Interesting Libertarian Letters Mike Renzulli Letters

Alleged Libertarian Mike Renzulli loves police officers? Mike Renzulli - PIGS stands for Pride, Integrity and Guts
	Subject: Re: Temporary Custody of your firearm Date: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 5:26 PM From "M Renzulli" marenzulli@GMAIL.COM To: AZRKBA@ASU.EDU Remember what PIGS stands for, Ross: Pride, Integrity and Guts. Don't you forget it. On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 11:07 AM, x <gunsrg00d@yahoo.com> wrote: Why on earth do you think the pigs are going to obey a silly law that says they can't steal your gun. If they were planning on obeying the law they would not have illegally stopped you with out probably cause or reasonable suspicion required. If they were planning to obey the law they would not illegally search you looking for guns and drugs. Yes it is allowed per "Terry v Ohio" but any Libertarian lawyer will tell you the Supremes flushed the 4th Amendment down the toilet with "Terry v Ohio" You can't expect the police to obey the law any more then you can expect criminals to obey the law. On the other hand there usually isn't any difference between police and criminals except that criminals know when they are commuting a crime, while cops think they have a god given right to commit any crime they feel like. --- On Mon, 11/15/10, Alan Korwin <********@GUNLAWS.COM> wrote: > From: Alan Korwin <******@GUNLAWS.COM> > Subject: Temporary Custody of your firearm > To: AZRKBA@ASU.EDU > Date: Monday, November 15, 2010, 5:03 PM > A group of libertarians made an > impassioned plea to me recently to prevent "authorities" > from any "routine" taking of your firearm, even temporarily, > without the highest degree of probable cause or actual > arrest. How do you civilly resist such a request when it's a > fishing expedition? Or when the "for officer safety during a > stop" is a bogus and unwarranted excuse? > > A change to the law can be made but it will surely be an > uphill battle. Which is not to say it shouldn't be pursued. > > My own preference is to move the culture to a point where > an officer, on seeing or suspecting you're armed, merely > asks what sort of firearm you prefer, and if you like that > make and model. We're not all that far from such a place, > especially with Constitutional Carry working its will on the > public imagination. > > Alan. > > -- Alan Korwin > Bloomfield Press > "We publish the gun laws." > 4848 E. Cactus, #505-440 > Scottsdale, AZ 85254 > 602-996-4020 Phone > 602-494-0679 Fax > 1-800-707-4020 Orders > http://www.gunlaws.com > ******@gunlaws.com > Call, write, fax or click for free full-color catalog > (This is our address and info as of Jan. 1, 2007) > > > > > > If you can read this, thank a teacher. > If you're reading this in English, thank a veteran. > > "No one could make a greater mistake than he who did > nothing > because he could do only a little." > --Edmund Burke > -- Cheers, Mike Renzulli "I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."    -- Ayn Rand Check out my web blog: http://freelibertarian.blogspot.com
Mike Renzulli hates Mike Ross? What did Mike Ross do to get on Mike Renzulli's hate list
	Subject: Re: If the government says your "crazy" thats it - you don't even get to challege it. Date: Friday, January 21, 2011 4:14 PM From ""M Renzulli" marenzulli@GMAIL.COM To: AZRKBA@ASU.EDU You hit it right on the head, Geoff. As you all may already be aware "x" is none other than Mike Ross. Ross is the kind of person who feeds off of attention and he does it by wasting what time he has being on e-mail chatrooms to stir-up stuff because he has nothing else better to do with his time. The comments he makes are made in a "shock and awe" sense to as to elicit responses from list participants. Definitely signs of someone who has little to no social life. You all should see the caliber of people he hangs around and once you meet him in person you will understand why he does and the term "birds of a feather flock together". I would recommend not responding to ANY of his posts. Ignore Ross and he will crawl back into the cockroach nest he comes from. On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 12:48 PM, geoff beneze wrote: On Jan 20, 2011, at 5:32 AM, x wrote: In this case if you piss off a government nanny and they report you as crazy, you will pretty much be denied the right to have a gun. http://zapatopi.net/afdb/ -- Geoff Beneze Tempe, AZ Target Stands http://www.beast-enterprises.com NRA Life Member ----- What if the Hokey-Pokey IS what it's all about? unknown -- Cheers, Mike Renzulli "[A rational mind] may be hampered by others, it may be silenced, proscribed, imprisoned, or destroyed; it cannot be forced; a gun is not an argument." -- Ayn Rand Check out my web blog: http://freelibertarian.blogspot.com
