Party Platform on
abortion
Date:  Tue, 27 Nov 2007 19:58:55 -0500
From:  James W. Lark, III <jwl3s@...>
To:  Carol Moore in DC <liberty@...>
CC:  James W. Lark, III <jwl3s@...>, Shane Cory
<shane.cory@...>
References:  <474B8C7E.1020203@...>



Dear Carol:

Thank you for your message last night concerning the matter involving
Shane Cory. Shortly after receiving your message, I sent an e-mail to
Mr. Cory in my capacity as the LNC Region 5 representative to inquire
about this matter; I enclosed your message. He provided these comments
in response:

Jim,

Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

I do very clearly recall the interview.

Mr. White contacted me several months ago about Ron Paul’s campaign. It
became quickly evident to me that White was attempting to write a story
about a supposed rift with Ron Paul and the Libertarian Party on a few
issues. When I didn’t take the bait, he became increasingly agitated.

The first quotes are accurate but incomplete. But no harm is done there.
I’ve answered the abortion question well over a hundred times and have
it down pat. It always concludes with “it’s an issue for society to
address.”

In the case of Mr. White, he brought up Dr. Paul’s stance of remanding
the issue to the states and I did say that some Libertarians agree with
that (avoiding his “rift” intent). Then I did something I rarely do
(only in the case that I feel the interviewer is attempting to skew our
stance) and I read him the plank of the platform word for word.

Once the article was published, I immediately saw the problem and
contacted the editor of the publication for a correction (Andrew Davis
may even recall getting the name and number for me). After numerous
attempts at reaching him, leaving several messages, I let it go.

Being misquoted by reporters is a fairly common occurrence that usually
does not result in much harm. At times, I’ve even been pleasantly
surprised with the great quotes reporters will create on their own. I
don’t believe this article resulted in much harm (web only version)
aside from people who don’t like me or the national office will use it
for their own agenda. Mr. White did not even use the care to spell my
name correctly, so his acumen as a reporter should be evident.


I hope this information is helpful to you. Please note that I have
copied Mr. Cory with this message.

Take care,
Jim

James W. Lark, III
Advisor, The Liberty Coalition
University of Virginia

Region 5 Representative, Libertarian National Committee





--
Carol Moore in DC
http://carolmoore.net/
http://carolmoorereport.blogspot.com/
http://youtube.com/carolmoore
http://secession.net
http://stopthewarnow.net
http://whatwouldgandhido.net
http://radicalbuttons.com

*__*

*_TO: Various Libertarian Lists
CC: LP National Committee
_*

*_From: http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml
_*

*_I.8 Reproductive Rights_*

*The Issue:* The tragedies caused by unplanned, unwanted pregnancies are
aggravated and sometimes created by government policies of censorship,
restriction, regulation and prohibition.
Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold
good-faith views on both sides, we believe that government should be
kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their
conscientious consideration.

*The Principle:* Individual rights should not be denied nor abridged on
the basis of sex, age, dependency, or location. Taxpayers should not be
forced to pay for other people's abortions, nor should any government or
individual force a woman to have an abortion. It is the right and
obligation of the pregnant woman regardless of age, not the state, to
decide the desirability or appropriateness of prenatal testing,
Caesarean births, fetal surgery, voluntary surrogacy arrangements and/or
home births.

*Solutions:* We oppose government actions that either compel or prohibit
abortion, sterilization or any other form of birth control. Specifically
we condemn the practice of forced sterilization of welfare recipients,
or of mentally retarded or "genetically defective" individual. We
support the voluntary exchange of goods, services or information
regarding human sexuality, reproduction, birth control or related
medical or biological technologies. We oppose government laws and
policies that restrict the opportunity to choose alternatives to abortion.

*Transitional Action:* We support an end to all subsidies for
childbearing or child prevention built into our present laws.
________________________
From:
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=ron_pauls_abortion_rhetoric
The American Prospect
Ron Paul's Abortion Rhetoric by Steven White | August 20, 2007 |

"Shane Corey, executive director of the Libertarian National Committee,
said in a phone interview, "Pro-life libertarians -- I'm one of them --
understand and feel that children in the womb should have the same
rights and liberties that we enjoy." Pro-life and pro-choice
libertarians, Corey continued, agree that "it's not an issue for the
federal government to address." The Libertarian party's official
position is support of repealing /Roe v. Wade/ and leaving abortion
"remanded to the states." Paul's view, it happens, is pretty much the
party line: It's okay to restrict abortion at the state level, just not
the federal one. Respect for the rights of state government trumps the
rights of women."
______
Please note that George Phillies responded in comments section at that
page with:

The position quoted (and I do not doubt its accuracy) from Shane Corey
is completely at odds with the actual Libertarian Party position, as
found in the Libertarian Party platform
<http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml>, which reads:

"We oppose government actions that either compel or prohibit abortion,
sterilization or any other form of birth control. Specifically we
condemn the practice of forced sterilization."

However, Ron Paul in his literature always says he is a conservative. He
never says he is a libertarian. And he is telling the truth.

George Phillies
http://www.phillies2008.org

______________________
If I paid more attention to what the LP was up to, I might know if this
is just the tip of the ice berg of misrepresentation coming out of the
national office.

Carol Moore in DC
http://carolmoore.net/
http://carolmoorereport.blogspot.com/
http://youtube.com/carolmoore
http://secession.net
http://stopthewarnow.net
http://whatwouldgandhido.net
http://radicalbuttons.com

FYI article below.

Pro-choice Libertarians was formed in 1987 to make sure
Ron Paul did not go babbling about his anti-abortion stand if he
became the Libertarian Party candidate. We were successful
and during his 1988 Presidential campaign, when asked he
would merely say he disagreed with the platform.

Paul's position then was BOTH a constitutional
amendment to out law abortion AND state enforcement.
It was NOT merely that the states should decide.

Just doing a quick internet search I couldn't find any
evidence that he has changed his position. I assume
he is smart enough NOT to talk about that position,
since he knows that would turn people off. Since he's
not likely to win, and not running as a libertarian, I'm
not too concerned about that.

I have emailed this author who believes Paul is against
the constitutional amendment but doesn't prove his point.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance127.html
An Open Letter to the Protestant Community in Behalf of Ron Paul

Most libertarians who have been working for him,
getting signatures and even changing parties to vote for him in
primaries don't see this as a big issue. (Maybe because in their
souls they know the powers that be won't allow him to win.)
I myself went to a Halloween fund raiser, but volunteered time for set
up, and
not money. I also did a fun video of the party.
http://youtube.com/carolmoore

-------- Original Message --------
Subject:  [LibertyBandwagon] ProChoice libertarians just can't support
Ron Paul
Date:  Mon, 26 Nov 2007 20:20:54 -0000
From:  Ron <ron_l_boozell@...>
Reply-To:  LibertyBandwagon@yahoogroups.com
To:  LibertyBandwagon@yahoogroups.com


Body-Ownership and Choice is not important to ronpaulicans:
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=ron_pauls_abortion_rhetoric
<http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=ron_pauls_abortion_rhetoric>

Ron Paul's Abortion Rhetoric

Does Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul's strong language about
abolishing a woman's right to choose put him at odds with the
Libertarian party?


