Subject: Social Security Reform

Perhaps we were asking the wrong questions in this
> > past election year.  Our Senators/Congressmen do
> > not pay into Social Security, and, therefore they
> > do not collect from it. Social Security benefits
> > were not suitable for them.
> >
> > They felt they should have a special plan. Many
> > years ago they voted in their benefit plan. In more
> > recent years, no congress person has felt the need
> > to change it. After all, it is a great plan.
> >
> > For all practical purposes, their plan works like this:
> >
> > When they retire no matter how long they have been in
> > office, they continue to draw their same pay until they
> > die, except it may be increased from time to time by the
> > cost-of-living adjustments.  For example, former Senator
> > Bill Bradley (New Jersey) and his wife may be expected
> > to draw $7,900,000.00 over an average life span, with
> > Mrs. Bradley drawing $275,000.00 during the last year
> > of her life. Their cost for this excellent plan is "$0",
> > nada, zilch. This little perk they voted in for themselves
> > is free to them.
> >
> > You and I pick up the tab for this plan. Our tax dollars
> > at work!  From Social Security, which you and I pay into
> > every payday for our own retirement, with an equal amount
> > paid in by our employer, we can expect to receive an
> > average of $1,000 per month. We would have to collect
> > our benefits for 68 years and 1 month to equal the Bradley's
> > benefits.
> >
> > Imagine for a moment that you could structure a retirement
> > plan so desirable, a retirement plan that worked so well,
> > that Railroad Employees, Postal Workers, and others who were
> > not in the plan would clamor to be included. This is how good
> > Social Security could be, if only one small change was made.
> >
> > That change would be to jerk the Golden Fleece Retirement
> > Plan out from under the Senators & Congressmen. Put them
> > into the Social Security plan with the rest of us. Watch
> > how fast they fix it!!!
> >
> > If enough people receive this message maybe a seed will
> > be planted, and maybe good changes will evolve.
> >
> > Don't forget, our girl, Hillary Rodham Clinton, now comes
> > under this Congressional Retirement Plan. Talking about
> > the Clinton's, it's common knowledge that, in order for
> > her to establish NY State residency, they purchased a
> > $ million + house in upscale Chappaqua, NY. Makes sense.
> >
> > Now, they are entitled to Secret Service protection for
> > life.  Still makes sense. Here is where it becomes
> > interesting.
> >
> > A residency had to be built in order to house the Secret
> > Service agents. The Clinton's now charge the Secret
> > Service rent for the use of said residence and that rent
> > is just about equal to their mortgage payment, meaning
> > that we, the tax payers, are paying the Clinton's mortgage,
> > and it's all perfectly legal.
> >
> > How many people can YOU send this to?
1137  Sheraton Drive
Cookeville, TN 38501
(931) 525-1137


Return-Path: <>
Received: from from [] by
 (/\##/\ Smail3.1.30.16 #30.55) with esmtp for <> sender: <>
 id <mQ/>; Fri, 5 Oct 2001 15:09:48 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from ([]
 by with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #10)
 id 15pbI5-000DxT-00; Fri, 05 Oct 2001 15:09:49 -0500
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
 by (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA75382;
 Fri, 5 Oct 2001 16:02:05 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by (bulk_mailer v1.12); Fri, 5 Oct 2001 11:07:06 -0400
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
 by (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA64611
 for announce-outgoing; Fri, 5 Oct 2001 11:07:06 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from lpadmin@localhost)
 by (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA64600;
 Fri, 5 Oct 2001 11:07:05 -0400 (EDT)
 (envelope-from lpadmin)
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 11:07:05 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <>
Subject: LP OP-ED: Arming terrorists
From: Libertarian Party Announcements <>
X-Airmail-Delivered: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 15:12:07 -0500 (CDT)
X-Airmail-Spooled:   Fri, 5 Oct 2001 15:09:48 -0500 (CDT)


2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100
Washington DC 20037
World Wide Web:
For release: October 5, 2001

If the U.S. hates terrorists,
why do we keep arming them?

By Steve Dasbach (770 words)

Here's a question worth asking before we get involved in a decades-long
war against terrorism: Why doesn't the U.S. government stop arming and
training foreign terrorists and the dictators who support them?

That's an essential question in the wake of the September 11 terrorist
attacks, because -- once again -- our nation is about to go into battle
against an enemy equipped with American guns, money, and advanced
military training.

That's right: Osama bin Laden, the mastermind behind the terrorists who
commandeered four jetliners and crashed them into the World Trade
Center and the Pentagon, was trained and equipped by the United States.

So are many of his fanatical mujahedeen troops.

And so is his protector -- the tyrannical Taliban government of

That embarrassing fact is being ignored now that President George Bush
has declared an all-out war on terrorism. But it's a fact that is
crucial to understanding why America faces such a cunning, skillful

Let's start with the Taliban regime. Just five months ago, Secretary of
State Colin Powell gave $43 million to Afghanistan in exchange for
declaring that growing opium is "against the will of God."