Mike Renzulli becomes a Republican ... again
	Source Saturday, February 12, 2011 Arizona Libertarian Party official switches to Republican: Cites differences over Foreign Policy After serving for four years as an officer of the both the Maricopa County Libertarian Party and the Arizona Libertarian Parties as well as being active in both parties for a total of 12 years, Mike Renzulli in recent months, switched to become a Republican. Renzulli told Libertarian Republican: "I had bounced around before but finally decided to become a Republican. It was after studying Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism and doing more research on U.S. foreign policy that the Libertarian Party's stance is wrong." Renzulli decided to read authors such as Bernard Lewis, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Robert Spencer. Also thanks to his studying Objectivism and doing more research on U.S. foreign policy and world affairs it gave him a clearer sense of what U.S. foreign policy is really all about in which he concluded it is grounded in self defense and, contrary to some libertarian's claims, not to dominate or control. Renzulli added: "We were attacked on September 11th by a nihilistic enemy that wishes to destroy the United States and our allies. Our past and present interventions in the middle east are not being done to police the world or acquire other country's resources by force but, rather, to liberate people from the iron-fisted rule of Islamists and like-minded totalitarian regimes that back terrorist groups and activities." Renzulli further stated that he believes, even if the United States is not always successful, at least by kicking out or attacking Islamist regimes and halting terrorists, it is the best and only manner in which to defend ourselves. 27 comments: (Some comments were removed, but nothing was added or changed) Gary said... So this so-called "Libertarian" wants to join a party that strongly supports: - - - Marxist income re-distribution. - - - A centralized Big Brother government. - - - Corrupt Crony-Capitalism with subsidies, insider tax deals and kick-backs for favors. I mean, who wouldn't want to support a party like that? Lofo said... So now he is a neocon instead of a libertarian. Mike Renzulli becomes a Democrat? Source A Libertarian Democrat Submitted by LoganFerree on Thu, 2005-07-14 07:58. The Radical Liberal Mike Renzulli has offered up a defense of being both a libertarian and a Democrat. I am a libertarian with a small l and a Democrat with a capital D. And I am a Democrat with a capital D on the grounds of expediency, not on principle. I believe I can do more good by having influence in the Democratic Party than I can by joining the Libertarian Party, although I have great sympathy for the Libertarian Party. I believe it's very desirable for them to do well. The one thing about Democrats (as opposed to Republicans) is that they are at least willing to accept change. I have noticed that it is easier to convince a Democrat about freedom more than a Republican. Especially when it comes to war and foreign policy. Since the Democrats are in the minority around the country, I believe that they will be hungry for fresh, radical ideas to bring them back into power. I doubt that they would dump their principles once retaking places like the U.S. Congress since many of the manipulative and power-hungry Democrats (like former House Speaker Tom Foley) are no longer around. Those that are will retire down the line in which their influence will be limited. I look forward to my interactions with others and the many campaigns I will be participating in while furthering freedom in the Democratic Party. Many of us have similar experiences of explaining why we believe the Democratic Party to be the more pro-freedom of the two parties. I have found many of my Democratic peers to be open to what I have to say. At times they frustrate me, but I know that they are generally more open to listening to me than most Republicans. I was involved in the 2004 Democratic Primary as a Dean supporter, and I look forward to future Democratic campaigns. In the next few days we will be adding information on three potential Democratic Congressional candidates in 2006. Mike Renzulli joins GOP? Source <SNIP> 4. As of May, I have left the Libertarian Party and joined the GOP. I urge you all to vote Republican in November. 5:27 PM Sep 16th, 2010 via web <SNIP>
Mike Renzulli thinks AAPJ can kick people off of public property?