Steven White | August 20, 2007 | web only



In 1981 a Republican congressman declared
<http://www.l4l.org/library/bepro-rp.html>:

     Abortion on demand is the ultimate State tyranny; the State simply
     declares that certain classes of human beings are not persons, and
     therefore not entitled to the protection of the law. The State
     protects the "right" of some people to kill others, just as the
     courts protected the "property rights" of slave masters in their
     slaves. Moreover, by this method the State achieves a goal common to
     all totalitarian regimes: it sets us against each other, so that our
     energies are spent in the struggle between State-created classes,
     rather than in freeing all individuals from the State. Unlike Nazi
     Germany, which forcibly sent millions to the gas chambers (as well
     as forcing abortion and sterilization upon many more), the new
     regime has enlisted the assistance of millions of people to act as
     its agents in carrying out a program of mass murder.

The name of the congressman? Ron Paul. Yes, /that/ Ron Paul, the
long-shot GOP candidate for president running on a platform of pulling
out of Iraq and slashing government spending. In 1981, he went on to
argue, "Pro-life libertarians have a vital task to perform: to persuade
the many abortion-supporting libertarians of the contradiction between
abortion and individual liberty; and, to sever the mistaken connection
in many minds between individual freedom and the 'right' to extinguish
individual life."

Lest you think it's just a minor issue for him, consider the obscure
fact that Paul has written not one but two books arguing for the
necessity of a pro-life libertarianism: 1983's /Abortion and Liberty/
and 1990's /Challenge to Liberty: Coming to Grips with the Abortion
Issue/. And lest you think he has since changed his views on abortion,
ponder what he's saying now. On June 4, 2003, speaking in the House of
Representatives, Paul described
<http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul100.html> "the rights of unborn
people” as “the greatest moral issue of our time."

Other such quotes aren't hard to find. On March 29, 2005
<http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul240.html>: " I believe beyond a
doubt that a fetus is a human life deserving of legal protection, and
that the right to life is the foundation of any moral society." Jan. 31,
2006 <http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul301.html>: "The federalization
of abortion law is based not on constitutional principles, but rather on
a social and political construct created out of thin air by the /Roe/
court." On that note, he has referred
<http://www.covenantnews.com/ronpaul070721.htm> to a "federal court
tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the
deaths of 45 million of the unborn." Just before the Ames straw poll, he
came out with an Iowa ad
<http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/aug/09/paul_launch\
es_second_iowa_ad_focussing_on_abortion>
touting his pro-life credentials, although in slightly more subdued
terms: "I find it difficult not to defend a life a minute before birth
just as I would defend that life a minute after birth. To me, it's
recognizing the importance of life."

And for Paul, that's a deeply personal concern. His prior job as a
doctor -- he has delivered over 4,000 babies -- plays an important role.
In his /New York Times Magazine/ profile
<http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/22/magazine/22Paul-t.html?pagewanted=3&ei=5070&e\
n=a01dcc346d8572e4&ex=1186286400>
of Paul, Christopher Caldwell writes: "He remembers seeing a late
abortion performed during his residency, years before /Roe v. Wade/, and
he maintains it left an impression on him. 'It was pretty dramatic for
me,' he says, 'to see a two-and-a-half-pound baby taken out crying and
breathing and put in a bucket.'"

Apparently it was dramatic enough to cause Paul to author H.R. 1094
<http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1094>, a bill that
declares that "human life shall be deemed to exist from conception," a
standard Christian Right viewpoint. While Paul has written
<http://www.covenantnews.com/ronpaul070721.htm>, "I have never been one
who is comfortable talking about my faith in the political arena," this
faith, in conjunction with his traumatic residency experience, seems to
have left him deeply troubled by abortion in a way organizations like
Focus on the Family would no doubt find familiar. "Many talk about being
pro-life," Paul continued. "I have taken and will continue to advocate
direct action to restore protection for the unborn."

But how to do this? Paul is also a fervent federalist, which puts him
somewhat at odds with the über-pro-life movement that wants to abolish
abortion rights nationwide. "I think we ought to return the issue to the
states so that local opinions could better determine the specific
regulations concerning this deeply personal issue," Paul said
<http://www.muckrakerreport.com/id447.html> in an interview earlier this
year. He previously argued
<http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul240.html> that this is necessary to
create "a pro-life culture," because federalization "has prevented the
50 states from enacting laws that more closely reflect the views of
their citizens." Accepting this, he explained, means "we lost the
ability to apply local community standards to ethical issues." On Nov.
17, 2005, he introduced H.R. 4379, the We the People Act
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_the_People_Act>, which would remove
contested cultural issues like abortion from the jurisdiction of federal
courts. On Feb. 6, 2006, the bill was referred to the Subcommittee on
Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property. The congressional
session ended without any further action.

Perhaps in part because of his stance on abortion, Paul has been
referred <http://www.affbrainwash.com/archives/022336.php> to as a
"selective libertarian." The Libertarian party's platform -- Paul was
their 1988 candidate for president -- declares
<http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml#reprodright>, "Recognizing
that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith
views on both sides, we believe that government should be kept out of
the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious
consideration." Kept out of the matter entirely? Sounds more pro-choice
than a lot of Democrats and certainly out of step with Paul's professed
views on the issue.

But maybe not. Not all government is created equal, it turns out. Shane
Corey, executive director of the Libertarian National Committee, said in
a phone interview, "Pro-life libertarians -- I'm one of them --
understand and feel that children in the womb should have the same
rights and liberties that we enjoy." Pro-life and pro-choice
libertarians ,Corey continued, agree that "it's not an issue for the
federal government to address." The Libertarian party's official
position is support of repealing /Roe v. Wade/ and leaving abortion
"remanded to the states." Paul's view, it happens, is pretty much the
party line: It's okay to restrict abortion at the state level, just not
the federal one. Respect for the rights of state government trumps the
rights of women.

Ron Paul's staunch opposition to the Iraq War has won him surprising
accolades from parts of the left frustrated with the Democratic party's
resistance to removing the U.S. presence from Iraq. But even Paul's
anti-war views aren't liberal. They're just old-fashioned isolationism.
And when it comes to reproductive rights, sometimes it's hard to
distinguish him from the broader Republican party he claims to fight so
hard against. He may want to let states decide morality, but what
happens when states decide to tell women they can't make their own
decisions with their doctors? Just last year, South Dakota started down
that path. Liberals were rightfully outraged, because they understand
certain rights are too important to be subject to popular vote. But for
Paul, if anti-choice conservatives in South Dakota had succeeded, it
would have been considered a victory: one step toward creating a
pro-life nation, not from the top down, but one community at a time.

FYI -- While Ron Paul is great on the noninterventionist front,
he's using this campaign to blah blah against abortion.  Of course,
when he was the LP Presidential candidate in 1988 we wouldn't let him
get away with it.  That's when we founded Pro-choice Libs!!
  From Libertarians4Life's:     dorisgordon <dorisgordon@...>

I think Ron Paul's campaign for President has gotten publicity, directly
or indirectly, for the "Libertarian/libertarian" brand.

After the Republican Candidates Debate on the Fox News channel,
Congressman Ron Paul was interviewed on the Hannity and Colmes program.
During the interview, Alan Colmes asked Dr. Paul questions on
abortion.   This URL links to a video of the interview:
http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Find-Freedom.htm?At=018778

Here is a transcription of the Q&A between Colmes and Dr. Paul.

=======begin transcript =======

Colmes to Dr. Paul: You ran as the Libertarian Party candidate in 1988
yet you call yourself Pro-Life. Where in the Constitution does it say,
for example, that you can make laws restricting a woman's right to
choose. If you want to be a Constitutionalist, shouldn't the Government
stay totally out of the abortion issue?

Dr. Paul: Well I think that the Federal Government should.

Colmes to Dr. Paul: What about the State?

Dr. Paul: It's up to the State government because the State governments
-- we don't dictate to the States - and protection of life is one of the
important issues of government. If you can't protect life, how can you
protect liberty?

Colmes to Paul: But most Libertarians, and you lean Libertarian would
say the women should have a right to choose, the government, even state
government, should stay out of it - you should not restrict a person's
right to make that choice. That's what most Libertarians would say.

Dr. Paul: All Libertarians believe that you should never use force to
bring about changes - they reject an act of aggression. A fetus is
alive. It's human. It has legal rights. If you kill it you have
committed an act of aggression.

===== end of transcript =======

Doris Gordon, Libertarians for Life
See LFL's Web site www.L4L.org
for philosophical and scientific
arguments on life issues.


---------------------------
Carol Moore in DC
http://carolmoore.net/
http://carolmoorereport.blogspot.com/
http://youtube.com/carolmoore
http://secession.net
http://stopthewarnow.net
http://whatwouldgandhido.net
http://radicalbuttons.com

It's that and a few other issues. Entry before Today's Yeltsin

http://carolmoorereport.blogspot.com/


Also note that I added pro-choice libertarians to the LP Wiki page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Party_%28United_States%29
under Libertarian Identity section.

--
Carol Moore in DC
http://carolmoore.net/

http://secession.net
http://stopthewarnow.net
http://whatwouldgandhido.net
http://radicalbuttons.com

NOTE FROM MODERATOR:
   I don't know if this is an anti-abortionist playing
a fast one or not, but the website does show how
the antis are trying to make outlawing abortion cool
to the hip young crowd.  Who of course will run to
an abortionist anyway should THEY get pregnant...
Carol in dc

Pumpkin wrote:

go to this website and click on the forum section :

www.deathroe.com

it is a prolife website where prochoice people need to debate with the
others who have already joined

http://RADICALBUTTONS.COM/liberty.html
Has some great buttons for 2006 AND 2008 elections :
Various "Vote Libertarian" options, "No Boortz 2008" and
Badnarik and Kubby 2008 Prez. buttons.**

Plus DISCOUNTS ON CUSTOM MADE BUTTONS FOR
CANDIDATES (as long as you are firmly anti-interventonist)
Good if you just need a couple dozen or want to try out a few
options before making a big order with someone cheaper.

OTHER BUTTONS CATEGORIES INCLUDE:
Vs-Bush | Vs-Right | Vs-Politics | Secession | Vs-War/Draft |
Pro-Peace | Peace Signs | Gandhi | MidEast | Nuclear War |
War Taxes | Spiritual | Economics | Feminist | Vs-Bigotry | Legalize

My CAFEPRESS.COM pages ALSO linked there, including
RADICALSTUFF, DONTBOMBIRAN and ISRAELLOBBY
(yes, you CAN buy the FIGHT THE ISRAEL LOBBY t-shirt there!)

CAROLMOOREREPORT.BLOGSPOT.COM
(http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/carolmoore-announce for updates)
I'm posting my adventures and opinions a couple times a week. Often
recorded for your enjoyment at my YouTube page
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=carolmoore
Recent entries include:

     * Camp Democracy: Shall It Abolish This Government?
      
<http://carolmoorereport.blogspot.com/2006/09/camp-democracy-shall-it-abolish-th\
is.html>
     * Take that, Washington Posties!
      
<http://carolmoorereport.blogspot.com/2006/08/take-that-washington-posties.html>
     * WashPost Freaks at "Fight the Israel Lobby"
      
<http://carolmoorereport.blogspot.com/2006/08/washpost-freaks-at-fight-israel-lo\
bby.html>
     * Constantly Scanning for NEXT War
      
<http://carolmoorereport.blogspot.com/2006/08/constantly-scanning-for-next-war.h\
tml>
     * Congress Hosts, CSPAN carried Our Nuke War Forum
      
<http://carolmoorereport.blogspot.com/2006/08/congress-hosts-cspan-carried-our-n\
uke.html>
     * July 31st Protest/Civil Disobedience at State Department
      
<http://carolmoorereport.blogspot.com/2006/08/july-31st-protestcivil-disobedienc\
e-at.html>
     * Another War Lie? Israeli Commandos Captured in Lebanon?
      
<http://carolmoorereport.blogspot.com/2006/07/another-war-lie-israeli-commandos.\
html>
     * Despite Heat, Dragging Old Body Out To Protest
      
<http://carolmoorereport.blogspot.com/2006/07/despite-heat-dragging-old-body-out\
-to.html>
     * Jorge Hirsch: Nuke Iran, Blame Jews
      
<http://carolmoorereport.blogspot.com/2006/07/jorge-hirsch-nuke-iran-blame-jews.\
html>
     * July 23 FOX Sunday News Protest
      
<http://carolmoorereport.blogspot.com/2006/07/july-23-fox-sunday-news-protest.ht\
ml>
     * Cafepress.com/israellobby and /dontbombiran
      
<http://carolmoorereport.blogspot.com/2006/07/cafepresscomisraellobby-and.html>


**Note: my selling buttons for 2008 candidates should not be
taken as an endorsement.

I am in agreeance with the Pro Choice everything   how can it be the
decision of someone else to tell me what hobbies i can have  what i
can put in my body etc  that is why i am a Libertarian  because i want
my children to grow up to learn how to make their own decisions and
not have them made for them

Hi all,

I joined the Libertarian Party 20 years ago as a Pro-Choice Activist
in Jacksonville, Florida fighting Jerry Falwell and the Religious
Right.

I'm now a very proud and active libertarian Republican and support
Republicans for Choice!

Good to be here.

Eric Dondero
Houston, Texas

Founder, Republican Liberty Caucus

~~~Some new PRO CHOICE groups, check them out....

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Pro_Choice_in_Maryland

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Pro_Choice_in_Maine

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Pro_Choice_in_Louisiana

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Pro_Choice_in_Kentucky

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Pro_Choice_in_Kansas

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Pro_Choice_in_Iowa

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Pro_Choice_in_Indiana

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Pro_Choice_in_Illinois

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Pro_Choice_in_Idaho

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Pro_Choice_in_Hawaii

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Pro_Choice_in_Florida

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Pro_Choice_in_Delaware

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Pro_Choice_in_Connecticut


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Pro_Choice_in_Colorado

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Pro_Choice_in_Arkansas

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Pro_Choice_in_Arizona

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Pro_Choice_in_Alaska

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Pro_Choice_in_Alabama

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Pro_Choice_in_Georgia


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Pro_Choice_in_Nebraska

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Pro_Choice_in_New_Jersey

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Pro_Choice_in_Montana

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Pro_Choice_in_Missouri

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Pro_Choice_in_Nevada

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Pro_Choice_in_Mississippi

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Pro_Choice_in_Minnesota


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Pro_Choice_in_Michigan

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Pro_Choice_in_Massachusetts

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Pro_Choice_in_New_Hampshire

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Pro_Choice_in_Pennsylvania


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Pro_Choice_in_Oregon

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Pro_Choice_in_Oklahoma

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Pro_Choice_in_Ohio

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Pro_Choice_in_North_Dakota


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Pro_Choice_in_North_Carolina


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Pro_Choice_in_New_York

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Pro_Choice_in_New_Mexico



http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Pro_Choice_in_Washington

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Pro_Choice_in_Virginia

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Pro_Choice_in_Vermont

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Pro_Choice_in_Utah

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Pro_Choice_in_Texas

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Pro_Choice_in_Tennessee

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Pro_Choice_in_South_Dakota


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Pro_Choice_in_South_Carolina

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Pro_Choice_in_California

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Pro_Choice_in_West_Virgina

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Pro_Choice_World_Wide

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Pro_Choice_in_Australia

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Pro_Choice_in_Europe

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Pro_Choice_in_Canada

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Pro_Choice_in_Africa

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Pro_Choice_in_Asia

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Pro_Choice_in_Wyoming

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Pro_Choice_in_South_America

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Pro_Choice_in_Central_America

http://www.pro-choicelibertarians.net/

Was playing around with FTP folders and briefly it wouldn't show.  Not
sure now if showing just in cache or working fine.

Please tell me if you can NOT see it, get an error message, etc.

I was thinking of doing a Libertarians Pro-choice on Everything T-shirt
as a separate cafepress page but then noticed
http://www.cafepress.com/libertyrocks/378777 is carrying a similar one.

Will think about it.

Meanwhile if you want to help me pay for this year's $30 odd dollars of
fees for my several pro-choicelibertarians URLS please feel free to
**Buy buttons at http://radicalbuttons.com
**Buy libertarian and peace tshirts, mugs etc at
http://cafepress.com/radicalstuff
**Contribute through PayPal -- it takes credit cards -- see link near
bottom of  http://www.pro-choicelibertarians.net/

Thanks. Carol

http://stopthewarnow.net

Now a stop iran war page... please check out the very detailed content

Stopthewarnow.com was used by national LP in 1999 vs. Clinton's bombing
of serbia but not used since then since we now have WARMONGERS trying to
take over the party and discouraging such silliness.  (The latest LNC
stuff is out of control.)  Some peace group or other owned
stopthewarnow.org which now re-directs to .net

Also, just transfering everything to a new host with lots of space where
can host 20 different URLs with real domains, not just forwarding which
makes it more difficult to find in search engines and to create separate
pages.  So will finally be putting up new LIBS4PEACE page soon to
continue fighting the neocon-libertarian pro-war crowd.  Have already
done http://pro-choicelibertarians.net and it's much better than before
and getting more hits.

CM

Hey, all,

Reading Requiem For America On Line
http://www.rense.com/general51/req.htm (http://www.rense.com/general51/req.htm)
was the final nail in the coffin for me concerning my desire to finally
get out from underneath AOL's cute little underhanded privacy violating
ways.  This government is out of control enough without help from big
corporations like these.  This is my individual part to stop the fascism.

Needless to say, I urge you all to follow me out and share this with
your family and friends.

My new Email address is voteliberty@...
mailto:voteliberty@....

Thanks for your attention.

Frank Gonzalez
Miami, FL
voteliberty@...

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

This is a new section of the Michael Badnarik section of the web page.
http://pro-choicelibertarians.net

MICHAL BADNARIK STATEMENTS IN SEVERAL NEWS  INTERVIEWS
      During the campaign LP 2004 Presidential Candidate Michael Badnarik
repeatedly has claimed that despite the Pro-Choice Platform the party is
"evenly divided" on "abortion rights" -- i.e., whether abortion should
be outlawed. Even when he only talks about whose "property rights" are
more important, he infers the divide is over whether abortion should be
legal. This is plainly a false inference since most libertarians, even
those who describe themselves as "pro-life" do not want to outlaw
abortion.  Obviously Badnarik did not state this exception to the
platform when he promised libertarians the LP platform would be HIS
campaign platform. Several excerpts from interviews illustrate this.

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39432
<http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39432>

WEDNESDAY, JULY 14 2004
Libertarians unite to elect Badnarik
Presidential candidate to take advantage of disenchanted voters
Posted: July 14, 2004
By Ron Strom
....
Split on abortion
     Badnarik explained the Libertarian Party, like the general
population, is split on the issue of abortion.
     "The official Libertarian Party is pro-choice with the understanding
the woman owns her own body," he explained. "However, many Libertarians
believe the baby owns its own body. We can't come up with a consensus on
when the baby takes ownership of his own body. "It's a question of
property rights and who owns the property of this developing baby."
     Badnarik says he personally is pro-life: "Until we can come to a
better consensus, I tend to err in favor of the baby." He stressed,
however, that his view is at odds with the official party platform.....
++++++++++++++++
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/1005badnarik04.html
Michael Badnarik, Libertarian for president
Oct. 4, 2004 12:00 AM
     Editor's note: Michael Badnarik, the Libertarian Party's nominee for
president, met recently with The Republic's Editorial Board. Following
are excerpts from that conversation:
........
     How does that philosophy extend to social issues such as abortion?

     The Libertarian platform is that you own your own body. If you don't
own your body, that means someone else does and you're a slave. It's not
the government's job to tell (a woman) what she can do with her body. So
our official platform plank is pro-choice. . . .
     Forty-nine percent of our members believe that the baby also owns
its body. It has to, at some time. It certainly owns its body after
birth and there are certainly logically explanations why the baby would
take ownership before birth. And that is literally the question that
needs to be answered. When does the baby take ownership of the body? . . .
+++++++++++
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/24/politics/campaign/24points.html?ex=1099637586&\
ei=1&en=9f8866dba9a4df92
<http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/24/politics/campaign/24points.html?ex=1099637586\
&ei=1&en=9f8866dba9a4df92>
Political Points: Secret Weapon for Bush?
October 24, 2004
By JOHN TIERNEY
.....The only issue he ducked was abortion. Although the Libertarian
platform supports abortion rights, he said, the party is almost evenly
divided on the question. "It's not a religious issue," Mr. Badnarik
explained. "It's a property-rights issue: at what point does the baby
take ownership of its own body? I do not have a clear-cut answer."
+++++++++++
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-libertarian29oct29,1,42922.\
story
2004 ELECTIONS
It Takes a Strong Constitution to Run as a Libertarian
Michael Badnarik has no chance of winning, but he just might siphon key
votes from Bush.
By Susannah Rosenblatt, Times Staff Writer
October 29, 2004
........ Abortion is a stickier question among Libertarians, and
Badnarik describes the party as split on the issue....

Dear Frank Gonzalez supporters,

We're sorry for the delay in sending out this, our final contact concerning
the 2004 election.  There were many emotions we had to work through and
decisions to make before collecting our thoughts and writing this to you now. 
If you
have not already seen the phenomenal results of our efforts and what the
future holds, please read about it all by visiting our website one more time. 
You
can click on or cut and paste this link:
http://www.politicalgateway.com/cand.php?id=40&page=cand or you can just read it
below.

Thank you all!

The Gonzalez for Congress Campaign


***You must have HTML enabled to clearly see the message below.  Otherwise,
click on or cut and paste the link above.***
Frank J. Gonzalez, champion of fiscal discipline & social tolerance, the only
challenger ever to oppose Lincoln Diaz-Balart during a presidential election
year, loses.
Dear Frank Gonzalez supporters, we're sorry for the delay in communicating
with you, but we had some issues to discuss before we gave you one final message
now that the election is over.
Below this message you can see the election results as well as the comparison
to the only other prior District 21 election and the impressive list of
acknowledgments of people who made this race possible.
Considering who we are, who we were up against, and how we fought, this was a
fantastic and memorable result.  Words cannot adequately express our
gratitude for everybody who supported a Libertarian in this manner.  Frank's
results
were the highest for any Libertarian candidate across the entire country in
2004!
Now that we have a real campaign's-worth of experience under our belt, we are
happy to report that Frank has decided to run again in 2006.  Whether he will
run as a Libertarian or as a Democrat will depend on your opinions.  Given
our substantial similarities, as well as some practical considerations, it's
debatable.  He hopes you will give him feedback on solidifying the details of
this decision.
If you decide to be a part of this campaign, let us know as soon as you are
able.  Step 1will begin in earnest as soon as December of 2005.  Frank will
need 10 reliable volunteers, each in charge of collecting 10% of the 4,000 total
signatures from registered voters in District 21 required to qualify on the
ballot.
Once again, thank you for caring enough to read our final thoughts.
Please spread the news: We will be back!
The Gonzalez for Congress Campaign

1st SET OF UNOFFICIAL RETURNS
(pursuant to s. 102.141, F.S.)
Last Update: 11/4/2004 6:35 PM

United States Representative
District: 021
County%
ReportingLincoln Diaz-Balart
(REP)Frank Gonzalez
(LIB)
Broward100.0%23,37613,458
Miami-Dade100.0%122,39640,832
Total 145,77254,290
Percent100.0%72.9%27.1%

As of October 4, 2004, there were 301,407 registered voters in District 21,
combining statistics from both Broward County and Miami-Dade County.
101,249 Democrats make up 33.59%
131,433 Republicans make up 43.61%
68,725 "Others" make up a surprising 22.80%
  This was the highest participation rate ever in District 21.
Year1998 (off-year)2004 (Presidential)
Candidate name:Patrick CusackFrank Gonzalez
Party affiliation:DemocratLibertarian
Voter participation:45.87%66.38%
Votes received:28,37854,290
Percentage:24.13%27.14%


Frank's list of acknowledgments:

My late grandfather Pancho for having his own style without caring what
others thought.
The rest of my family for eventually taking me seriously and supporting me.
Stacey for helping me stamp each of the 3,412 petition cards that helped me
qualify and coming with me to all the events that sometimes seemed pointless
for lack of attendance by the public itself.
To the 3,412 people who signed my petition.
To the 54,290 people who voted for me.
Patrick for contributing his marketing service that yielded newspaper and TV
ads.
Jay and David for contributing their video expertise that yielded some TV
commercials.
Brian for contributing his accounting expertise that solved my paperwork
headaches.
Patricia, a Democrat, for coming out of nowhere and becoming my volunteer
coordinator as well as a very helpful contributor of time, money and effort.
Jeffrey for being willing to contribute his legal expertise if it was needed.
The dark horse who connected me with much needed media outlets.
Jed (Democrat), Mike, Charles, Anthony & Elaine (Democrat) for consistently
showing up.
Everyone who had the nerve to put my yard sign in their lawn despite having
some of them knocked down by cowards under cover of night.
David & Ronnie for registering to vote for the first time ever in their 60+
years as a result of finally having something to believe in.
Matt who tried his hand at petitioning and also contributed before moving
away.
Nick & Susan for motivating their team two counties away for a fundraiser.
Bob Hoffman for contributing the website service that has helped so many
others.
The many Democrats who broke rank to vote for me and who were friendly enough
to spread the message about my race as well as could be expected considering
that I did not run as a Democrat.
The many truly helpful Libertarians across the country who contributed a
combined total of tens of thousands of dollars which I used to buy bumper
stickers, yard signs and everyday supplies.
The far fewer Republicans who broke rank and realize that change is necessary
and badly needed.
The organizations who stepped forward to endorse me over my opponent.
Thank you all!


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

That was quick! And yes it definitely was NOT there before...I took a
photo yesterday that shows it missing...
-------- Original Message --------
Subject:  Re: [pro-choicelibertarians] "Libertarians for Life" Site
Date:  Fri, 29 Oct 2004 21:55:46 -1000
From:  Pablo Cruz Wegesend <pwegesen@...>
To:  news@...


I checked Badnarik's site and it has a link to Pro-choice Libertarians!

Good job Carol Moore!

Pablo Wegesend

----- Original Message -----
From: Carol Moore in dc <news@...>
Date: Friday, October 29, 2004 9:31 am
Subject: [pro-choicelibertarians] "Libertarians for Life" Site

>
> <span><p><span><p>
>
>
> <tt>
> For Comparision http://www.l4l.org/
>
>
>
> I think Tom's problem is the content.
>
>
>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

For Comparision http://www.l4l.org/

I think Tom's problem is the content.

Though I suppose we could always exactly COPY the format of Libertarians
(to OutLaw Abortion) :-)




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Thomas Knapp of the Badnarik Campaign (someone who wants abortion
outlawed) wrote:

>Carol,
>
>If you can point us to a well-presented, coherent pro-choice
>libertarian site, I'm sure Badnarik's web team will be glad to put a
>link up to it. However, we do have a policy of not linking to sites
>which are not well-designed and/or don't cogently express a
>libertarian view on an issue.
>
>Your sites generally (and your pro-choice libertarians site
>specifically) look like hell and read like James Joyce on PCP.
>
>Regards,
>Tom Knapp
>
>On Friday 29 October 2004 01:43 pm, you wrote:
>
>
>>Note that at http://www.badnarik.org/supporters/blog the outlaw
>>abortion group "libertarians for Life" is listed, but Pro-Choice
>>Libertarians is not. (These links are NOT a list of supporters or
>>endorsers, but of various libertarian groups.)
>>
>>See http://pro-choicelibertarians.net for letters from the campaign
>>that prove Badnarik and his campaign staff are well aware that we
>>exist.
>>
>>It's not too late for the campaign to ad a link to our web page and
>>to placate the 80% of libertarians who would NOT outlaw abortion.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Note that at http://www.badnarik.org/supporters/blog the outlaw abortion
group "libertarians for Life" is listed, but Pro-Choice Libertarians is
not. (These links are NOT a list of supporters or endorsers, but of
various libertarian groups.)

See http://pro-choicelibertarians.net for letters from the campaign that
prove Badnarik and his campaign staff are well aware that we exist.

It's not too late for the campaign to ad a link to our web page and to
placate the 80% of libertarians who would NOT outlaw abortion.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

The problem, of course, is Badnarik's lie that the party is evenly
divided on abortion.  It  isn't.  Abortion prohibitionists remain a
small minority. CM

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/24/politics/campaign/24points.html?ex=1099637586&\
ei=1&en=9f8866dba9a4df92

Political Points: Secret Weapon for Bush?

October 24, 2004
   By JOHN TIERNEY

............

A Nader Nibble From the Right

The commercial made its
national debut on Thursday on the Fox News Channel, aimed
directly at Mr. Bush's Republican base. It starts with a
middle-aged man disgustedly dropping his Wall Street
Journal on the kitchen table. "What kind of conservative
runs half-trillion-a-year deficits? Gets us into an
unwinnable war?" he asks his wife, but adds helplessly, "I
can't vote for Kerry."

"Then don't," she says, cheerily suggesting an alternative
who is not quite yet a household name: Michael Badnarik, a
computer consultant from Austin, Tex.

Mr. Badnarik is the presidential candidate of the
Libertarian Party, which says he could "Naderize" Mr. Bush.
A recent Zogby/Reuters national poll showed him tied with
Ralph Nader at one percentage point each - not much, but
possibly critical. Unlike Mr. Nader, Mr. Badnarik is on the
ballot of every battleground state except New Hampshire.

"If we have a rerun of Florida 2000 in Pennsylvania,
Michael Badnarik could be the kingmaker by drawing
independent and Republican votes from Bush," said Larry
Jacobs, director of the 2004 Election Project at the
Humphrey Institute of the University of Minnesota, which
has been tracking third-party candidates.

Mr. Badnarik, reached by telephone on Thursday while
campaigning in Michigan, said that polls commissioned by
his campaign showed him at 2 percent in Wisconsin, 3
percent in Nevada and 5 percent in New Mexico.

He dispatched quickly with most of the major campaign
issues. Foreign policy? "I would be bringing our troops
home from Iraq and 135 other countries." Taxes? "I would
eliminate the I.R.S. completely." Health care? "Of all the
things I want the government out of, health care is
probably the first thing."

The only issue he ducked was abortion. Although the
Libertarian platform supports abortion rights, he said, the
party is almost evenly divided on the question. "It's not a
religious issue," Mr. Badnarik explained. "It's a
property-rights issue: at what point does the baby take
ownership of its own body? I do not have a clear-cut
answer."

So, like me, you are finally going to get out and distribute LP
candidate literature at the polls Nov 2nd.

And do you have your Vote Libertarian 2004 or Badnarik button to wear?

If not ORDER TODAY - and definitely by Tuesday Oct 26th - to get them in
time for election day.

Bulk discounts available.

http://radicalbuttons.com/campaign2004.html

All proceeds from these button sales will go to
http://libertarians4peace.net
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/libs4peace
+++++++++++

Join the 80 concerned peaceniks at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopiranwar/

I don't know where this came from but obviously this is the problem with
govt authority over health matters!!


President Bush has announced his plan to select Dr. W. David Hager to
head up the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Reproductive Health Drugs
Advisory Committee. The committee has not met for more than two years,
during which time its charter lapsed. As a result, the Bush Administration
is tasked with filling all eleven positions with new members. This position
does not require Congressional
approval. The FDA's Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee makes
crucial decisions on matters relating to drugs used in the practice of
obstetrics, gynecology and related specialties, including hormone
therapy, contraception, treatment for infertility, and medical alternatives
to
surgical procedures for sterilization and pregnancy termination.
Dr. Hager is the author of "As Jesus Cared for Women: Restoring Women Then
and Now." The book blends biblical accounts of Christ healing women with
case studies from Hager's practice. His views of reproductive health care
are far outside the mainstream for reproductive technology. Dr. Hager is a
practicing OB/GYN who describes himself as "pro-life" and refuses to
prescribe contraceptives to unmarried women. In the book Dr. Hager wrote
with his wife, entitled "Stress and the Woman's Body," he suggests that
women who suffer from premenstrual syndrome should seek help from reading
the bible and praying. As an editor and contributing author of "The
Reproduction Revolution: A Christian Appraisal of Sexuality, Reproductive
Technologies and the Family," Dr. Hager appears to have endorsed the
medically inaccurate assertion that the common birth control pill is an
abortifacient.

We are concerned that Dr. Hager's strong religious beliefs may color his
assessment of technologies that are necessary to protect women's lives or to
preserve and promote women's health. Hager's track record of using religious
beliefs to guide his medical decision-making makes him a dangerous and
inappropriate candidate to serve as chair of this committee. Critical drug
public policy and research must not be held hostage by antiabortion
politics. Members of this important panel should be appointed on the basis
of science and medicine, rather than politics and religion. American women
deserve no less.

There is something you can do. Below is a letter to be sent to the
White House, opposing the placement of Hager. Please copy all the text of
this email and paste it into a fresh email; then
FORWARD THIS TO EVERY PERSON YOU KNOW WHO IS CONCERNED ABOUT WOMEN'S
RIGHTS.
Also cut, paste, and forward this e-mail to
president@...
I oppose the appointment of Dr. W. David Hager to the FDA Reproductive
Health Drugs Advisory Committee. Mixing religion and medicine is
unacceptable in a policy-making
position. Using the FDA to promote a political agenda is inappropriate and
seriously threatens women's health. Members of this important panel
should be
appointed on the basis of science and medicine, rather than politics and
religion. American women deserve no less.

[[What happens when doctors won't remove a dead fetus]]

      > Between a Woman and Her Doctor
      > A Story About Abortion You Will Never Forget
      >
      > by Martha Mendoza
      >
      >
      > I could see my baby's amazing and perfect spine, a
      > precise, pebbled curl of vertebrae. His little round
      > skull. The curve of his nose. I could even see his small
      > leg floating slowly through my uterus.
      >
      > My doctor came in a moment later, slid the ultrasound
      > sensor around my growing, round belly and put her hand
      > on my shoulder. 'It's not alive,' she said.
      >
      > She turned her back to me and started taking notes. I
      > looked at the wall, breathing deeply, trying not to cry.
      >
      > I can make it through this, I thought. I can handle
      > this.
      >
      > I didn't know I was about to become a pariah.
      >
      > I was 19 weeks pregnant, strong, fit and happy,
      > imagining our fourth child, the newest member of our
      > family. He would have dark hair and bright eyes. He'd be
      > intelligent and strong - really strong, judging by his
      > early kicks.
      >
      > And now this. Not alive?
      >
      > I didn't realize that pressures well beyond my uterus,
      > beyond the too bright, too-loud, too-small ultrasound
      > room, extending all the way to boardrooms of hospitals,
      > administrative sessions at medical schools and committee
      > hearings in Congress, were going to deepen and expand my
      > sorrow and pain.
      >
      > * * *
      >
      > On November 6, 2003, President Bush signed what he
      > called a 'partial birth abortion ban,' prohibiting
      > doctors from committing an 'overt act' designed to kill
      > a partially delivered fetus. The law, which faces
      > vigorous challenges, is the most significant change to
      > the nation's abortion laws since the U.S. Supreme Court
      > ruled abortion legal in Roe v. Wade in 1973. One of the
      > unintended consequences of this new law is that it put
      > people in my position, with a fetus that is already
      > dead, in a technical limbo.
      >
      > Legally, a doctor can still surgically take a dead body
      > out of a pregnant woman. But in reality, the years of
      > angry debate that led to the law's passage, restrictive
      > state laws and the violence targeting physicians have
      > reduced the number of hospitals and doctors willing to
      > do dilations and evacuactions (D&Es) and dialations and
      > extractions (intact D&Es), which involve removing a
      > larger fetus, sometimes in pieces, from the womb.
      >
      > At the same time, fewer medical schools are training
      > doctors to do these procedures. After all, why spend
      > time training for a surgery that's likely to be made
      > illegal?
      >
      > At this point, 74 percent of obstetrics and gynecology
      > residency programs do not train all residents in
      > abortion procedures, according to reproductive health
      > researchers at the National Abortion Federation. Those
      > that do usually teach only the more routine dilation and
      > curettage - D&C, the 15-minute uterine scraping used for
      > abortions of fetuses under 13 weeks old.
      >
      > Fewer than 7 percent of obstetricians are trained to do
      > D&Es, the procedure used on fetuses from about 13 to 19
      > weeks. Almost all the doctors doing them are over 50
      > years old.
      >
      > 'Finding a doctor who will do a D&E is getting very
      > tough,' says Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the
      > National Coalition of Abortion Providers.
      >
      > * * *
      >
      > My doctor turned around and faced me. She told me that
      > because dilation and evacuation is rarely offered in my
      > community, I could opt instead to chemically induce
      > labor over several days and then deliver the little body
      > at my local maternity ward. 'It's up to you,' she said.
      >
      > I'd been through labor and delivery three times before,
      > with great joy as well as pain, and the notion of going
      > through that profound experience only to deliver a dead
      > fetus (whose skin was already starting to slough off,
      > whose skull might be collapsing) was horrifying.
      >
      > I also did some research, spoke with friends who were
      > obstetricians and gynecologists, and quickly learned
      > this: Study after study shows D&Es are safer than labor
      > and delivery. Women who had D&Es were far less likely to
      > have bleeding requiring transfusion, infection requiring
      > intravenous antibiotics, organ injuries requiring
      > additional surgery or cervical laceration requiring
      > repair and hospital readmission.
      >
      > A review of 300 second- trimester abortions published in
      > 2002 in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology
      > found that 29 percent of women who went through labor
      > and delivery had complications, compared with just 4
      > percent of those who had D&Es.
      >
      > The American Medical Association said D&Es, compared to
      > labor and delivery, 'may minimize trauma to the woman's
      > uterus, cervix and other vital organs.'
      >
      > There was this fact, too: The intact D&E surgery makes
      > less use of 'grasping instruments,' which could damage
      > the body of the fetus. If the body were intact, doctors
      > might be able to more easily figure out why my baby died
      > in the womb.
      >
      > I'm a healthy person. I run, swim and bike. I'm 37 years
      > old and optimistic. Good things happen to me. I didn't
      > want to rule out having more kids, but I did want to
      > know what went wrong before I tried again.
      >
      > We told our doctor we had chosen a dilation and
      > evacuation.
      >
      > 'I can't do these myself,' said my doctor. 'I trained at
      > a Catholic hospital.'
      >
      > My doctor recommended a specialist in a neighboring
      > county, but when I called for an appointment, they said
      > they couldn't see me for almost a week.
      >
      > I could feel my baby's dead body inside of mine. This
      > baby had thrilled me with kicks and flutters, those
      > first soft tickles of life bringing a smile to my face
      > and my hand to my rounding belly. Now this baby floated,
      > limp and heavy, from one side to the other, as I rolled
      > in my bed.
      >
      > And within a day, I started to bleed. My body, with or
      > without a doctor's help, was starting to expel the
      > fetus. Technically, I was threatening a spontaneous
      > abortion, the least safe of the available options.
      >
      > I did what any pregnant patient would do. I called my
      > doctor. And she advised me to wait.
      >
      > I lay in my bed, not sleeping day or night, trying not
      > to lose this little baby's body that my own womb was
      > working to expel. Wait, I told myself. Just hold on. Let
      > a doctor take this out.
      >
      > I was scared. Was it going to fall out of my body when I
      > rose, in the middle of the night, to check on my
      > toddler? Would it come apart on its own and double me
      > over, knock me to the floor, as I stood at the stove
      > scrambling eggs for my boys?
      >
      > On my fourth morning, with the bleeding and cramping
      > increasing, I couldn't wait any more. I called my doctor
      > and was told that since I wasn't hemorrhaging, I should
      > not come in. Her partner, on call, pedantically
      > explained that women can safely lose a lot of blood,
      > even during a routine period.
      >
      > I began calling labor and delivery units at the top five
      > medical centers in my area. I told them I had been 19
      > weeks along. The baby is dead. I'm bleeding, I said. I'm
      > scheduled for a D&E in a few days. If I come in right
      > now, what could you do for me, I asked.
      >
      > Don't come in, they told me again and again. 'Go to your
      > emergency room if you are hemorrhaging to avoid bleeding
      > to death. No one here can do a D&E today, and unless
      > you're really in active labor you're safer to wait.'
      >
      > * * *
      >
      > More than 66,000 women each year in the U.S. undergo an
      > abortion at some point between 13 and 20 weeks,
      > according to the Centers for Disease Control and
      > Prevention.
      >
      > The CDC doesn't specify the physical circumstances of
      > the women or their fetuses. Other CDC data shows that
      > 4,000 women miscarry in their second trimester. Again,
      > the data doesn't clarify whether those 4,000 women have
      > to go through surgery.
      >
      > Here's what is clear: Most of those women face
      > increasingly limited access to care. One survey showed
      > that half of the women who got abortions after 15 weeks
      > of gestation said they were delayed because of problems
      > in affording, finding or getting to abortion services.
      >
      > No surprise there; abortion is not readily available in
      > 86 percent of the counties in the U.S.
      >
      > Although there are some new, early diagnostic tests
      > available, the most common prenatal screening for neural
      > tube defects or Down syndrome is done around the 16th
      > week of pregnancy. When problems are found - sometimes
      > life-threatening problems - pregnant women face the same
      > limited options that I did.
      >
      > * * *
      >
      > At last I found one university teaching hospital that,
      > at least over the telephone, was willing to take me.
      >
      > 'We do have one doctor who can do a D&E,' they said.
      > 'Come in to our emergency room if you want.'
      >
      > But when I arrived at the university's emergency room,
      > the source of the tension was clear. After examining me
      > and confirming I was bleeding but not hemorrhaging, the
      > attending obstetrician, obviously pregnant herself,
      > defensively explained that only one of their dozens of
      > obstetricians and gynecologists still does D&Es, and he
      > was simply not available.
      >
      > Not today. Not tomorrow. Not the next day.
      >
      > No, I couldn't have his name. She walked away from me
      > and called my doctor.
      >
      > 'You can't just dump these patients on us,' she shouted
      > into the phone, her high-pitched voice floating through
      > the heavy curtains surrounding my bed. 'You should be
      > dealing with this yourself.'
      >
      > Shivering on the narrow, white exam table, I wondered
      > what I had done wrong. Then I pulled back on my loose
      > maternity pants and stumbled into the sunny parking lot,
      > blinking back tears in the dazzling spring day, trying
      > to understand the directions they sent me out with: Find
      > a hotel within a few blocks from a hospital. Rest,
      > monitor the bleeding. Don't go home - the 45-minute
      > drive might be too far.
      >
      > The next few days were a blur of lumpy motel beds,
      > telephone calls to doctors, cramps. The pre-examination
      > for my D&E finally arrived. First, the hospital required
      > me to sign a legal form consenting to terminate the
      > pregnancy. Then they explained I could, at no cost, have
      > the remains incinerated by the hospital pathology
      > department as medical waste, or for a fee have them
      > taken to a funeral home for burial or cremation.
      >
      > They inserted sticks of seaweed into my cervix and told
      > me to go home for the night. A few hours later - when
      > the contractions were regular, strong and frequent - I
      > knew we needed to get to the hospital. 'The patient
      > appeared to be in active labor,' say my charts, 'and I
      > explained this to the patient and offered her pain
      > medication for vaginal delivery.'
      >
      > According to the charts, I was 'adamant' in demanding a
      > D&E. I remember that I definitely wanted the surgical
      > procedure that was the safest option. One hour later,
      > just as an anesthesiologist was slipping me into
      > unconsciousness, I had the D&E and a little body, my
      > little boy, slipped out.
      >
      > Around his neck, three times and very tight, was the
      > umbilical cord, source of his life, cause of his death.
      >
      > * * *
      >
      > This past spring, as the wild flowers started blooming
      > around the simple cross we built for this baby, the
      > Justice Department began trying to enforce the Bush
      > administration's ban and federal courts in three
      > different cities heard arguments regarding the new law.
      >
      > Doctors explained that D&Es are the safest procedure in
      > many cases, and that the law is particularly cruel to
      > mothers like me whose babies were already dead.
      >
      > In hopes of bolstering their case, prosecutors sent
      > federal subpoenas to various medical centers, asking for
      > records of D&Es. There's an attorney somewhere, someday,
      > who may poke through the files of my loss.
      >
      > I didn't watch the trial because I had another
      > appointment to keep - another ultrasound. Lying on the
      > crisp white paper, watching the monitor, I saw new life,
      > the incredible spine, tiny fingers waving slowly across
      > my uterus, a perfect thigh.
      >
      > Best of all, there it was, a strong, four-chamber heart,
      > beating steady and solid. A soft quiver, baby rolling,
      > rippled across my belly.
      >
      > 'Everything looks wonderful,' said my doctor. 'This baby
      > is doing great.'
      >
      >

Since this was sent to info@..., thought I'd
forward it here.  Wonder if he'll next discover the 14th Amendment
protects fetuses and he should IMPOSE FEDERAL LAW on it. Badnarik the
constitutionalists still doesn't quite get libertarianism.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Michael Badnarik has just announced his new plan to restore the legal
rights of another group of Americans who are being discriminated against
- and neither Kerry nor Bush care enough to even be concerned about the
issue.  This group is divorced and separated parents - and their
children.  Considering that there are tens of millions of people
involved with legal issues relating to child custody and child support
payments, this is an issue which touches the lives of people each and
every one of us know.

Please consider passing this message to your friends and family members
who would benefit from the Libertarian solution of getting the
government out of family matters when such involvement is not indicated
- and ensuring that the government acts lawfully and responsibly when
they must be involved.

=================================================

Parents' Rights

No issue is more sensitive -- and few issues are more troubling to
Libertarians -- than the role of government in family life. On the face
of things, the federal government has an even smaller role in that area
than it does in most, and I favor keeping Washington out of issues like
defining and licensing marriage, regulating homeschooling, mandating
childhood vaccinations or using tax policy for "socially engineering"
the makeup and function of the family.

However, there are some areas of family life in which the federal
government arguably has a role to play. The Constitution ordains that
all Americans receive the equal protection of the law, and it prohibits
involuntary servitude.

In both of these areas, the federal government has failed America's
families and, in particular, its parents.

Equal protection of the law pre-supposes fairness for those coming
before the bar of justice. Yet in divorce proceedings, the states
routinely award custody of minor children to one parent or another,
relegating the other parent to the status of "second-class citizen" --
not because the latter parent has been convicted of any crime, or found
unfit, but because of a prejudice in favor of father or mother as the
best "single" parent.

This is a matter of federal interest under the 14th Amendment, even
intra-state. Once one parent or another, possibly with a child in tow,
moves to another state, any shadow of doubt is erased. It becomes an
interstate matter, and by definition therefore falls under federal
jurisdiction.

As president, I will direct the Justice Department's civil rights
division to investigate state policies which violate the 14th Amendment
rights of parents and to pursue the elimination of those policies in
court. The default presumption in any divorce proceeding must be for
joint custody of minor children. Failing the waiver of that presumption
by one parent, or proof that one parent is unfit, to deny any parent
equal access to, and equal participation in the raising of, his or her
children is clearly an abuse of law and repugnant to the Constitution.

Above and beyond the matter of custody comes child support. While it is
reasonable to assess support for a minor child when circumstances
dictate that he or she will be living exclusively with one parent, the
matter has been inflated into, literally, a federal case.

The 13th Amendment prohibits involuntary servitude. In the
Slaughterhouse Cases, the Supreme Court clearly and unambiguously ruled
that this prohibition applies to "peonage" -- the attachment of criminal
liability to failure to pay, or work off, debt. Yet, across the nation,
hundreds of thousands of non-custodial parents find themselves in court,
often charged with felonies and facing prison, for their failure or
inability to pay child support. Further, the federal government has
intervened to the extent of maintaining a special database to track
"deadbeat parents" across state lines in order to enforce these
draconian and unconstitutional laws.

As president, I will direct the Civil Rights Division of the Department
of Justice to sue states which attach criminal liability to child
support obligations and, if necessary, to charge government officials
who administer that unconstitutional criminal liability with violations
of the civil rights of non-custodial parents.

I'm Michael Badnarik, Libertarian for President. I ask the tough
questions?to give you answers that really work!



Paid for by Badnarik/Campagna 2004

===========================

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 5, 2004
P.O.C. Stephen Gordon
(256)227-8360
communications@...
www.badnarik.org
===========================

Starting the message with Bob Dylan lyrics, the Badnarik for President
campaign is appealing to libertarians and non-libertarians alike to send
a message to the world on the third anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.
Badnarik communications director Stephen Gordon blogged
(http://tinyurl.com/5trpe) an appeal for six days of online donations in
amounts ending with $9.11.  Campaign operations manager Geoffrey Neale
stated the Badnarik site will be posting the number of contributions
made on the Badnarik blog.

In the same posting, Gordon states that primary consequences of 9/11 are
the War in Iraq and the Patriot Act, policies which Bush and Kerry
support but Badnarik adamantly opposes.

He requested that Badnarik supporters and others show up for the
Badnarik2004 Meetup (http://badnarik2004.meetup.com/), coincidently
scheduled for September 11, wearing some clothing article colored black
to mourn the deaths of the thousands of people who have died as a result
of U.S. government policies.

Campaign manager Fred Collins stated, ?Meetups are a great way for
people to get together, distribute literature, encourage activism, and
plan for upcoming activities.  But this Meetup will be special, because
of the coincidence of the date.  It will be a unique opportunity for us
to show the world how opposed we are to current U.S. foreign policy.?

In the closing of the blog entry, Gordon appealed to potential Meetup
participants and contributors alike with, ?Friends, the world is
watching and wondering whether Bush or Kerry will be the next
Warmonger-in-Chief of the United States. By attending your local Meeting
wearing mourning colors, and by sending in your $9.11 to $1909.11
contributions, you can tell the world that most Americans approve of
neither Bush nor Kerry, nor of their policies.?

Michael Badnarik is the Libertarian Party candidate for President, and
is currently confirmed to be on the ballot in 42 states.  He has
repeatedly called for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq and the
immediate repeal of the Patriot Act.
###
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Tagline addie:
Variety of Badnarik Campagna BUTTONS and MAGNETS buttons available,
including at bulk discounts for activists
http://radicalbuttons.com/campaign2004.html  SELECTION INCLUDES:
Official logo button; I like Mike; Badarik/Campagna Photo & Non-photo
buttons; Several Issue buttons; "No Bones" button; Secessionists 4
Badnarik;  PLUS 3 different Vote Libertarian buttons also at discount.

Get them now -- avoid delays in October!  These are hand made so have do
each order from scratch!


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]