That was just part of $125 million in foreign aid the U.S. gave the
Taliban this year, which makes us the biggest sponsor of that
virulently pro-terrorist regime.

How many of those American dollars will be used to feed and equip the
Afghan warriors who will try to slaughter American soldiers once the
War Against Terrorism officially begins?

U.S. aid to bin Laden goes back even further. In the 1980s, bin Laden
was part of the mujahedeen -- a group of Islamic rebels fighting the
Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.

Adopting the any-enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend strategy, the U.S. gave
bin Laden's forces $3 billion in military assistance, and trained his
Afghan rebels in guerrilla combat techniques.

The result: Two of the terrorists convicted for the 1993 bombing of the
World Trade Center had received weapons and explosives training from
those CIA-backed Afghans, according to the New York-based World Policy

These same Islamic fundamentalists later assisted in the 1998 U.S.
embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania.

But the "boomerang effect" of U.S. aid goes beyond terrorism.

The last four times the United States sent substantial numbers of
troops into conflict -- in Panama, Iraq, Somalia, and Haiti -- they
faced an enemy who had received U.S. weapons, training, or military
technology. For example:

* Panama: Before our 1989 invasion to oust strongman Manuel Noriega,
the United States provided Panama with $33.5 million worth of weapons,
and spent $8.2 million to train Panamanian military personnel at the
Pentagon's International Military Education and Training program.

* Iraq: In the years leading up to the 1991 Persian Gulf War, the
Reagan and Bush administrations supplied "critical military
technologies" that were then used to build the Iraqi war machine.

* Somalia: Before dispatching our ill-fated 1991 peace-keeping mission,
the U.S. furnished $1 billion in aid to Somalia's oppressive government
- -- including $154 million in weapons. When U.S. troops arrived to quell
the civil war, they were confronted by American-made M-16 rifles,
machine guns, howitzers, armored personnel carriers, and anti-tank

* Haiti: Prior to U.S troops landing on the shores of that impoverished
Caribbean nation in 1994, the American government delivered $2.6
million in weapons to dictator Jean Bertrand Aristide.

In all, between the end of World War II and the early 1990s, the U.S.
government distributed more than $950 billion in foreign or military
aid to more than 100 nations, according to the Cato Institute.

Given that 101 armed conflicts flared somewhere on the planet between
1989 and 1996, it's likely that our government was involved -- whether
with money, arms, or military personnel -- in a majority of those
clashes. And every time we got involved in another nation's war, we
made more enemies.

What's the solution?

It should be obvious: A non-interventionist foreign policy, which will
keep America safer by reducing the number of nations and terrorist
organizations with reason to hate us.

Such a policy would also deprive potential enemies of U.S. guns, money,
and military training -- which they could later use to kill Americans.

Of course, such a policy can't guarantee that some terrorists won't
still hate our nation. We'll always have enemies who loathe our
culture, secular beliefs, trade policies, or democratic ideals.

But a non-interventionist foreign policy would dramatically reduce that
likelihood. It would diminish the fear Americans have about the danger
of biological and chemical attacks, exploding airliners, and more
suicidal attacks.

And it would increase the prospect that our nation could, once again,
live in peace.

Steve Dasbach is national director of the Washington, DC-based
Libertarian Party.

Version: 2.6.2


The Libertarian Party                      
2600 Virginia Ave. NW, Suite 100                    voice: 202-333-0008
Washington DC 20037                                   fax: 202-333-0072
For subscription changes, please use the WWW form at:
Alternatively, you may also send a message to <>
with just the word "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" in the subject line.

Subject: LP RELEASE: Super Bowl anti-drug ads


2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100
Washington DC 20037
World Wide Web:
For release: February 4, 2002
For additional information:
George Getz, Press Secretary
Phone: (202) 333-0008 Ext. 222

Super Bowl anti-drug/terrorist ads
were dishonest 'Super Bowloney'

WASHINGTON, DC -- The Super Bowl advertisements claiming that Americans
who use illegal drugs help finance terrorists were dishonest,
outrageous, and a waste of taxpayers' money, the Libertarian Party
charged today.

"These Super Bowl ads were Super Bowloney," said Ron Crickenberger, the
party's political director. "For the White House Office of National
Drug Control Policy to claim that drug users are to blame for financing
terrorists is like a maniac who kills his parents, and then throws
himself on the mercy of the court because he is an orphan.

"The fact is, it's the War on Drugs that causes the very problem these
ads complain about. The War on Drugs enriches terrorists, finances
violence, and makes America less safe. And no amount of advertising
spin can change that."

On Sunday, the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy
(ONDCP) spent about $3.4 million to run two 30-second advertisements
during the Super Bowl. It was the largest single government ad purchase
in U.S. history.

One of the ads, which pretended to show a terrorist buying weapons,
explosives, and fake passports, asked: "Where do terrorists get their
money? If you buy drugs, some of it might come from you." In the other
ad, young people matter-of-factly made statements like, "I helped kill
a judge."