	If AAPJ had rented the property from the government they certainly would have a right to kick anybody they wanted to off of the property. But in this case they didn't rent, lease or make any arraingement with the government for AAPJ to rent the property for the duration of the antiwar protest. Then the gun grabbers at AAPJ got angry when a Libertarian with a gun showed up and they tried to kick him off of the public property. Source Subject: Re: [aapjevents] Re: Anti-Iraq Invasion March/Demonstration Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2002 23:30:52 EDT From freemanaz@aol.com To: aapjevents@yahoogroups.com In a message dated 8/4/02 11:41:09 AM US Mountain Standard Time, snail writes: but it wasnt. the protest was held on PUBLIC property on indianola and third streets. Mike Ross, AAPJ has the right to include and exclude anyone they wish on public or private property when it comes to their functions or rallies. The policy is not rational since they are leaving themselves open to people hostile and violent towards war dissent since their members could not carry guns or weapons at their protests and rallies. Very wrong headed and needs to be changed. Mike Renzulli
Mike Renzulli becomes a Democrat?
	Source Subject: The Case for Joining the Democratic Party Date: Sun Aug 18, 2002 10:37 pm From To: xxx to xxx Message #12303 of 54345 I am former Libertarian now registered Democrat. The overall reason why I joined the Democrats is mainly historical and with this essay I would like to make the case that libertarians should dump the idea of trying to influence the Republican Party and turn their energies instead to influencing/changing the Democratic Party. Consider this: the Democratic Party still considers Thomas Jefferson (who founded the Democratic-Republican Party in opposition to the Federalists) to be their founder. Tammany Hall, which was founded in 1789 and was originally a social club, was converted by none other than Aaron Burr into an effective political organization which ended up becoming the hub of political activity for the Democratic Party whose policies were mainly Jeffersonian. How Tammany Hall grew in prestige was due to the fact that when Irish and Scottish immigrants were flocking to the United States and ended up settling in the City of New York, Tammany Hall would assist the immigrants in finding housing, employment and expediting the immigrants' citizenship. In exchange for this help, the immigrants were asked to support Democratic candidates in the City of New York. This was a practice duplicated later by other Tammany Societies that would sprout up along the eastern seaboard. In most cases, the immigrants would vote for Tammany-backed candidates as well as work on their campaigns. The Jeffersonians (a.k.a. radicals) were a result of an alliance between artisans, attorneys, businessmen, workers and farmers in which their policies were opposition to subsidies for internal improvements, opposition to national banks, support for legal protections for labor unions and supported free trade. In short, they advocated total laissez faire and were a very active wing of the Democratic Party. Among the Presidents the Jeffersonians backed and got elected were Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren and who supported most of their stances on issues admittedly their great failings were their forced relocations of the indian tribes. The Democratic-Republican party itself served with little opposition since electing Thomas Jefferson President in 1800. The election of John Quincy Adams in 1824 was highly contested and led to a two-way split among Democratic-Republicans. The two major figures that emerged from the split were Andrew Jackson and John Quincy Adams. Not only was the election of 1824 a hotly contested race between Jackson and Adams, but the two men represented different philosophical factions. The Jacksonians believing in mainly laissez faire capitalist policies while the Adams faction tended to support interventionist policies like high tariffs, a national bank, issuance of paper greenback currency and internal improvements (also called "The American System" by Whig Kentucky Senator Henry Clay). The Democratic Party was the product of a combined effort of Andrew Jackson's charisma and popularity as well as Martin Van Buren's political savvy. In opposition to the National Republicans (later to be called Whigs), the Democrats became the standard bearers for the Jeffersonian ideals of simple, frugal government. To them, "The American System" supported by the Whigs would wield political power to benefit special interests. The donkey which is the symbol of the Democratic Party was used by Andrew Jackson's opponents to label him a "jackass" as well as for his slogan "Let the people rule". Jackson, however, picked up on their name calling and embraced it by using the donkey on his campaign posters. During his presidency, the donkey was used to represent Jackson's stubbornness when he vetoed re-chartering the National Bank. One of the radicals' ideological gurus was William Leggett, (Biography: http://www.econlib.org/library/Leggett/lgtDE.html) who was a member of Tammany Hall and an editor with the New York Evening Post. He wrote most of the editorials that gave the ideological foundations for the Jeffersonians which were of a natural law and utilitarian bent. Leggett was later kicked out by the Tammany Hall leadership as a result of infighting over Leggett's coming out against slavery after originally supporting it. Leggett's excommunication gave rise to a political revolt within the Tammany Societies that earned the Jeffersonians the nickname "Locofocos". During a New York Tammany Hall meeting to elect the new leadership on October 25, 1835, two factions came into place. The "Hunkers", who were the conservatives and backed slavery, and the "Barnburners" who were the Jeffersonians and opposed it. After routing the conservatives in Tammany officer elections, the "Hunkers" turned off gas lights in the meeting hall as they walked out in protest and all of the Jeffersonians were observed to have lit self-lighting locofoco matches to continue the meeting that night. Many of the "Barnburners" would leave the Democratic Party to assist in the forming of the anti-slavery Free-Soil party (whose candidate for President was Martin Van Buren) and who later would help in the forming of the Republican Party. Most of the Jeffersonians would later re-join the Democrats. There were other well known Locofoco Democrats too. Such as Nathaniel Hawthorne, author of the Scarlet Letter and biographer of President Franklin Pierce, and poet Walt Whitman. There have been libertarian traditions within the Democratic Party and more recently than Leggett and the Locofocos. George Henry Evans ( see http://www.zetetics.com/mac/articles/homested.html and http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/Quad/6460/bio/E/vansGH.html for information on him), father of the Homestead Movement, also prominent among the Locofocos, was another leading libertarian figure from that time period. The Cleveland Democrats (a.k.a. "Gold Democrats"), beginning with the leaders of the Free Trade, anti-Tariff, hard Gold movement from the 1870's through the early 1930's, were a dominant group within the Democratic Party. One of leading figures, a New York attorney, Thomas G. Shearman, who had been one of the founders of the Free Trade movement in the 1870's, was also the person behind Henry George's rise in the 1880's and 1890's, and was the person who coined the term "single tax" for George's policy. The Cleveland Democrats were the last significant libertarian force within the Democratic Party. Their final major accomplishments were the anti-Prohibitionist movement in the 1920's and the 1932 Democratic Party Platform, which Franklin Delano Roosevelt infamously ran on--and promptly forgot once he was elected, and for over a half century, they were a dominant force in the Democratic Party and strongly laissez-faire. There have been conservative Democrats which were fairly pro-freedom, but they mostly died out in the 1940's and 1950's. Governor Albert Ritchie of Maryland, journalist John T. Flynn and Senator James A. Reed of Missouri (both of whom where outspoken critics of the New Deal, if not Roosevelt himself); Nevada Senator Pat McCarran (McCarran Airport in Las Vegas is named after him) was, what would be called in today's terminology, a paleoconservative. He was pretty closely connected with Senator Joseph McCarthy in his anti-communist crusade, as were other conservative and states-rights Democrats. I think it damages the libertarian movement to have a faction in the Republican Party while at the same time being critical of their politicians and the policies they embrace. I think John Ross (author of Unintended Consequences) had the right idea when he ran for Congress in Missouri as a Democrat against Republican Jim Talent. He could speak with a clearer finality in his arguments against Talent since he was not challenging Talent in his own party but from the other side of the aisle. Despite the fact that John Ross lost in the general, he won handsomely in the primary against a better known primary opponent and raised a huge war chest in the process. I would like to think that Ross' success inside the Democrats means that they are willing to try libertarian ideas despite the fact that their present platform hardly reflects the philosophy of Thomas Jefferson. When classical liberalism became the dominant philosophy in the 17th to 19th centuries, the parties who supported it (such as the Whig - later to be called Liberal - Party in England, the Democrats in the US when they first started out and French liberals like Bastiat), sat on the left side of the aisle in the statehouses where they held office. It is from the left where many of the ideas the right later has picked up on. Including the philosophy of freedom. There are bright spots on the left side of the aisle that indicate a shift back in this direction. One notable incident is the British Columbia Liberal Party's takeover of British Columbia's unicameral state legislature in which the Liberals ran on a libertarian-oriented, free market platform of tax cuts, deregulation and economic freedom. As a result of their running on these planks, the B.C. Liberals now occupy 77 out of 79 seats. They followed through with their promises (and then some) and, from what I understand, more tax and deregulation relief for BC is on the way. Liberty magazine and the Libertarian Alliance in Britain have pointed out that the Labour Party of Britain is continuing, if not expanding on, Thatcher's free market ideas while at the same time denouncing them. Admittedly the policies of the Democratic Party are not libertarian by any stretch of the imagination at this time. In the long run, the Democrats will have to return to it when the Republican and Libertarian Parties start to compromise their core political beliefs. There are signs they are doing it now. It was not the Republican Party who has been the libertarian political party in American politics, it was the Demcorats. With the recent budget being proposed by Bush and Congress (admittedly Republicans and Democrats) to spend $3 TRILLION, the war on terrorism (which is really going to turn into another drug war) the emphasis libertarians and liberals share in our defense of civil liberties (with the exception of the Right to Bear Arms) as well as the Jeffersonian/Jacksonian roots of the Democrats, it is clear that libertarians are better suited influencing the Democrats due to its classical liberal roots. It is abundantly clear that in recent years the leadership of the Republican and Libertarian Parties are not interested in upholding the Jeffersonian ideals of simple, frugal government as much as the present leadership of the Democrats. I ask each of you who read this to join me in this. I am aware of the Democratic Freedom Caucus (www.progress.org/dfc) but it is small and not very influential at this time, respectfully. The Progress Report (www.progress.org) is a good source of news and commentary though. I think a more de-centralized approach is in order. If you will not join me, I only ask those of you who are on the fence or considering a party switch to keep this essay in mind and at least understand where I am coming from. The Locofocos and other libertarian movements in the Democratic Party were very organized and very dedicated to the cause of liberty and kept the Democrats pro-freedom for a very long time. I think we can do the same. Lets make the Democratic Party the party of Thomas Jefferson again! Mike Renzulli
Mike Renzulli goes back to the Libertarian Party
	Source Subject: Going back to the Libertarian Party Date: Tue Oct 8, 2002 10:00 pm From xxx To: gop-liberty@yahoogroups.com Message #13395 of 54345 Message #13395 of 54345 Hello All, After consideration of the facts surrounding my political activities, I have come to the healthy conclusion that it would not suit me to continue in the political process as a Republican. While the Libertarian Party in Arizona and nationally is not without problems, I believe it ilbehooves me to belong to one of the 2 major parties due to the fact that my beliefs on economics and social issues would not fit well with either the Democrats or the Republicans. When I got into politics I told myself that I would stick to my principles and not back down. After discovering libertarianism, I found out what principle was all about. Having ambitions of making changes as a Republican or Democrat are nice, but I am reminded of the sore reality of what happens in terms of actually voting your conscience rather than voting the party way or what the special interests want. For example, a very good man named Tom Rawles who was elected to the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors in the early 90s bravely cast the lone vote against a tax increase to fund the Bankone Ballpark stadium for the Diamondbacks baseball team. After doing so, he found he was aliented by members of the Board and also the business interests that pushed for the tax increase no longer would back him for office. Soon after the vote, he did not seek re-election. I would respectfully suggest that libertarians in the Republican Party give a second look and keep Tom Rawles' example in mind. Allying with conservatives or liberals is good to work with in terms of issues we can agree on, but in terms of belonging to the parties they occupy (in my mind) would not be good in terms of restoring freedom to the United States. A prime example of how libertarians in either party can be marginalized or no longer considered useful is the possiblity of going to war with Iraq. Thanks to 09/11, both Republican and Democratic politicians are using the war of terrorism as an excuse to enact new spending and George W Bush is siging the bills to do it despite the fact that he ran on a platform of fiscal responsibility. Ron Paul has done an excellent job in Congress and deserves every libertarian's support but I doubt very much he can stay in Congress much longer and do not see any more like him coming down the line. I believe it will be due to the war of terrorism that libertarianism will become popular again and that the primary vehicle to further it is in the Libertarian Party. Either in electoral politics or in terms of political activism. Please do not construe my statement as slaps in the face to anyone wishing to further freedom in the GOP. It maybe I am completely off base and may end up eating crowe. But, as a result of the war of terrorism and Bush going completely to the hawk side of his cabinet, I doubt very much that libertarians would be welcome in a party whos President has embraced increased government spending as well as more military interventions overseas. It should be noted, that even George W Bush backed a Democrat against Ron Paul when Paul entered the race for Congress. The Libertarian Party is small compared to the other parties despite the fact it has grown in recent years and as a result can be fixed before any permanent damage is done. Thank you all very much and I will be staying on this list a little while longer. In Liberty, Mike Renzulli
Mike Renzulli rejoins the Republican Party
	Source Subject: Rejoining the Republican Party Date: Tue Apr 30, 2002 6:11 pm From xxx To: xxx to xxx xxx text xxx Message List Reply Message #10639 of 54345 < Prev | Next > After a brief stint in the Democrats, I am now going to become active in the GOP again. In light of the libertarian wing of the Conservative Party of Britain taking the party back (source: "Liberty", April 2002) I have taken heart of this victory and will work towards accomplishing making the Republican Party stand up for what it believes in and means what it says when it preaches: "less government, lower taxes, individual freedom". The loss of the Senate to the Democrats is clearly the Republican Party's doing and we can retake it again. As long as the GOP falls back on the economic message they campaigned on in 1994 and doesnt back down from it. Our success is an economic agenda, not a moral or social one. The GOP lost their backbone, but they can get it back. If they do not, I will vote for a Libertarian candidate if the Republican I back starts to waffle on issues or wont vote for him or her should there be no other alternative. If he/she starts to back down or compromise on issues then they werent worthy of my vote or holding office anyway. My disappointment with the Republicans backing down was what lead me to switch to the LP none the less. The GOP can reclaim its libertarian/principled positions again. Even if libertarian Republicans dont win elections/numbers wise we still can hold our heads high by telling the GOP "we told you so" and have enormous political impact by being able to do activism while the politicians are tied to the duties of their elected office. I will still be active with this group as well. I will still see you all around. In Liberty, Mike Renzulli "It is liberty alone which fits men for liberty." - William Gladstone Message #10639 of 54345
Mike Renzulli joins the Democratic Party?
	Source Subject: the case for joining the Democratic Party Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 11:49:37 -0700 (MST) From xxx To: xxx to xxx Message List Reply Message #9205 of 54345 Hello All, Well for those of you who are remotely interested, as of November of last year, I have officially registered with and will becoming active in the Arizona Democratic Party. That being said, I would like to make the case for libertarians to dump the idea of trying to influence the Republican Party and instead put their energies in changing the Democratic Party. The casis for my arguments is mainly historical. Before some of you reading this close this missive and write me off as crazy, consider this: despite the fact that they have skirted the issue, the Democratic Party still considers Thomas Jefferson (who created the Democratic-Republican Party in opposition to the Federalists) to be their founder. Tammany Hall, which was founded in 1789 and was originally a social club, was converted by none other than Aaron Burr into an effective political organization which ended up becoming the meeting place for political activity for the Democratic Party whos policies were mainly Jeffersonian. How it grew in prestige was due to the fact that when Irish and Scottish immigrants were flocking to the United States and ended up settling in the City of New York, Tammany Hall would assist the immigrants in finding housing, employment and expediting the immigrants' citizenship. In exchange for this help, the immigrants were asked to support Democratic candidates in the City of New York. This was a practice duplicated later by other Tammany Societies that would sprout up along the eastern seaboard. In most case, the immigrants would vote for Tammany-backed candidates as well as work on their campaigns, respectfully. Within the Tammany Societies, two factions began to emerge. The conservatives (who were the Democrats who supported much of the Whigs ideas of high tariffs, a national bank, subisides for internal improvements, etc.) and the the laissez faire/Jeffersonian wing who backed Andrew Jackson for President. One of the Jeffersonian's ideological guru was William Leggett (bio: www.econlib.org/library/Leggett/lgtDE.html) who was a member of Tammany Hall and an editor with the New York Evening Post. He also wrote most of the editorials that gave the ideological foundations for the Jeffersonians which were of a natural law and utilitarian bent, respectfully. He was later kicked out by the Tammany Hall leadership as a result of infighting which gave rise to the political revolt that gave the Jeffersonian Democrats the knickname "Locofocos". During the Tammany meeting to elect the new leadership, the gas lights in their meeting hall went out and all of the Jeffersonians were observed to have lit locofoco matches to continue their work and strategic planning. After successfully ousting the present leadership, Martin Van Buren adopted much of their platform which Andrew Jackson enacted. There would later be another dispute within the Democratic Party about the issue of slavery in which the Hunkers (who were again the conservatives and backed slavery) and the Barnburners (who were the Jeffersonians and opposed it). Much of the Barnburners would assist in the forming of the Free-Soil party whos candidate for President was Martin Van Buren and later would help in the forming of the Republican Party, then most of the Jacksonians would re-join the Democrats. There were other well known locofoco Democrats too, like Nathaniel Hawthorn (author of the Scarlet Letter and biographer of President Franklin Pierce) and poet Walt Whitman. It was not the Republican Party who has been the libertarian political party in American politics, it was the Demcorats. With the recent budget being proposed by Bush and Congress (admittedly Republicans and Democrats) to spend $3 TRILLION, the war on terrorism (which is really going to turn into another drug war), the emphasis libertarians and liberals share in our defense of civil liberties (admittedly with the exception of the Right to Bear Arms) as well as the Jeffersonian/Jacksonian roots of the Democrats, it is clear that libertarians are better suited influencing the Democrats due to its classical liberal roots and it is abundantly clear that in recent years the leadership of the Republican and Libertarian Parties are not interested in upholding the Jeffersonian ideals of simple, frugal government as much as the present leadership of the Democrats. I ask each of you who read this to join me in this. I am aware of the Democratic Freedom Caucus (www.progress.org/dfc) but it is small and not very influential at this time, respectfully. The Progress Report (www.progress.org) is a good source of news and commentary though. I think a more de-centralized approach is in order. If you will not join me, I only ask those of you who are on the fence or considering a party switch to keep this essay in mind and at least understand where I am coming from. Please contact me if you are interested. The locofocs were very organized and very dedicated to the cause of liberty, I think we are and can do the same. Mike Renzulli "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson, December 23rd, 1791 add the letters where Mike Renzulli flip flopped several times between the Libertarian Party, to the Democrats, to the Republicans and back to the Libertarians add the letters where Mike Renzulli tried to convert the atheist libertarians to jesus and then when he became an atheist how he denied it and then the posts CD made showing he lied about it.