However, in reality, the War on Drugs -- not peaceful Americans who use
drugs -- is responsible for funneling tens of billions of dollars into
the hands of murderous terrorists, said Crickenberger.

According to the United Nations, the illegal drug trade is worth $400
billion a year, he noted. And according to the Hoover Institution, drug
prohibition drives up the prices of drugs by about 17,000%.

"The War on Drugs is a price support system for terrorists and drug
pushers," he said. "It turns ordinary, cheap plants like marijuana and
poppies into fantastically lucrative black market products. Without the
War on Drugs, the financial engine that fuels terrorist organizations
would sputter to a halt."

That's not the only way the War on Drugs makes America more vulnerable
to terrorists, said Crickenberger. The War on Drugs also misdirects
police resources.

In 2000, for example, police arrested an estimated 734,498 people for
marijuana violations, most for simple possession, according to the
Federal Bureau of Investigation's Uniform Crime Report.

In addition, more than 8,000 military personnel participate in anti-
drug missions on U.S. soil, and more than 19,000 state and local police
work full-time on drug cases. The total cost: About $50 billion a year
at the federal, state, and local levels.

"Law enforcement agencies have only a finite amount of money, people,
and time to investigate crimes," said Crickenberger. "It's clear that
politicians have made the tragically ill-advised decision that
detecting murderous terrorists is less important than arresting non-
violent Americans who choose to use marijuana or other drugs."

So who is really to blame for helping terrorists?

"Forget what you saw on the Super Bowl," said Crickenberger. "If you
are looking for the real cause of the drugs and terrorism connection,
you need look no further than the politicians who voted for the War on
Drugs, the federal bureaucrats who administer it, and the ONDCP spin-
meisters who try to blame the 95 million Americans who have used
illegal drugs."

Version: 2.6.2


The Libertarian Party                      
2600 Virginia Ave. NW, Suite 100                    voice: 202-333-0008
Washington DC 20037                                   fax: 202-333-0072
For subscription changes, please use the WWW form at:
Alternatively, you may also send a message to <>
with just the word "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" in the subject line.
Subject: LP RELEASE: Slavery reparations


2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100
Washington DC 20037
World Wide Web:
For release: August 20, 2002
For additional information:
George Getz, Press Secretary
Phone: (202) 333-0008 Ext. 222

Paying slavery reparations would only increase
racial hostility, Libertarians say

WASHINGTON, DC -- A renewed demand by African-Americans for slavery
reparations should be rejected because such payments would only
increase racial hostility, Libertarians say.

"The battle cry for reparations has far more to do with the color green
than with the colors black and white," said Steve Dasbach, executive
director of the Libertarian Party. "Forcing people who had nothing to
do with slavery to pay others who were never enslaved is the height of
injustice and will only exacerbate racial tension in America."

The issue of slavery reparations was thrust back into the public
limelight again last weekend as nearly 3,000 African-Americans rallied
on the Mall in Washington, DC, to demand monetary compensation for
slavery and decades of racial discrimination.
Featured speakers at the event, organized by the Millions for
Reparations Committee, included Louis Farrakhan, head of the Nation of
Islam, and U.S. Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), who has introduced
legislation to study the reparations issue. The crowd roared in
approval when Rev. Farrakhan declared that black Americans "cannot
settle for some little jive token" from the U.S. government and are
entitled to a large cash payment for past injustices.
But that approach will only deepen the racial divide, Libertarians say.

"Millions of white Americans who have no reason to dislike blacks may
find one the moment they're forced to pay a race tax," Dasbach said. 
"The only people who will benefit will be the pandering politicians who
get to dole out the money - as race relations get worse.

"Besides, decades of other race-conscious government programs, such as
minority set-asides and hiring quotas, have actually expanded the
racial divide. Instead of learning from those failures, politicians
seem determined to create more of them."

Justice also demands that the only individuals who are punished are
those personally responsible for violating the rights of others, he
"No one alive today had anything to do with the morally repugnant
policy of slavery," he said. "So confiscating their money for
reparations amounts to punishing people for crimes committed by someone
else - more than 100 years ago.

"And what of Asian-Americans, Latino Americans, and other immigrants 
whose ancestors never even owned slaves?" asked Dasbach. "What sense
does it make to force them to pay reparations?"

Although Libertarians don't support slavery reparations, here's one
thing the party urges African-Americans to demand from the government:

"Blacks should demand freedom from taxation, which keeps too many in
poverty; freedom from the Social Security system, which deprives too
many of a secure retirement; and freedom from the Drug War, which
confines too many to prison," he said.
"Gaining independence from government programs like these would improve
the lives of African-Americans far more than slavery reparations ever


Version: 2.6.2


The Libertarian Party                      
2600 Virginia Ave. NW, Suite 100                    voice: 202-333-0008
Washington DC 20037                                   fax: 202-333-0072
For subscription changes, please use the WWW form at: