Kooky pro-government conspiracy theories

A Letter from the RNC 8

Dear Friends, Family, and Comrades:

We are the RNC 8: individuals targeted because of our political beliefs and work organizing for protests at the 2008 Republican National Convention, in what appears to be the first use of Minnesota’s version of the US Patriot Act. The 8 of us are currently charged with Conspiracy to Commit Riot in Furtherance of Terrorism, a 2nd degree felony that carries the possibility of several years in prison. We are writing to let you know about our situation, to ask for support, and to offer words of hope.

A little background: the RNC Welcoming Committee was a group formed in late 2006 upon hearing that the 2008 Republican National Convention would be descending on Minneapolis-St. Paul where we live, work, and build community. The Welcoming Committee’s purpose was to serve as an anarchist/anti-authoritarian organizing body, creating an informational and logistical framework for radical resistance to the RNC. We spent more than a year and a half doing outreach, facilitating meetings throughout the country, and networking folks of all political persuasions who shared a common interest in voicing dissent in the streets of St. Paul while the GOP’s machine chugged away inside the convention.

In mid-August the Welcoming Committee opened a “Convergence Center,” a space for protesters to gather, eat, share resources, and build networks of solidarity. On Friday, August 29th, 2008, as folks were finishing dinner and sitting down to a movie the Ramsey County Sheriff’s Department stormed in, guns drawn, ordering everyone to the ground. This evening raid resulted in seized property (mostly literature), and after being cuffed, searched, and IDed, the 60+ individual inside were released.

The next morning, on Saturday, August 30th, the Sheriff’s department executed search warrants on three houses, seizing personal and common household items and arresting the first 5 of us- Monica Bicking, Garrett Fitzgerald, Erik Oseland, Nathanael Secor, and Eryn Trimmer. Later that day Luce Guillen-Givins was arrested leaving a public meeting at a park. Rob Czernik and Max Specktor were arrested on Monday, September 1, bringing the number to its present 8. All were held on probable cause and released on $10,000 bail on Thursday, September 4, the last day of the RNC.

These arrests were preemptive, targeting known organizers in an attempt to derail anti-RNC protests before the convention had even begun. Conspiracy charges expand upon the traditional notion of crime. Instead of condemning action, the very concept of conspiracy criminalizes thought and camaraderie, the development of relationships, the willingness to hope that our world might change and the realization that we can be agents of that change.

Conspiracy charges serve a very particular purpose- to criminalize dissent. They create a convenient method for incapacitating activists, with the potential for diverting limited resources towards protracted legal battles and terrorizing entire communities into silence and inaction. Though not the first conspiracy case against organizers- not even the first in recent memory- our case may be precedent-setting. Minnesota’s terrorism statutes have never been enacted in this way before, and if they win their case against us, they will only be strengthened as they continue their crusade on ever more widespread fronts. We view our case as an opportunity to demonstrate community solidarity in the face of repression, to establish a precedent of successful resistance to the government’s attempts to destroy our movements.

Right now we are in the very early stages of a legal battle that will require large sums of money and enormous personal resources. We have already been overwhelmed by the outpouring of support locally and throughout the country, and are grateful for everything that people have done for us. We now have a Twin Cities-based support committee and are developing a national support network that we feel confident will help us through the coming months. For more information on the case and how to support us, or to donate, go to http://RNC8.org

We have been humbled by such an immense initial show of solidarity and are inspired to turn our attention back to the very issues that motivated us to organize against the RNC in the first place. What’s happening to us is part of a much broader and very serious problem. The fact is that we live in a police state- some people first realized this in the streets of St. Paul during the convention, but many others live with that reality their whole lives. People of color, poor and working class people, immigrants, are targeted and criminalized on a daily basis, and we understand what that context suggests about the repression the 8 of us face now. Because we are political organizers who have built solid relationships through our work, because we have various forms of privilege- some of us through our skin, some through our class, some through our education- and because we have the resources to invoke a national network of support, we are lucky, even as we are being targeted.

And so, while we ask for support in whatever form you are able to offer it, and while we need that support to stay free, we also ask that you think of our case as a late indicator of the oppressive climate in which we live. The best solidarity is to keep the struggle going, and we hope that supporting us can be a small part of broader movements for social change.

For better times and with love,

the RNC 8: Luce Guillen-Givins, Max Spector, Nathanael Secor, Eryn Timmer, Monica Bicking, Erik Oseland, Robert Czernik, Garrett Fitzgerald

FreeLibertarianStickers.com demands $700 emergency bailout from LNC, Inc.

FreeLibertarianStickers.com

For Immediate Release

AUSTIN, TX – September 29 – Suffering from a deluge of free order requests brought about by high profile placements on multiple free product promotion websites, FreeLibertarianStickers.com is demanding an immediate $700 emergency bailout from the Libertarian National Committee, Inc. (LNC), the governing body of the national Libertarian Party.

Texas based FreeLibertarianStickers.com sells low-priced Libertarian stickers plus provides free samples with “free shipping on all orders” to customers throughout the United States of America, except for Texas.

FreeLibertarianStickers.com was founded in January 2008.  The graph below shows a trickling of orders from January through July which primarily resulted from publicity by placing snarky comments on another blog (TPW) with links to the site.

The first upward trend was the result of promoting FreeLibertarianStickers.com on this blog in July.

The second upward trend was September 27, when FreeLibertarianStickers.com was promoted on multiple free product promotion sites, which resulted in a deluge of “free” orders without a corresponding increase in paid orders.

Free Sticker Orders

Sarah Palin: competent? libertarian?

Let’s get the libertarian thing out of the way.

The answer is no

.

Lisa Nova presents a couple of humorous portrayals, giving different views of Palin’s competence level.

In Clip #1, Palin is portrayed as very competent (and ruthless).

In this one…not so much

Trillion dollar ripoff is dead…for now

The House version of the Congressional wall street bankers bailout ripoff is dead. Conservative Republicans united with liberal Democrats in a narrow victory against the muddled middle, but the fight is not over.

Terra Eclipse has united a diverse group of interests, including MoveOn, Downsize DC, True Majority, Campaign for Liberty, United Liberty, FreedomWorks and the National Taxpayers Union to oppose and track no votes in the Senate and possible future votes in the House.

pdsa reports at IPR:

Republicans blamed Pelosi’s scathing speech near the close of the debate — which attacked Bush’s economic policies and a “right-wing ideology of anything goes, no supervision, no discipline, no regulation” of financial markets — for the vote’s failure.

“We could have gotten there today had it not been for the partisan speech that the speaker gave on the floor of the House,” Minority Leader John Boehner said. Pelosi’s words, the Ohio Republican said, “poisoned our conference, caused a number of members that we thought we could get, to go south.”

Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., the whip, estimated that Pelosi’s speech changed the minds of a dozen Republicans who might otherwise have supported the plan.

Julie Hirschfeld Davis, “Stunning defeat for economy bailout; stocks plunge“, Associated Press, September 29, 2008

Libertarian Party of Louisiana chair explains factors that led to missing the deadline to put Bob Barr on the ballot

In a comment at Ballot Access News, the chair of the Libertarian Party of Louisiana explains why they missed the deadline to put Bob Barr on the ballot. Louisiana has one of the easiest ballot access requirements among all states, with no need to get signatures from voters – just a slate of electors to put the Presidential candidate on the ballot. There is an organized and active Libertarian Party in Louisiana, which is officially recognized as a political party by the state (unlike in some other states).

The Barr campaign’s attempt to complete the required paperwork got caught up in the confusion in the final week for regular filing, with both the electors needed to sign off on the papers as well as the Secretary of State’s office subject to evacuation due to Hurricane Gustav. Several smaller parties (including the Socialist and Reform Parties) also had the same problem. Several other parties and candidates avoided the problem by filing well ahead of the deadline.

The Libertarian and Socialist parties submitted their paperwork and sued the state, and the Libertarians (but not the Socialists) were initially granted injunctive relief by the court and placed on the ballot. However, an appeals court later reversed that ruling. The case is currently being appealed to the US Supreme Court.

Adrien Monteleone’s explanation of why the Libertarian Party was not among those that filed well ahead of the deadline:

We wanted to file these papers on the first day. However, the Barr campaign took it upon itself, without contacting the state party or the La SoS, to file and pay themselves. They did so incorrectly. The process of receiving the incorrect paperwork back from the SoS, forwarding to the Barr campaign for proper form of payment, and then getting it back in return took till the Wednesday before the Storm hit. It was on Thursday we were informed by the SoS that we in fact, as a recognized party, DID NOT need the payment. Had the SoS office been knowledgeable about the fact that we are to file in the same manner as the Dems and Reps from day one, we would have filed our paperwork on the first day.

Combine the Barr campaign’s lack of communication with the state party, the ignorance of the Secretary of State’s office of their own laws, and the hurricane closing the offices on the last day of filing (not to mention scattering some electors) and you see why we missed the Sept 2nd deadline.

Had we had even just the correct info from the SoS, the rest would have been irrelevant. The case required us to prove there was an action by the SoS which prevented us from filing – the combination of improper information of the requirements, as well as closing the offices on the last day (and lack of communication from them on re-opening) is what prevented the LPL from filing timely. Hence why we were granted the injunction.

In another comment on the same post, Richard Winger points out that

The Fifth Circuit opinion itself says the Dems & Reps didn’t file til Sep. 5. And, indeed, the Reps couldn’t have filed on Sep. 2, since they didn’t nominate for either pres or v-p until Sep. 3.

Reason Foundation Wrong on Texas Toll Roads

The Austin American Statesman recently posted an article announcing an award from the so-called “Libertarian” Reason Foundation for Texas Governor Rick Perry, calling him an “innovator in action” for his toll road programs.

The public-private toll roads in Texas grant monopoly pricing rights to the private operators.  Non-compete clauses prohibit construction of competing roads by other private or governmental agencies.  These are not roads constructed in a free market environment, but the use of the terms “toll” and “private” have duped a lot of well-intentioned people into thinking these toll roads are a good deal.  In fact, toll roads are one of the most expensive ways to add capacity to our transportation system.

Imagine if the City of Austin comes up with a so-called plan to privatize the water system.  They give all of the water plants, piping distribution, water meters, etc., to a private company (I’ll call it Austin Water Lords), outlaw competition, and sell the plan to the public by calling it “privatization.”  Austin Water Lords can then charge monopoly pricing rates to consumers.  I’m sure my water bill would instantly quadruple.  Jacking up prices would reduce demand.  Similarly, jacking up prices on blog postings would cut back on bandwidth usage.

Texas Governor, Rick Perry, recently supported a $3 billion Texas cancer bond and mandatory immunization of teenage girls for the HPV virus.  He was re-elected Governor in 2006 with just 39% of the vote.  He’s no friend of freedom and Texans smell his corruption.

I haven’t provided many references to facts here.  However, there’s tons about this all over the internet and in the mainstream press.  We got a big problem in America with people misusing the term “privatize” to grow government.

I’m convinced some very bad people have infiltrated the Reason Foundation and are heavily abusing the term “libertarian” and “privatize” to grow the size and scope of government and corruption.

Carbon taxes?  How about oxygen taxes?

The Reason Foundation is way messed (it’s Sunday) up!

Fictional Reserve Banking

From the desk of George Phillies

I suppose “zero’ is a fraction, but this is not what is usually meant by “fractional reserve banking”. Source is an LPMass member and attorney.

If this emergency bailout law passes.

12 USC sect. 461 defines the reserves that commercial banks (”depository institutions”) have to maintain.

http://uscode.law.cornell.edu/uscode/12/461.html#b

(b)(1)(A) defines “depository institution”, and (b)(2)(A) sets the reserve minimums. Long story short, commercial banks have to keep 3% reserve against “monetary policy” transactions up to $25 million, and between 8% and 14% (set by the Fed) on transactions above $25 million.

Now check the “Notes” for that section.

Pub. L. 109–351, title II, §§ 201–203, Oct. 13, 2006, §§ 201–203, 120 Stat. 1968,
provided that, effective Oct. 1, 2011, this section is amended— (1) in subsection (b)(2)(A), by striking “the ratio of 3 per centum” and inserting “a ratio of not greater than 3 percent (and which may be zero)” in clause (i) and by striking “and not less than 8 per centum,” and inserting “(and which may be zero),” in clause (ii).

This amendment was scheduled to eliminate the reserve requirement entirely on 10/01/2011. I say “was”, because here’s this gem from the Emergency Act that Congress just published tonight:

SEC. 128. ACCELERATION OF EFFECTIVE DATE.
Section 203 of the Financial Services Regulatory Relief Act of 2006 (12 U.S.C. 461 note) is amended by striking ‘‘October 1, 2011’’ and inserting ‘‘October 1, 2008’’.

In other words, the reserve requirements for commercial banks can be ZERO for ALL TRANSACTIONS as of this Thursday, if this monstrosity passes.

Trevor Lyman attempts to hold a presidential debate, changes thirdpartyticket.com

posted at IPR by Ross Levin

Trevor Lyman, the man who organized the Ron Paul moneybombs, is trying to organize a debate for all of the presidential candidates who will appear on enough ballots to win. Ralph Nader, Chuck Baldwin, Bob Barr, Cynthia McKinney, Barack Obama, and John McCain will all be invited.

However, it is not guaranteed that the debate will take place. Lyman is asking for 10,000 donation pledges to his website, thirdpartyticket.com, before he commits to holding the debate. He wants that number of pledges by October 8th. If the goal is met, the debate will be in New York City.

Formerly, the website was taking pledges for a third party moneybomb, and the candidate who would receive the funds would be decided at a later date. But it has since changed to taking pledges for money to run the proposed debate.

So far, there are over 1,500 pledges, and the sponsors are Break the Matrix, Open Debates, and Free and Equal Elections.

Once again, you can pledge to donate toward the debate at thirdpartyticket.com, and 10,000 pledges are needed by October 8th for what could be the most serious challenge to the Commission for Presidential Debates monopoly on presidential debates to take place.

So…what do you think?

Not sure what to make of this. I have multiple copies sent to me by a whole bunch of people, but don’t know anything beyond what’s here. Anyone have a clue?

Oh, yeah, another thing: gas shortages all over the place, 1970s style.

Just how fucked are we? Your thoughts here, please.

Too Smart to Thug for the State

From Official State Media:

A Federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit by a man who was barred from the New London police force because he scored too high on an intelligence test.

In a ruling made public on Tuesday, Judge Peter C. Dorsey of the United States District Court in New Haven agreed that the plaintiff, Robert Jordan, was denied an opportunity to interview for a police job because of his high test scores. But he said that that did not mean Mr. Jordan was a victim of discrimination.

Judge Dorsey ruled that Mr. Jordan was not denied equal protection because the city of New London applied the same standard to everyone: anyone who scored too high was rejected.

Mr. Jordan, 48, who has a bachelor’s degree in literature and is an officer with the State Department of Corrections, said he was considering an appeal. ”I was eliminated on the basis of my intellectual makeup,” he said. ”It’s the same as discrimination on the basis of gender or religion or race.”

Scotty Boman on Ron Paul Endorsing Chuck Baldwin

From the Miller Politics interview with Scotty Boman, the 2008 Libertarian candidate for Michigan US Senate.

Question: You say you are “running to further the Ron Paul/Libertarian ideals of Peace, Liberty, and Prosperity.” Recently the Libertarian presidential candidate, Bob Barr, has had a falling out with Rep. Paul and Paul has now endorsed Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party for President. What is your response to Paul’s endorsement of Baldwin over Barr?

Answer: My reflex reaction to this question was “No comment.”

I am a Libertarian Party candidate who has been a Ron Paul supporter since 1988. I am also a Libertarian candidate for United States Senate that has earned the support of many Chuck Baldwin supporters. So any answer I give could cost me supporters.

Nonetheless, I must comment; I didn’t get into politics to play it safe and avoid offending people. That’s what mainstream Democrats and Republicans do; stand for nothing to attract supporters who fall for anything.

I got into politics to support what I believe is the right kind of government, and to give people who share my political beliefs, a chance to vote their conscience. At the core of my philosophy of government, is the recognition that the initiation of force is a fundamental social evil born of irrationality. By “initiation of force” I am referring to acts and threats of violence or fraud that exceed what is necessary to protect oneself from the same.

The political application of this principal is to support laws and policies that maximize individual liberty, and minimize the victimization of people. The greatest potential victimizer is the government. To the extent that government is necessary, it must therefore be restrained. This is the libertarian philosophy.

The libertarian ideal of minimal government provides the best model for a prosperous, free, society: A community wherein people of different cultures, and diverse faiths can coexist. This way, even people who have irreconcilably different theologies, and personal moralities can live next door without the fear of sectarian violence.

On the Federal level, adherence to the Constitution with its Bill of Rights is essential to move in the direction of a free society. Without it I am not a candidate, and Ron Paul is not a Congressman.

I have been a Ron Paul supporter because his message is libertarian; Ron Paul being the messenger, is not the reason I support the message. Now he has endorsed a candidate who has previously endorsed him. Chuck Baldwin’s positions on most Federal issues are the same as those of Ron Paul, the Libertarian Party platform, and myself. Previously Dr. Paul refrained from endorsing any presidential candidate, in part due to his close relationship with the Libertarian Party. In fact, earlier that day Tom Lizardo told me Ron Paul would not endorse ANY candidate who was running against a nominated Republican. According to Paul’s blog, Bob Barr’s Snub tipped the scales. I understand the Congressman’s choice, but I will chose differently.

My November 4th vote only matters because it will be an expression of my beliefs. It will not plausibly choose the next president. By voting Libertarian, I won’t just be choosing a single candidate; I will be voting for the policies of minimal government. I will be voting for the Libertarian Parties Statement of Principles. I will be voting for the fine individuals (myself included) that were nominated to be presidential electors by the Libertarian Party of Michigan.

While our views on Federalism are very close, there are important difference between the Constitution Party (Taxpayers Party in Michigan), and Libertarian Party on the State level. Libertarians support maximizing individual liberty, at all jurisdictional levels: Federal, state, and local. As a federal candidate, I recognize and agree with the tenth amendment limits on the federal government. As a Libertarian, I would support less government intrusion at the state and local level.

In this age of tyranny it is vital that people of all faiths and backgrounds work together for their mutual liberty. The libertarian platform is one that supports religious freedom for all faiths. We wish to keep the tentacles of the state out of your church, temple or mosque.

What Would Happen?

What would happen if the United States assumed so much debt, it could no longer function?  Would we be free at last or would we be taken over by another country?

Like Oktoberfest, only with tea

Posted at Boston Tea Party website by Tom Knapp

Y’all,

The time period between now and the November 4th election is prime time for growing the party. Let’s give America some October surprises!

This week, our presidential candidate, Charles Jay, “got official” in two more states — Arizona and Montana. Not full ballot access, but write-in status. The activists in Arizona who decided to make that happen got it done in two days! “Favorite son” Barry Hess is the veep pick there. Expect to see some more write-in filings soon.

The presidential campaign also just invested in an advertising buy through Google ads, expressly aimed at party-building via an intro page on this site.

You can link to that intro page, too, of course, and we hope you will. For that matter, nobody’s going to stop you from throwing a little money into ad campaigns of your own to flog it!

Other upcoming stuff:

- I’ll be on-site (or, rather, as close as the Secret Service will let me get) in St. Louis, Missouri for the October 2nd “major party” vice-presidential debate. One of the party’s strongest supporters just sent me four marvelous “JAY-KNAPP — VOTE BOSTON TEA PARTY” signs to wave. They’re nice, big signs, too. We’re going to have a visible presence … if you’d like to be part of it, just show up and look for those signs!

- Charles Jay debates all the other presidential candidates who aren’t chicken on October 6th at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee.

- More media coming soon — I’ll get times, channels, etc. up as soon as they’re firm.

Yours in liberty,
Tom Knapp
Founder and 2008 Vice-Presidential Nominee
Boston Tea Party

Q&A with Bob Barr at Reason Magazine HQ

Via Reason Hit and Run

On Friday, September 26 at Reason Magazine’s Washington DC Headquarters, Libertarian Party presidential candidate Bob Barr participated in the presidential debates with a live studio audience. Here, he makes his closing statement and fields questions from the audience; the moderator is reason Editor in Chief Matt Welch.

Bob Barr blog reports that

We are told that anywhere between 175 to 200 people were in attendance last night, that includes media.

Schansberg welcomes Sodrel and Hill to Jasper debate

September 27, 2008

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Dr. Eric Schansberg, the Libertarian candidate for the U.S. Congress in Indiana’s 9th District, welcomed Mike Sodrel and Baron Hill to the debate in Jasper on October 21st. Schansberg committed to the debate in early September, just after the invitation was extended. Sodrel accepted the invitation on Wednesday. Hill jumped in on Friday, just meeting the debate committee’s deadline.

Schansberg said: “We’re looking forward to the opportunity to communicate with voters in the 9th District. It’s a shame that we only have one debate, but one is better than none. It’s too bad that it took so long to organize, but better late than never. And it’s unfortunate that it’s not a lot easier to set up a debate. We’d still like to see more opportunities—perhaps town hall meetings in places like Bloomington and Seymour, but that’s up to the other candidates. I love to talk about public policy—anytime, anywhere.”

On Hill’s late entrance, Schansberg speculated: “After Mike joined me on Wednesday, I think Baron had to jump in after that. On one hand, I don’t understand Baron’s sudden reluctance to debate—after so passionately calling for debates in 2006. On the other hand, given his answers to questions about gas prices, fiscal conservatism, Iraq, and so on—I can see why he’d want to avoid a debate.

For more information on the campaign, see: www.SchansbergForCongress.com

. To schedule an interview, contact Eric Schansberg at (812) 218-0443, Melanie Hughes at (502) 432-1930, or send an email to SchansbergForCongress@gmail.com.

Boston Tea Party Presidential candidate Charles Jay answers Obama-McCain debate questions

Posted at cj08.com

(I wasn’t invited to Friday night’s presidential debate, but you knew I was going to weigh in anyway. My “participation” comes in the way of interspersing my responses into the actual text of the debate, which you will see below. All of those responses to the questions asked by moderator Jim Lehrer are in bold type. We ditched the rules for this one, and I used remarks in the rebuttal process as I felt were necessary; for the most part, since I had the advantage of being the last to answer, so to speak, I did single responses. This transcript is so long that it is being divided into two parts – the first is the part of the debate that explored financial issues, namely the bailout, which running mate Tom Knapp probably more accurately calls the “Ripoff”. The part that explores Iraq and foreign policy will come later on )

LEHRER: Good evening from the Ford Center for the Performing Arts at the University of Mississippi in Oxford. I’m Jim Lehrer of the NewsHour on PBS, and I welcome you to the first of the 2008 presidential debates between the Republican nominee, Senator John McCain of Arizona, and the Democratic nominee, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois.

(And the Boston Tea Party nominee, Charles Jay)

The Commission on Presidential Debates is the sponsor of this event and the three other presidential and vice presidential debates coming in October.

Tonight’s will primarily be about foreign policy and national security, which, by definition, includes the global financial crisis. It will be divided roughly into nine-minute segments.

Direct exchanges between the candidates and moderator follow-ups are permitted after each candidate has two minutes to answer the lead question in an order determined by a coin toss.

The specific subjects and questions were chosen by me. They have not been shared or cleared with anyone.

The audience here in the hall has promised to remain silent, no cheers, no applause, no noise of any kind, except right now, as we welcome Senators Obama and McCain.

(APPLAUSE)

Let me begin with something General Eisenhower said in his 1952 presidential campaign. Quote, “We must achieve both security and solvency. In fact, the foundation of military strength is economic strength,” end quote.

With that in mind, the first lead question.

Libertarian Presidential candidate Bob Barr on the ‘debate that wasn’t’

Writing in Huffington Post, Bob Barr says

There’s not a dime’s worth of difference between Senator McCain and Senator Obama. The viewers of this first presidential “debate” missed the opportunity for a true debate because the viewpoints I represent were not raised.

This was clearly a debate between big government and bigger government. The proposals for spending taxpayers’ hard-earned money for everything from bailing out Wall Street to bailing out Georgia (theirs, not ours) are simply irresponsible.

We, the United States, are living way beyond our means, and in this debate, there was not a single recognition–let alone an alarm cry–for the runaway spending of our government.

Barr denounces the “mad dash” to pass a trillion dollar “bailout” of Wall Street, calls for a Justice Department investigation of fraud and other criminal behavior at financial institutions, and stop the US from acting as the world’s policeman and occupying numerous foreign countries.

He concludes,

The debate tonight convinced me that neither McCain nor Obama want to, or can, change the direction of our country. With roughly 80 percent of all Americans saying our country is headed in the wrong direction, I am the only candidate who embodies their hope for true change.

The Washington establishment doesn’t want to face up to the challenges next administration will inherit. If you’re part of the 55 percent or more of voters who think the debates would be enriched by having me in them, let the news media know your feelings. The establishment will respond if public opinion is strongly in favor of my inclusion in the next two presidential debates.

Louisiana Libertarian Party appeals ruling that keeps Bob Barr off the ballot to U.S. Supreme Court

Ballot Access News reports that on September 27, the Louisiana Libertarian Party filed a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking that Bob Barr be put back on the ballot. Previously, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana ruled that Barr’s filing fell within a three day grace period when the Secretary of State extended the deadline. The Secretary of State’s office was closed the week of the deadline, and some of the electors whose signature was needed for the paperwork were evacuated, due to Hurricane Gustav. Yesterday, the US Fifth District Appeals Court reversed that ruling.

Schansberg: “Are you kidding me?”

Dr. Eric Schansberg, an economics professor and the Libertarian candidate for the U.S. Congress in Indiana’s 9th District, responded to President Bush’s call for a $700 billion bail-out in the financial sector—and called on Rep. Baron Hill to resist the urge to vote in favor of it.

Asked about the bail-out, Dr. Schansberg said: “There are many reasons—large and small—to oppose the President’s proposal. To start with, it’s not constitutional. Beyond that, it’s not ethical. Why should the government take money from taxpayers to subsidize bad decisions by lenders and borrowers? Finally, it’s unlikely to be practical.”

Expanding on how the bail-out would work in practice, Schansberg said, “Why would we want to give money to those who have misused it? Why would one expect the federal government to do a good job with this? We should have never got involved with Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. We shouldn’t have subsidized risky decisions. This is welfare for the rich and a bail-out for bankers.”

On the broader issue of bail-outs and fiscal conservatism, Schansberg said, “President Bush and his Congresses have been spending money like it grows on trees: $300 billion for a farm bill, $168 billion to try to bail-out the economy, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG, etc. The list goes on and on. Unfortunately, the patience of lenders financing our expanding debt will not go on and on. The dollar has already taken a beating, resulting most notably in much higher gas prices. We must return to fiscal sanity or we risk driving our economy into a ditch. $700 billion? Are you kidding me?”

Referring to Rep. Hill, Schansberg said, “Baron’s claim to be a fiscal conservative is simply not supported by the evidence

. But in this case, he has the opportunity to be a fiscal conservative on this one vote—by voting against any such proposal. I hope he will show leadership and courage on this issue.”

For more information on the campaign, see: www.SchansbergForCongress.com

. To schedule an interview, contact Eric Schansberg at (812) 218-0443, Melanie Hughes at (502) 432-1930, or send an email to SchansbergForCongress@gmail.com.

Bob Barr’s contribution top $1 million

The contribution countdown ticker at BobBarr2008.com has topped $1 million for the first time.

This caps off what deputy campaign manager Shane Cory describes as a wild week

Earlier this week, we received word that our case in Texas — where both John McCain and Barack Obama failed to certify their place on the ballot by the deadline — was denied.

The Texas Supreme Court denied it without comment. The order simply read, “The following petition for Writ of Mandamus is denied.”

The court did not even bother to make an argument as to why it’s acceptable for the two major parties to ignore the law.

If that’s not evidence of a double standard, I’m not sure what is.

Given our limited financial resources and limited time, we cannot appeal the decision at this time.

But here’s some great news!

Earlier this week, we won our substitution case in Massachusetts and will be on the ballot in the Bay State.

The following day, word came out of Baton Rouge that we won our case in Louisiana and will be on the ballot there as well!

We’re now on the ballot in 46 states and are awaiting word and action in Maine, Connecticut and Oklahoma.

Cory goes on to describe the future plans of the campaign:

Today, we’re kicking off our radio campaign in targeted states! Click here to listen to the first ad.

Next week, we begin our national television campaign.

We’re getting a heck of a deal on our radio spots and paying about $2 per spot.

Barr has recently published pieces asking to be included in the bailout discussions, as well as an op-ed in USA today asking to be included in the debates. He has called on the bailout to be rejected and offered to take McCain’s place in a debate with Obama.

If Obama does not accept, Barr will appear tonight in a live “counter-debate” at Reason magazine:

Please join reason, either in person or online, for a live counter-debate on Friday, Sept. 26, with Libertarian Party nominee Bob Barr, who will respond to John McCain, Barack Obama and moderator Jim Lehrer in real time. We will be live-blogging Barr’s responses at Hit & Run, and videotaping the whole proceedings, which will include a brief post-debate Q&A with reason staffers, bloggers, and other interested parties. The fun begins at 8:00 PM, the debate starts at 9:00 sharp, and the drinks will be provided by the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States. In a year rich with libertarian politics, the only place you’ll hear a candidate talking libertarian ideas will be in reason’s Washington headquarters.

What: Bob Barr debates the presidential debaters

When: Friday, September 26, 8:00 PM to 10:30 PM

Where: Reason HQ, 1747 Connecticut Avenue NW (near S Street)

RSVPs: A must. Send e-mail to events@reason.com, or call 310.391.2245.

Bob Barr removed from Louisiana ballot

Posted at Ballot Access News

On September 26, the 5th Circuit removed Bob Barr from the Louisiana ballot. The three judges were Carolyn King (a Carter appointee from Texas), James Dennis (a Clinton appointee from Louisiana), and Priscilla Owen (a Bush Jr. appointee from Texas). The action was taken without any hearing. The case is Libertarian Party et al v Dardenne, 08-30922. Technically, the ruling only stays the decision of the U.S. District Court, and a ruling on declaratory relief will be held after the election.

The five-page order says that the state will suffer irreparable injury if the stay is not granted. That irreparable injury is that “absentee voters in the military and overseas will receive two ballots with different candidates, with a resulting likelihood of confusion and duplicate voting.” The ruling also says, “We recognize that the stay will inflict harm on the Libertarian Party, but we believe that the harm may well be of their own making.” The party has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse the stay.

This brings Barr back down to 45 state ballot access, one state short of Ron Paul in 1988 and Ralph Nader this year. However, he still has court cases in Maine and Oklahoma, and a recount challenging the Connecticut Secretary of State’s determination that the Libertarian Party petition did not have enough valid signatures is underway.

Latest George Phillies media appearances

George Phillies, a Libertarian Presidential candidate currently on the ballot in NH, will be on TV — broadcast is Sunday

http://nhcaptv.com/episode/37

George Phillies interviewed by Todd Andrew Barnett and James Landrith 6PM Friday

http://www.nowlive.com/libertycaptalklive

In the eighty-eighth episode, Todd and Jim asks panelists LP presidential candidate George Phillies, LP activist Lidia Seebeck and her husband blogger Michael Seebeck, and The Liberty Conspiracy talk radio show host Gardner Goldsmith on topics such as Gard’s firing from 107.7 WPTL The Pulse, Bob Barr’s declining candidacy, the fall of the LP, the domestic and worldwide financial crisis (including the bailouts), and the never-ending McCain/Obama saga. In the second half of the second hour, Todd and Jim talk about AP News of the Day.

Reason.com to livestream Bob Barr debate commentary

Reason.com to livestream Bob Barr debate commentary:

http://reason.com/blog/show/129069.html

For those who can’t make it to the Bob Barr event in reason’s DC HQ tonight, we’ll be experimenting with a live stream online. The stream will go live at http://www.mogulus.com/reason at 8:55 [pm Eastern time] with Bob Barr answering debate questions in real time. Comments will be enabled on the streaming site, so you can participate in the festivities no matter where you are.

Michigan Libertarians: Don’t bail out the bankers, throw out the incumbents

DON’T BAIL OUT (THE BANKERS); THROW OUT (THE INCUMBENTS)

9/26/08

CONTACT: Libertarian Party of Michigan Chair Bill Hall, 616-460-9516 or Media Coordinator Mark Norrod, 616-902-0086

JOINT MEDIA RELEASE ISSUED BY ALL 16 LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF MICHIGAN CANDIDATES FOR US CONGRESS –

Scotty Boman US Senate; Daniel W Grow, US House District 1; Dan Johnson, District 2;

Erwin J Haas, District 3; Allitta Hren, District 4; Leonard Schwartz, District 5; Greg Merle, District 6; Kenneth Proctor, District 7; Will Tyler White, District 8; Adam Goodman, District 9; Neil Kiernan Stephenson, District 10; John J Tatar, District 11; John Vico, District 12; Greg Creswell, District 13; Rick Secula, District 14; Gregory Scott Stempfle, District 15

Libertarian Scotty Boman, candidate for U.S. Senate, joined Michigan’s candidates for all 15 U.S. House of Representative seats to renounce the proposed financial bail out of the mortgage banking system. “These problems were caused by the Republican and Democratic politicians in DC and the Federal Reserve!” Boman continued, “They created the government monopolies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They required them to insure no-money-down loans at artificially low rates to people without the ability to pay them back. They inflated the money supply, driving down interest rates, and artificially inflating home and asset values. Giving the same incompetent government regulators even more control over the market would be insane.”

Leonard Schwartz, US House candidate for Michigan’s 5th District expressed similar outrage. He summarized the situation, “These firms made loans, which is naturally a risky business. They made a lot of money on most of those loans. Now they want us to pay for the ones that went bad. This situation is the same as if a casino wanted to keep all the wagers they won, but wanted taxpayers to cover all their payouts.”

“Their proposals are simply wrong,” stated Daniel Grow, 1st District candidate for U.S. Congress. “Banking is already highly regulated.” Mentioning the Securities and Exchange Commission, the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act, and prosecutions by the US Department of Justice, Grow added, “Loose monetary policy and efforts to expand home ownership caused this crisis, and further regulation will not fix anything.” Attacking the bail-out proposals, Grow said, “Pumping in more money will at best only temporarily delay necessary adjustments, ultimately bringing a worse crisis, and is a thinly veiled effort to seek short-term political gain.”

Dan Johnson, candidate for the 2nd District, declared, “It is us hard-working Americans who work, save to buy a home, and pay our bills who are being asked to mortgage not only our future, but our children’s and grandchildren’s future to pay for this. We need to stop this now, and we need to elect a Libertarian Congress in November. Otherwise, we risk further federal manipulation of our economy, which will ultimately fail and drive us into a deeper and longer depression than will occur naturally without further manipulation. Should this bailout go through, we will have handed the inmates the keys to the asylum.”

Scotty Boman offered this proposal: “The fastest way out of this mess is to free those hard-working Americans who have demonstrated they are responsible with their finances to continue to work hard, invest in our economy, and create jobs. We must not tax, regulate and penalize them to bail out those on Wall Street and Main Street who have demonstrated they are not responsible, and will likely do the same thing again, and expect yet another bail out.”

Libertarian Mike Munger in historic WUNC-TV gubernatorial debate

RALEIGH (Sept. 26) — For the first time in modern North Carolina history, a gubernatorial debate included a third party candidate. Libertarian Mike Munger appeared last night with Republican Pat McCrory on WUNC-TV.

The third candidate in the race, Democrat Beverly Perdue, declined to participate.

Munger thanked both WUNC-TV and McCrory for making this event possible. “A simple respect for the democratic process requires that all views to be heard,” he said. “The fact that we are both here tonight shows that neither one of us is afraid of making sure all views are presented to the public.

The debate was friendly, even when the candidates disagreed, and peppered with Munger’s usual quips.

Munger called the calls for off-shore drilling “a gimmick” that will only produce a “drop in the ocean of oil.”

He characterized as “economic prostitution” incentives used to lure businesses to North Carolina . “A business that comes to North Carolina for money will leave North Carolina for money,” he said.

In addressing construction of large, new buildings for schools and other public facilities, Munger said “I’m a political scientist; I know the technical term for this: BSOs – Big Shiny Objects.”

Both he and McCrory hit hard at the secrecy and corruption rampant in state government. “We have a play-to-pay system. We sell legislation and auction off public policy,” Munger said. He pledged to bring openness to government saying “Sunshine is the best disinfectant.”

When asked about the problems with the mental health system overhaul, Munger quipped, “It didn’t look like an overhaul to me. It looked more like a frat party. There was no unaccountability and no oversight.”

The use of the governor’s veto power is “like spanking your child: It means you’re a bad parent, that you haven’t successfully used all of the things that should come before that. Now maybe it sometimes still happens, but it really means it’s a failure for you, and it’s a failure for the child.”

Even though Perdue was absent, her name did come up during the debate, particularly during the discussion on education.

“Bev said she did not want to have all the same paradigms but she also said the governor is responsible for education,” Munger pointed out. “Why aren’t parents responsible for education?”

The sharpest difference between Munger and McCrory came on the issue of the death penalty. Munger said unequivocally he would commute the sentences of all prisoners on death row to life in prison without parole.

“I don’t think we have any business with the government killing our citizens,” he said. Munger believes the death penalty is administered unfairly. “Punishment shouldn’t depend on the color of your skin or how much money you have to pay a lawyer,” he said.

McCrory would immediately resume executions because “it was the people who said this person tragically deserves death as a result of the horrendous crime they committed …”

In closing, Munger addressed the myth that voting for a third party is a wasted vote. One vote does not decide an election, but it can send a signal, he said.

“Unless you have Jedi powers, you’re not going to be able to control the way other people vote,” he said. “You have one precious vote. Your decision on how to cast it will send a signal to our leaders in Raleigh.”

WUNC-TV will air a second gubernatorial debate Oct. 8. Perdue has also declined to participate in this event. Munger will participate in the final debate Oct. 15. It is sponsored WSOC-TV, WTVI CHARLOTTE and the Charlotte-Mecklenburg League of Women Voters. Perdue has accepted this invitation.

-30-
___________________________________________________________________________________________
LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF NORTH CAROLINA
PO Box 28141 Raleigh NC 27611 * 877.843.5762 * www.LPNC.org

Brian Irving, Communications Director, 919.538.4548

Bob Barr on American Morning

via Bob Barr blog

Louisiana appeals decision that put Bob Barr on the ballot

Posted at Ballot Access News

On September 25, Louisiana filed a notice of appeal with the 5th circuit, in the case over whether Bob Barr should be on the ballot. The issue is the deadline, and its relationship to the bad weather that closed the Secretary of State’s office during the first week in September. Since the state is appealing, Brian Moore (who, unlike Bob Barr, had not been given any relief by the U.S. District Court), can automatically cross-appeal in the same proceedings in the 5th circuit. The U.S. District Court still hasn’t issued its written opinion, so it is difficult to analyze all the issues. Also it is still murky as to whether the Reform Party has any chance for relief. The Reform Party was not part of the lawsuit but it has the same problem, and it (like the Libertarian Party) is a qualified party in Louisiana.

The court previously ruled that since, unlike the Libertarians, the Socialists are not a recognized party in Louisiana, the three day grace period does not apply to them.

Palin’s minister drives out witchcraft, makes Obama’s minister look completely sane in comparison

Thomas Muthee is a minister from Kenya who has repeatedly preached at Republican VP candidate Sarah Palin’s church (Wasilla Assembly of God).  This is not some long-past connection, nor is it a situation where the church one time invited a visiting minister who they didn’t know was a wackjob.  Muthee has been a visiting minister there since 2005, and most recently preached at Palin’s church this past weekend.

From Wikipedia:

Muthee and his wife returned home to Kenya from Scotland, where he had finished his graduate studies, in 1988.^[3][4] They soon felt that they were “called by God to Kiambu” and after six months of prayer, research, and “spiritual mapping,” they came to believe that a witch known as “Mama Jane” was the cause of crime and spiritual oppression in the area.^{[1][3][4][5][6]} Muthee alleged that “top government and business leaders [were] afraid to do anything without her approval,” that at least one person per month would die in a car accident in front of her “divination house” (otherwise known as Emmanuel Clinic), and that she harassed his congregation.^[3][4][7] According to Muthee, soon after his followers began to pray that God would either save or oust Mama Jane,^[3][4][7][8] three young people died in another apparent accident in front of Mama Jane’s clinic.^[3][4][7] The angry townsfolk wanted to stone her in retaliation, and when the police entered Mama Jane’s home to intervene, they were apparently startled by what they believed to be a demon and shot her pet python to death.^{[3][4][6][7][8]} Mama Jane was then questioned by police, after which she left town.^[3][4][8] Since then, Muthee has frequently referred to his witch-hunt as an example of successful spiritual warfare.^[6]

The event was depicted in two videos by George Otis, Jr.,^[9][10] in which Muthee claimed that the crime rate in Kiambu dropped drastically after Mama Jane left.^{[1][3][5][7][11][12]} However, Workgroup “Back to the Bible,” headed by Pastor Rien van de Kraats of Kamperland, Netherlands, found no police reports or any other sources that backed up this claim.^[12]

In the video below, after enumerating how religious people should take over the entire country, he drives witchcraft away from Sarah Palin.

Whoo-boy.

Bear with us: another proposed petition about the bailout

This is a proposed petition. You can suggest draft changes at Brad Spangler’s blog.

To President Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin of the Russian Federation,

Thank you for the opportunity to address you in this petition.

The Russian News and Information Agency (RIA Novosti) recently published an opinion article written by British historian and political analyst John Laughland. Laughland suggested that the Russian government consider making the rouble convertible into gold. The article can be found here:

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20080924/117072937.html

We ask that you please consider Laughland’s proposal.

All factions of the political leadership of the United States government appear determined to wreck the value of the U.S. dollar. We are not optimistic that U.S. political leaders will adopt a wise monetary policy. Not only is this bad for the people of the United States, but because the U.S. dollar is so widely used it is bad for the people of the world.

We believe the Russian government has an opportunity to provide stability for the world economy during this time of crisis created by the U.S. government. We believe potential Russian adoption of a gold standard supports such efforts.

We ask this also on behalf of our own selves and all Americans who truly wish to prosper. You will recall, gentlemen, that the U.S. dollar once served as a stable currency for the informal economy in the Soviet Union. You may recall that this so-called “black market” did perhaps more to make life bearable for the ordinary Russian than the official economy did. We ask that the Russian government now return the favor by adopting a gold standard, creating a currency that can undisputably be trusted within the U.S. informal economy that must grow as the emerging U.S. police state grows in power.

Tell Congress: Just Say No to Donkey Punch Bailout Plan!

Petition from the desk of George Phillies, but don’t blame him for the headline

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/nobailouts/

petition urging Congress to reject the bailout

Let’s send Congress and the press the message. The text of the petition:

Respecting that many people have worked very hard to get a Congressional majority for their party, ‘we will vote against you’ covers the 2010 primaries as well as the general election.

Congress: Reject Paulson’s Bailout!

We call upon Congress to reject bank bailouts. We urge every Senator and Representative to vote against the plan. We urge every Senator to filibuster any bank bailout bill.

Congressmen: We mean it! If you vote for the bailout, we will vote against you, this Fall or in your next primary.

To pay for Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson’ plans, Uncle Sam will borrow trillions of dollars. That’s trillions of dollars out of our pockets and into the pockets of Paulson’s cronies. Congress should reject the Paulson plan and leave our money in our pockets.

Paulson’s plan will bankrupt the American taxpayer so Paulson’s banker friends can avoid suffering. Paulson wants to save his banker buddies by throwing our money at them. Instead of throwing money at bankers, Congress should throw the Paulson plan–and Paulson himself–into the wastebasket of history.

Americans believe in personal responsibility. If your neighbor borrows more money than he can repay, the penalty should fall on him, not on prudent working men and women like us who chose to live within their means. That goes for our neighbors, and it goes double for bankers and financiers, who are supposed to know how to invest money.

Congressional regulations make sure: When you sign a mortgage, the numbers you will pay were right in front of you. The Paulson plan to buy up mortgages rewards irresponsible people at the expense of the people who believed in the American way of thrift and frugality.

The Federal government should not stop banks from failing. That’s selective Federal intervention to aid the incompetent. That is just plain backwards. Congress should insist: If a bank wants to turn its assets over to Uncle Sam and go out of business, it should turn over absolutely all its assets, not just its bad assets. That includes funds reserved for executive buy-outs.

Congress should make sure: Foreign banks should get nothing from Uncle Sam. If foreign banks are unhappy with their investments, they should ask foreign taxpayers to pay them off. American working men and women should not pay through the nose because foreign bankers are too lazy to check out their investments and too incompetent to tell their investments cannot possibly be good.

Paulson proposes that his decisions should not be subject to review by the courts. Who does he think he is, King George III against whom George Washington revolted? Paulson would give himself powers that the King of England lacked. Americans would have no protections from Paulson’s bad judgement, no matter how grievous their injuries. That’s unconstitutional and immoral.

Congress should ask itself: Should we trust Paulson’s judgement? The record is clear: Paulson and Fed Reserve Bank Chair Bernanke got us into our mess. Paulson was completely wrong then, and there’s no reason to suspect he’s gotten smarter since. Congress has trusted Paulson for far too long. It should stop doing so.

Having said that, in these economically disorderly times some Americans through no fault of their own are momentarily unable to keep current on their mortgages. A program of modest loans with paybacks that could be re-scheduled, covering part of mortgage expenses for a limited time, would be far cheaper than the Paulson plan. To protect the taxpayer, such loans should not be voided by bankruptcy.

Most urgent private message

H/T Delaware Libertarian

Dear American:

I need to ask you to support an urgent secret business relationship with a transfer of funds of great magnitude.

I am Ministry of the Treasury of the Republic of America. My country has had a crisis that has caused the need for a large transfer of funds of 800 billion dollars US. If you would assist me in this transfer, it would be most profitable to you.

I am working with Mr. Franklin Raines, who will be my replacement as Ministry of the Treasury in January. You may know him as the Chief Economic Advisor for Senator Obama’s presidential campaign, and the former head of Fannie Mae from 1999 to 2006.

Let me assure you that this transaction is 100% safe. Mr. Raines is completely trustworthy with your money. His record speaks for itself.

This is a matter of great urgency. We need a blank check. We need the funds as quickly as possible. We cannot directly transfer these funds in the names of our close friends because we are constantly under surveillance. My family lawyer advised me that I should look for a reliable and trustworthy person who will act as a next of friend so the funds can be transferred. Please reply with all of your bank account, IRA and college fund account numbers and those of your children and grandchildren to wallstreetbailout@treasury.gov so that we may transfer your commission for this transaction. After I receive that information, I will respond with detailed information about safeguards that will be used to protect the funds.

Yours Faithfully

Henry “Hank” Paulson

Minister of Treasury

A Video For TitaniumGirl’s New Baby

We’re interested in politics so that someday she won’t have to be.

TitaniumGirl gives birth to world’s smallest Paulian

Let’s all give a nice LFV welcome to TiGirl’s newborn daughter – isn’t she absolutely adorable?!   I understand she’s quite strong-willed, just like her mom!

Only 18 years until she can vote ……

First State Chairman of the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire

STATEMENT BY ARTHUR W. KETCHEN

I want to announce my full and unequivocal support for the candidacy of George Phillies for President of The United States and Christopher Bennett for Vice President of The United States. For this is the only real Libertarian ticket for those offices on the ballot anywhere.

For Bob Barr, the choice of the Libertarian National Convention, is in point of fact anything but a Libertarian. Barr is a state’s rights advocate, where any real Libertarian is an individual rights advocate
who recognizes that “states rights” come a very far distant second, conditional upon how absolutely individual rights are upheld in any given state. Barr favors one religion over others,ignoring the
fundamental truth that if you lay your life on the line for this nation in the United States armed forces you have a right to observe the religion of your choice in those armed forces. An American is an
American, regardless of religious creed! And furthermore, if we are to acheive the ideal of limited government,we must end the nefarious cult of religious “leaders” giving blessing to the state, and the state favoring any one religion. In his inability to recognize the above truths and in his equivocation on questions that should have a clear answer Bob Barr still talks like the Republicrats. Indeed the cause of truth would be better served if Bob Barr ran as the candidate of the Know Nothing Party than the Libertarian Party.

In choosing Barr, or even considering him the Libertarian National Convention majority betrayed the Party Of Principle which I and other members of the first National Convention in Denver founded in 1972. And the 2008 Libertarian National Convention also attempted to deny the American people a choice at the polls.

But in New Hampshire there is a choice. In November citizens can vote for George Phillies for President and Chris Bennett for Vice President. For the Phillies/Bennett ticket stands for clear consistent choice. George Phillies and Chris Bennett know full well that you cannot have economic freedom without civil liberty, that social freedom and a free market are inseparable. That a house divided against itself cannot stand!

If you are a Libertarian and planned on voting Libertarian in any event in November I urge you to vote Phillies/Bennett. Your vote will count for it will send a message to LP National and the state organizations that you want Libertarians running as Libertarians, not the hand me down failures from the Republicrats with their tired theocratic/socialist myths and lies.

If you are not yet a Libertarian this current economic mess should make you one. And if you perceive rightly that voting for the Republican and Democratic candidates is indeed a vote thrown away, then I urge you to vote Phillies/Bennett for that is a vote for the future if America is to have one! We have no where to go but up!

Arthur W. Ketchen
New Hampshire Delegate to the 1972 Libertarian National Convention
First State Chairman of the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire

Bob Barr loses Texas lawsuit to knock McCain, Obama off the ballot

Posted at Bob Barr blog

The Texas Supreme Court has ruled against us:

The Texas Supreme Court, without comment, just denied Libertarian presidential candidate’s Bob Barr attempt to keep the names John McCain and Barack Obama off the state’s November ballot.

Mr. Barr, a former GOP congressman from Georgia, had argued in legal briefs that both major parties had busted the state’s Aug. 26 deadline for certifying their presidential candidates as they would appear on the Texas ballot. Neither McCain nor Obama had been officially nominated by their party conventions by the deadline. And Sarah Palin hadn’t even been added to the GOP ticket.
But the Democratic and Republican state parties had filed official documents with the Secretary of State stating their presumed presidential candidates. The Democrats threw in Joe Biden’s name and the Republicans said they would report back with the name of their vice presidential contender, which they did.

Apparently, the Supreme Court felt that was sufficient, especially in light of the catastrophic alientation of voters if neither of the major party candidates could appear on the November ballot.

No one cares about alienation of voters when it is a Libertarian Party candidate who is kept off the ballot due to restrictive ballot access laws authored by Republicans and Democrats.

I will have a copy of the decision shortly.

Munger Campaign Update: Happy Birthday Mike!

Mike on the Move A campaign update from Barbara Howe, Campaign Manager Party Time. Let’s celebrate big. Today, Tuesday, September 23, is our very own Mike Munger’s 50th birthday. Yes, the big five-oh. Half a century. Pretty soon he’ll be receiving mailings from AARP. Let’s celebrate! Mike can’t come to a party. He’s going to be busy at a candidate forum in High Point. But we can celebrate anyway. What better way to celebrate than through the gift of cash? Send Mike a big birthday wish. I’ll suggest $50 - $1 for each year. Of course, any amount will do. Any multiple of $50 is acceptable up, to the limit of 80 x $50. ($4000) And, fractions of $50 work as well. Your birthday gift will buy yard signs, rack cards, radio spots, and gas for all the traveling Mike is doing. We are also looking into the possibility of producing a TV ad for one market. Your gift can help make that happen. So, send your birthday wishes at Munger08.com. Let’s celebrate liberty. Campaign Update Don’t forget to watch your local UNC-TV affiliate this Wednesday, September 24, at 8:00 p. m. as Mike debates his Republican opponent Mayor Pat McCrory. As of today, the Perdue campaign has declined to come. This is a first in LPNC campaign history. Our gubernatorial candidates have never been invited to participate in the televised debates. This is going to be great. Thanks Many of you have already contributed to Mike’s campaign. Thanks. Many of you have taken yard signs and literature, written debate organizers, and written letters to the editor. Thanks. Many of you have helped at out reach events. This campaign is really working. Thanks for making it happen. As always, let’s keep on movin’ with Mike. Barbara Howe Campaign Manager, Munger for Governor PS If you prefer the old fashion method of sending gifts, send your card to Munger for Governor, 10020 Bushveld Lane, Raleigh, NC 27613.

Barr/LP win MA substitution case

BAN reports

On September 22, U.S. District Court Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton granted injunctive relief to Bob Barr and the Massachusetts Libertarian Party, and ordered them placed on the ballot. Barr v Galvin, 08-11340. The decision is eleven pages long. It says, “No public interest is served in having the wrong nominees on the ballot. Indeed, conversely, the public interest is advanced by including the right nominees on the ballot to avoid voter confusion. The Secretary asserts an interest in protecting the integrity of the election process but that interest is not threatened here.” 

Ron Paul: ‘I’m supporting Chuck Baldwin’

At the end of a lengthy essay posted on the Campaign for Liberty blog, Rep. Ron Paul writes, “The Libertarian Party Candidate admonished me for ‘remaining neutral’ in the presidential race and not stating whom I will vote for in November. It’s true; I have done exactly that due to my respect and friendship and support from both the Constitution and Libertarian Party members. I remain a lifetime member of the Libertarian Party and I’m a ten-term Republican Congressman. It is not against the law to participate in more then one political party. Chuck Baldwin has been a friend and was an active supporter in the presidential campaign.

“I continue to wish the Libertarian and Constitution Parties well. The more votes they get, the better. I have attended Libertarian Party conventions frequently over the years. … I’ve thought about the unsolicited advice from the Libertarian Party candidate, and he has convinced me to reject my neutral stance in the November election. I’m supporting Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate.”

Boston Tea Party’s Charles Jay on Fox News

George Phillies Blasts Debt Takeover

The following was written by George Phillies.

Phillies Blasts Fed Debt Takeover

“It’s the biggest rip-off in the history of the world,” said Libertarian Presidential candidate George Phillies. Phillies is on the November ballot in New Hampshire and Massachusetts. “Treasury Secretary Paulsen wants prudent Americans to be billed trillions of dollars to pay debts of their spendthrift neighbors. Trillions? Yes, trillions. Nine hundred billion to date. Far more in the future.

“Do you want to stop with paying your own bills?” Phillies asked. “Or do you want to be stuck paying the bills of every neighborhood wastrel who took a HELOC loan they couldn’t afford? Do you want to save the Lexus SUV of the billionaire banker dimwit who approved that HELOC loan? If you want to keep the money you worked so hard to earn, you have only one choice: Vote Libertarian! Throw Republican rascals and their Democratic toadies out on their ears.

“The Republicans?” Phillies wondered. “You don’t have to ask if Republicans choose competent candidates. Republicans nominated George Bush, whose gave us trillions in debt, secret wiretaps of your phone, a pointless War in Iraq, and the worst financial crisis since 1932. Democrats are no better. Senators Biden and Obama rolled over on Republican issue after Republican issue. For real change, vote Libertarian.”

–30–

George Phillies is on the ballot in New Hampshire and Massachusetts as the Libertarian Party candidate for President.

Paulsen says
http://treasury.gov/press/releases/hp1149.htm

Trillions? 900 billion so far, as totaled by CNBC
http://www.cnbc.com/id/26751385

Another 1.2 trillion, give or take?
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2008/09/us-taxpayer-giant-dumpster-for-illiquid.html

Stuber email: It would take a miracle for Barr to win – Quick, send money!

This is the latest email from the Barr campaign, written by Robert Stuber.

Dear Friend,

It has been several weeks since you’ve heard from me and I’ll bet you were wondering what had happened to me.

Well, for the time being I’m still here at Bob Barr for President national campaign headquarters in Atlanta. If you’ve bothered to open any of my more recent diatribes, you know that I’m the campaign’s fundraiser and I have a deal with people who support the cause with a financial gift of as little as just $5.

That deal? Send a gift and you’ll never hear from me again.

You see, according to our database records – and those are never wrong, right? – we show that you have been receiving our emails (presumably indicating your support for Bob Barr) and we have yet to record even a $5 gift in support of this history-making venture.

I figure you must be one of four types of people.

A.) You are an official with the media trying to catch the Bob Barr campaign making some stupid, outrageous or erroneous statement. You can’t wait to say “gotcha!”

B.) The McCain or Obama campaign has hired you to similarly monitor our statements – (of course, they would have to hire you because they have no real volunteer support willing to do such mundane tasks and they have a gazillion dollars between them and can afford to hire you.) Those dollars have either come from special interests or, in the case of the McCain campaign, MY TAX DOLLARS, which I deeply resent . . . but I digress.

C.) Thirdly, you are unemployed, or too young to have a job, and can’t afford to part with a few bucks. I understand that and am cool with it. I hope you find my musings informative, educational and perhaps entertaining and please know that I hope your financial condition improves in the near future. That said, if Obama or McCain are elected, I’m not optimistic about the future economy of our nation . . . but then again I am biased and believe that ONLY Bob Barr as President will improve our economy by enacting meaningful reductions in government spending, eliminating wasteful and counter-productive regulations and programs, and reducing the tax burden you will eventually be stuck with.

D.) You are a great American and true believer who like me admires Bob Barr and wishes he “had a chance of winning.” You share my sentiment that neither McCain nor Obama will bring any real change to Washington. You recognize that the so-called “two party system” is corrupt and broken and special interests have too much power. You are in independent thinker and may be relatively new (after all we are adding thousands of new readers to this message every week) to the Bob Barr email list. But you still don’t think Bob Barr’s campaign is worth your investment. You worry that votes Bob captures will divide our country or possibly lead to a win by a candidate you really don’t care for.

So if you are in category “D,” the rest of this message is for you (But everyone else is welcome to read along . . . as if I could stop you . . . )

Here’s the reason you should get off the dime and drop a $5 bill on Bob Barr. You see, I may be a bit idealistic, but I’m not stupid. I realize that unless a miracle occurs (and I do believe in them and pray for one daily), the chance that Bob Barr is elected President on November 4 is slim.

So why waste time and resources supporting him? It’s simple, really. I will no longer settle for the lesser of two evils, I will no longer put up with government as usual, I will no longer accept that the status quo is all we can ever hope for.

In our nation, change comes very slow In some ways, that’s good. But today our federal government is almost totally out of control. There are a few good elected officials in Washington, but they are indeed scarce. The corrupt are teamed with the ones who want socialism, and that’s the direction in which we are headed.

A decade ago I had hope that the GOP might win out over socialism, but I was wrong and they have gone over to the dark side of big government and more spending just like the Democrats.

Do you find yourself nodding as you read this? I’m sure you are.

As they say on TV, “but wait, there’s more . . .”

Let’s talk about our privacy and the nature of big government to spy on its citizens. Let’s talk about your fundamental civil rights – like those guaranteed in the Second Amendment.

When the Bush administration recently went to Congress for re-authorization of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), it wasn’t good enough for them to pay off the telecom industry with legal immunities for their misdeeds, no . . . they had to expand the government’s capacity to spy on you and me for barely any reason what so ever. That scares me and it should you, too. Both Senators Obama and McCain supported this bill (could it be because both receive huge campaign contributions from people with telecom industry connections?) and because of that, your privacy is NOT a big issue in this campaign. This is an outrage.

Next, on the issue of gun control, there is no question that Barack Obama would work closely with his allies in the Democrat party to add restrictions and ban both certain guns, and certain ammunition. For the guns he can seize, he would make it difficult and expensive to own and use them. On the issue of the Second Amendment, Obama is a very dangerous person, which perhaps explains why the National Rifle Association has hitched their horse to the McCain campaign. But it seems that the leaders of the NRA are willing to overlook an important fact about the McCain record. It has been only nine years, but they seem to have forgotten that John McCain was the primary mover behind the McCain/Lieberman legislation that would have effectively ended the practice of private gun sales and gun shows Defeating McCain/Lieberman and its successors was the NRA’s top agenda item less than a decade ago. Are we to believe that John McCain has changed his tune on gun control? If someone can logically support an end to gun shows, then why not a ban on so-called “assault rifles” like the AR-15s and M1s we collect? Or a ban on semi-automatic handguns like the Colts, Glocks, and S&Ws we own to protect our homes? Or even a ban on the semi-automatic shotguns like the Beretta’s, Mossbergs, Winchesters and Remingtons we own and use for hunting?

Like me, you probably don’t trust the “new” pro-gun John McCain that the NRA is in love with.

Bob Barr’s record on privacy, gun control and our civil rights in general is impeccable. NRA members have recognized this several times by electing him to their Board of Directors.

You and I both know Bob Barr is the most honest, experienced and qualified candidate to occupy the White House in 2009. But there’s still that nagging thought that he “doesn’t have a chance of winning.”

After all the media almost totally ignores the campaign. And, then there’s my greatest gripe of the week. As you know, Bob Barr and his running mate, Wayne Root, are the only candidates who complied with the law for filing to be on the ballot in Texas. It is an open and shut case of Texas bureaucrats ignoring the law, but it is none-the-less a reality that only this campaign complied 100% with the law. Yet, the establishment has taken it upon themselves to ignore the law and certify McCain and Obama. If you or I were to break a Texas law like this, there is no way we would be so protected and favored.

Anyway, today I ask you to turn off those inhibitions that are keeping you from doing the right thing. I ask you to invest in this campaign Win or lose, we will make history and significantly impact Washington. Your gift of just $5 will get you off the list of people who hear from me with these nagging rants. But I sincerely hope you will invest more; $25, $50, $100 will make a big difference. Click here to donate.

Your gift will help us buy time for Bob Barr television and radio ads. And with those ads will come a significant boost in his poll numbers. And with that boost will come more media attention and participation in the national political debates. This is the beginning of that proverbial snow-ball gaining momentum.

So, please, you won’t hear from me again with just a $5 gift, but I ask you to consider even a larger gift to help. Together we can make a miracle happen. Thank you.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Robert Signature
Robert Stuber
Finance Director
Bob Barr for President

Press Release: Mike Munger responds to Public Forum Education Debate

Libertarian responds to Public Forum Education Debate

RALEIGH (Sept. 19) — Mike Munger, Libertarian candidate for governor, responded to the Public Forum for North Carolina Education gubernatorial debate held today:

The Democratic and Republican candidates held another alleged debate today, sponsored by a supposedly non-partisan group, which excluded the third candidate in the race. Predictably, their answers focused on how they are going to fix the problem by using government power.

The event was ironically held under the banner: “Education: Everybody’s Business.” Everybody, that is, except those who challenge the status quo, including a professor with nearly 25 years as an educator. Compounding the irony was the fact this “public” forum was held on private property and attendance was by invitation only. The program was recorded by the NC Telecommunications Association, another supposedly non-partisan group, and will be aired by WUNC on cable systems across the state.

News14 Carolina aired the debate live, but to their credit they interviewed me afterward. I hope that the follow-up interview will be distributed along with the main debate.

Public Forum for North Carolina Education President John Dornan opened the event by saying this was the third time his group has sponsored this event. He failed to mention, of course, that it is also the third time they have excluded the Libertarian Party candidate.

Also conspicuously absent was any apparent involvement of parents. Dornan mentioned the teachers, education administrators, government officials and business leaders were among the 400 people attending, but did not say anything about parents.

Lt. Governor Perdue said there shouldn’t be only one paradigm for education. Mayor McCrory claimed he wanted to change the “culture of education.” Yet both talked only about one paradigm and one culture — that of having bureaucrats in Raleigh choose the curriculum, restrict the selection of teachers, and dictate the process of licensing.

The truth is that nothing will change if either of these folks are elected. Perdue believes the “responsibility of education rests with the governor,” a statement that shows her contempt for the parents and teachers of our state.

McCrory said he’d put more business leaders on the state Board of Education. Take away the political sloganeering, and both are telling the insulated and hidebound education establishment: “Vote for me, and I will give you other people’s money.”

My platform calls for a real paradigm shift, and a truly new culture. I believe the responsibility for each child’s education rests with two groups: the parents of that child, and the highly motivated teachers that the parent chooses. And I’ll let you keep more of your own money, money you yourself have earned. I would offer each parent in the state an education voucher, financed by lottery proceeds, of $1,250 per child in their household. This voucher could only be spent at a state-accredited school, or be credited to the household in the case of home-schooling.

And by the way, vouchers don’t “cost” anything, as Perdue claims, because it’s your money, not the government’s. If anything, vouchers would save money in the long run, as the average costs of education would fall.

Competition and school choice will be the central premise of the Munger Administration’s education policy, to give parents more control over their children’s education. I would streamline and simpilfy the accreditation process, lift the cap on charter schools, and foster the growth of charter schools, religious or theme schools, or any other kind of innovative educational program that can attract the children of parents who want to exercise their choices as parents.

I know charter schools work because my son attends Raleigh Charter High School, ranked as one of the top ten high schools in the nation. The cost per student is just over half that of the average for NC high schools. Facilities costs are less, administrative costs are less, and janitorial services are either provided by the students (they take out their own trash), or by contracting out to private firms that clean the bathrooms and mop the floors.

Last, but not least, I would put a floor on public school spending at its existing level, for a five year adjustment period. Our schools need basic infrastructure work, from physical plant improvements to textbooks. So those of you worried about my voucher program should rest assured: the money will come from the payments already owed to education, by statute, but taken by the General Assembly for pet projects. No program cannot work by starving the traditional public schools of revenue. And I don’t want the General Assembly to be tempted to cut education dollars and use them for pork barrel spending in their districts, hoping lottery money will make up the difference.

-30-
_______________________________________________________________________________________________

LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF NORTH CAROLINA
PO Box 28141 Raleigh NC 27611 * 877.843.5762 * www.LPNC.org
Brian Irving, Communications Director, 919.538.4548

Barbara Howe
Campaign Manager, Munger for Governor
www.munger08.com
919-690-1423 (h)
919-475-2371 (c)

Bob Barr’s Emergency Stay in Texas denied very quickly

From Russ Verney email:

Late last night, I returned from Texas where we had just filed for an emergency legal stay to prevent the Secretary of State from mailing ballots until our case is resolved.

Before I could even unpack, I received word that our emergency stay had been rejected.

While I am disappointed, I am more alarmed by the opposition brief submitted by Texas’ Attorney General. Rather than address this issue on its legal merit, the Texas AG is politicizing this issue under the guise of protecting troops stationed overseas.

Can you believe this, the opening paragraph of their brief?

“Undeniably the Constitution of the United States protects the right of all qualified citizens to vote.” In that spirit, the State of Texas opposes any threat to the rights of military service members to receive, case, and return ballots from abroad. The Motion for Emergency Stay filed by Relators Bob Barr, Wayne Allyn Root, and the Libertarian Party of Texas presents precisely this threat, in asking this Court to stop the mailing of ballots to our men and women in uniform around the globe. This Court should deny the Motion and protect the constitutional rights of military voters.

Yes, Russ, I can indeed believe it.  In fact, I’d guess it’s unbelievable only to you.

Take that any way you wish.

LP Daily Poll: Stupid

LP Daily Poll for today:

“Will Sarah Palin be able to hold up in a debate with Joe Biden?”

Tomorrow’s Question:

“Vanilla or Chocolate?”

Angela Keaton to appear on Liberty Cap Talk Live tonight

LNC At-Large Representative Angela Keaton, who has been under attack by some members of the LNC for her investigation into former LP Executive Director Shane Cory’s severance pay and for going public about the matter and her views of the governing board, will be on Liberty Cap Talk Live tonight at 7:35 p.m. EST/4:35 p.m. PST. She will come on after the show’s commercial break and spend approximately 8 minutes talking about the LNC’s attempt to remove her from the Party’s recent meeting and the Barr campaign snubbing Ron Paul.

At 6 p.m. EST panelists Wendy McElroy, Toby Iselin of Free Minds TV (http://www.freemindstv.com), and LewRockwell.com blogger and writer Karen Kwiatkowski will also be on the air for 90 minutes before Keaton appears. Topics fielded on the show are the Fed bailing out the American International Group (AIG) for $85 billion and the world banks crashing, the Sarah Palin phenonemon and her family, Barack Obama’s tax plan vs. McCain’s plan, and the Rand Corporation’s recent study on the use of military force in the Middle East.

Here’s the show’s profile page: http://www.nowlive.com/libertycaptalklive. The call-in information to
dial into the show and the show’s widget to listen to the program are available on the page.

Please tune in. It will be an exciting show tonight.

Yours in Liberty,

Todd Andrew Barnett
Host, Liberty Cap Talk Live with Todd Andrew Barnett & James Landrith, Jr.

“Manning’s Fierce Prayer for Bristol Palin”

This is one of the most unintentionally funny political rants I have ever seen.

Libertarian Alliance Essay Contest Announced

From Libertarian Alliance:

The 2008 Chris R. Tame Memorial Prize
£1,000 to be Won

In honour of Dr Chris R. Tame (1949-2006), The PROMIS Unit of Primary Care has established a yearly prize of £1,000 for an essay on a subject to be announced by Dr Sean Gabb, Director of the Libertarian Alliance.

By the 10th October 2008, contestants are invited to submit essays to Dr Sean Gabb, Director of the Libertarian Alliance.

Essay Title: “Can a Libertarian Society be Described as ‘Tesco minus the State’?”
Essay Length: 3,000 words excluding notes and bibliography

Explanatory Note

Many socialists and conservatives regard libertarians as cheerleaders for big business. Our belief in free enterprise is understood as support for the bigger, and therefore the more successful, corporations – General Motors, Microsoft, HSBC, Tesco, and so forth – and for an international financial system centred on the City of London.

Some libertarians are happy to be so regarded. They dislike the way in which big government provides opportunities for big business to acquire privileges that shelter it from competition. Even so, they believe that a world without government, or a world with much less government, would be broadly similar in its patterns of enterprise to the world that we now have. It would be much improved, but not fundamentally dissimilar.

Other libertarians disagree. They regard big business as fundamentally a creation of big government. Incorporation laws free entrepreneurs from personal risk and personal responsibility, and allow the growth of large business organisations that are bureaucratically managed. These organisations then cartellise their markets and externalise many of their costs. The result is systematic distortion of market behaviour from the forms it would take without government intervention. These libertarians often go further in their analysis by denying the legitimacy of intellectual property rights and ownership rights in land beyond what any individual can directly use.

Where do you stand in this debate? Are you broadly comfortable with a global capitalism that is raising billions of people from starvation towards affluence. Or are you a radical with a vision of a society that has never yet been tried and is as alien and even frightening to most people as anything promised by the Marxists.

You tell us.

Rules

*  Essays must be original and previously unpublished works.

*  Essays must be submitted in English and typed and in hard copy by sending to The Libertarian Alliance, Suite 35, 2 Lansdowne Row, Mayfair, London W1J 6H, United Kingdom.

*  Essays must also be submitted by e-mail and in MS Word format to Sean Gabb – sean@libertarian.co.uk .

*  Essays must bear the name and full address of the author, including his e-mail address. The name does not need to be genuine, but work submitted under what Sean Gabb considers an absurd pseudonym may be rejected. Certainly, the prize money will be by cheque, and so must be made out to a real person.

*  Essays must have been received ain both hard and soft copy no later than Monday the 13th October 2008.

*  The winner will be announced on the evening of Saturday the 25th October 2008, at the banquet of the Libertarian Alliance Conference, to be held at the National Liberal Club in London.

*  The winner will be required to make a ten minute acceptance speech on Saturday the 275th October 2008, at the banquet of the Libertarian Alliance Conference, to be held at the National Liberal Club in London. This speech may be made in person, or by pre-recorded video, or may be read out by Sean Gabb.

*  The prize will be £1,000, made out to the winner and payable in Sterling by cheque drawn on one of the United Kingdom clearing banks. No other form of payment will be considered.

*  The winning essay will be published by the Libertarian Alliance. All essays submitted will be published by the Libertarian Alliance.

*  In all matters of deciding the winner of the Prize and in all associated matters, the decision of Sean Gabb shall be final.

*  The act of submitting an essay shall constitute full acceptance of these terms

*  This prize competition is not open to any Officer of the Libertarian Alliance.

For all questions, please contact Sean Gabb

New libertarian Facebook group…

The Remnant is a gathering place for those who are personally committed to living libertarian ideals and spreading them through their actions and attitudes in everyday life.

“You do not know, and will never know, who the Remnant are, nor what they are doing or will do. Two things you do know, and no more: First, that they exist; second, that they will find you.” –Albert Jay Nock, 1936

Jeffersonian Democrats: Let’s bring them back!

Paulie Cannoli and I are trying to organize a Jeffersonian “Caucus” within the Democratic Party. The purposes of the group will be to educate people on the principles of Jeffersonianism and encourage people who embrace those principles to run for office as Democrats.

The principles in question are:

1. Radical Decentralism
2. Anti-militarism
3. Opposition to Central Banking

These are the things that Jefferson stood for. Around the country, Democratic Party groups have “Jefferson-Jackson” dinners, while the GOP has “Lincoln Day” celebrations. Lincoln, of course, was a radical centralist, militarist, and fiat-currency lover — the exact opposite of Jefferson.

Indeed, the history of the Republican Party is one of nearly pure evil. So while some Ron Paul supporters say they’re trying to “restore the GOP to its roots,” they don’t realize that George W. Bush is almost perfectly in sync with Lincolnianism. There were/are some good Republicans — Howard H. Buffett and Ron Paul standing out above the rest — but they are the exception to the rule. The Democratic Party, by contrast, has a strong history of classical liberalism, and boasts not only the greatest political philosopher among the presidents (Jefferson), but also the greatest president of all time, and last of the classical liberals, Grover Cleveland.

Yes, this is ancient history. But at least the history legitimately exists. We can point out this history and force statist Democrats to reject or embrace their own party’s legacy. And we can, hopefully, attract people to ideas that are now radical but were once mainstream.

Right now, our group’s agenda is as follows:

1. Draft statements explaining the basic implications of the three principles with plenty of quotes from Jefferson supporting those principles and their implications
2. Establish a high-quality Web site with public-domain writings from Jefferson and other classical liberals along with original articles applying Austro-Jeffersonian principles to current issues; as well as a blog highlighting news stories of interest to modern Jeffersonians
3. Create a Facebook group to spread awareness of our existence and get people to sign on saying they will support Democratic candidates who abide by these principles — if we’re able to attract tens of thousands of members, I’m sure candidates will step up to the plate

We are looking for help with all of the above. If you’re interested, leave a reply.

When the Progressives achieved their “success” in the dreadful teens and twenties, they did so by having a presence in both major parties as well as third parties. There are already “libertarian” Democratic groups, but they don’t exactly embrace the full implications of Jeffersonianism, and thus, they haven’t caught on.

When the Democrats lose this election, improbably (again), perhaps there will be a realization that they’ve been out-big governmented by the GOP. Perhaps new Democrats who take up the ideas of the old Democrats will be allowed to move to the forefront.

A huge majority of Ron Paul’s support came from Democrats, independents, and “others,” and in some states, he got more votes from Democrats than from Republicans. The GOP and conservatism are inextricably linked with anti-Jeffersonian principles and thus, we believe, making the principled populist case for liberty to the working-class electorate of the Democratic Party has more promise than any other option currently available. If you agree — or even if you don’t, but think it’s worth a try — please join us.

Details for December LNC meeting

The following is an email from LPHQ regarding the December LNC meeting.

Here are the details for the LNC Board Meeting 12/6-12/7 in San Diego CA:

The location is the
Town and Country Resort
500 Hotel Circle North
San Diego, CA 92108
www.towncountry.com

To make a reservation, please call 800-772-8527 & ask for the $99 special “Libertarian National Committee” Room Rate (effective 12/3-12/9). On line reservations are not yet set up for our event.

This is a major convention resort with 1,000 guestrooms and suites, over 205,000 square feet of meeting and exhibit space, 5 restaurants, 3 lounges, 4 pools, 27 hole golf course, 15,000 sq ft day spa and fitness center, connected to Fashion Valley, with easy access to San Diego’s light rail trolley station.

If you have any problems or special requests, contact:
Rosa I. Myhra
Convention Sales Manager
Phone 619-297-6006 x 4886
Fax 619-725-5233
r.myhra@towncountry.com

We will most likely have a walk through tour for our convention committee and any one else that is interested from 5:30-6:30 pm on Fri 12/5. Please meet us at 5:30 pm by the Tiki Pavilion next to the gift shop across from the Terrace Café.

Thanks!

Robert

Robert S. Kraus – Dir of Operations
Operations@LP.org
Libertarian National Committee
2600 Virginia Ave NW #200
Washington, DC 20037
Ph: 202.333.0008 x 231
Fx: 703.935.8015

LP.org poll of the day

The LP.org poll of the day today is a good one: “Which of these issues should the Libertarian Party be MOST focused on during this election?”

The choices:

Reducing the tax burden on all Americans

The restoring of our freedoms curtailed by the Bush administration

Reducing the size of Government and restraining out of control spending

Getting our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan

Restoring faith in our economy

Bob Barr gets Libertarian Party some publicity!

From CQ Politics:

Barr Misfires As a Libertarian

by Craig Crawford

It is too bad the Libertarians blew it in nominating Bob Barr for president. Too bad because a party that truly believes in personal freedom and limited government is worth hearing from in these days of major parties that equivocate and prevaricate on those principles.

But in Barr, a former Georgia congressman who once accidentally fired a revolver at a fundraiser, Libertarians have ended up with a loose cannon whose record isn’t even that strong on the party’s ideals. For instance, how can someone who claims authorship of the Defense of Marriage act now claim to be a libertarian?

In recent days Barr has further burnished his nutty reputation and made his newfound party look like a joke. He appeared in federal court as part of a ridiculous lawsuit against Michael Bloomberg, charging the New York mayor with defamation against a gun club. He is in court in Texas promoting a bogus claim that John McCain and Barack Obama should not be on the state ballot in November.

And lately Barr has been publicly inviting former GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul, a onetime Libertarian nominee himself, to join him as running mate — even though Barr has already chosen one, internet gambling entrepreneur Wayne Allyn Root. (Apparently, Paul never returned his call.)

Combine all this with Barr’s pathetic fundraising and poor polling performance (which will cost him admission to the presidential debates) and you can see that Barr probably won’t even have a spoiler effect anywhere in this race.

The Libertarian gambit to raise the party’s profile with a better-known nominee than usual simply failed. The party ought to stay focused on building its base from the ground up, such as running stronger candidates for lesser offices, and one day its natural appeal to independent-thinking voters could really catch on.

Ron Paul on Fed/AIG

Rep. Ron Paul appeared on Fox News’s “Your World With Neil Cavuto” Wednesday to discuss the ongoing financial crisis and the Federal Reserve loan to AIG. Paul said in part, “Unless you recognize the problem and say it’s an unsound monetary system, you’re going to see the destruction of the dollar. Won’t people get wondering about going to something of real value? What happened to gold today? Finally, people think, ‘Hey, maybe this system is unsound.’ … Where did they get this $85 billion? Did it come out of your pocket or my pocket? No. Did it come from an appropriation? No. It’s just the Federal Reserve over there guaranteeing credits, expanding, and that is destructive to the dollar. This is very, very destructive to the dollar. When you destroy the dollar you’re going to destroy homes for a lot of people and medical care for everybody else because you’re going to see skyrocketing inflation.”

Anonymous hacks into Republican VP Sarah Palin’s email account

From Gawker:

Did the internet just cause Sarah Palin to destroy evidence? The potential Veep is in a bit of trouble for conducting state business using her personal, unarchived email address (gov.sarah@yahoo.com) instead of her official account (which is, of course, subject to laws requiring the retention of government records). Emails from that Yahoo account are already being sought in connection with the Troopergate investigation. Now comes word that Anonymous, the fun-loving Internet trouble-makers based loosely around the message board 4Chan, gained access to another Palin email account: gov.palin@yahoo.com. It looks legit! The offending posts, screenshots, heretofore unseen family photos, and emails have all been deleted from Imageshack and 4Chan. But we have them. You want to read Sarah Palin’s email?

Ok, sad thing first: a good Samaritan reset the password and tried to alert Sarah. But he also posted the new password, causing multiple people to try to log in at once, freezing the account for 24 hours. And now, the account has been deleted! Which is, as we said, maybe destruction of evidence? So for now this is, we think, all we’ll get to see from this email account (if anyone finds evidence of saved emails, let us know.)

View the the rest of the article, including screenshots and other information, on Gawker.

Why Bob Barr really offered to replace Wayne Allyn Root with Ron Paul

According to an excellent source, LNC member Stewart Flood made a resolution to remove Wayne Allyn Root as the LP’s Vice Presidential nominee, as a result of Root’s bizarre (and some believe racist) interview with Reason Magazine.

While the resolution failed, it explains why Bob Barr felt free to offer the Vice President position to Ron Paul even though, in actuality, he has no such power.  It also explains why the Barr campaign inexplicably called the LNC and asked that LNC member Angela Keaton not be removed, since she would be more likely than most on the LNC to support such a radical measure.

LNC Falls Short of Own Policies on Transparency, Due Process

The Libertarian National Committee (LNC) Policy Manual, 44 pages of rules, responsibilities and procedures for the LNC and LP headquarters, was released this week by Marc Montoni of the Virginia LP. Dated June 26 of this year, a close reading of the manual reveals significant differences between policy and practice in the national Libertarian Party.

I.2.A: Meeting Agendas

At I.2.A, the policy manual states:

The agenda [for LNC meetings] shall also be posted on the LP.Org website at least seven days prior to the meeting.

According to Louise Calise of LP headquarters “agendas are under the tab of Party and LNC Meeting Archives.” However, the latest agenda I found there is for the August 19-20, 2006 meeting. At the time of publication, there was no comment from any LNC members I queried as to whether the September 6-7 meeting’s agenda was distributed in accordance with this policy.

I.2.C: Recordings of Meetings

The Director shall be responsible for recording all LNC meetings on audio or video medium, providing a copy to the Secretary, retaining the recordings for one year at LPHQ, and making copies available to any other member upon request at cost.

I emailed LP member services and was told by LP Director of Operations Robert S. Kraus that “The policy manual has been recently revised and copies of the recordings are for internal use only.”

Decision to Cease LNC Meeting Recordings

At-Large Representative Angela Keaton documented this decision at the September 6-7, 2008 LNC meeting

Sullentrup moves to eliminate the policy that we video tape the meeting. …

Starr than says that all meeting should be recorded by [sic] destroyed after the minutes are approved. …

Kraus: costs of tape, plus staff member is too much. He doesn’t want to be responsible at meetings for tending to this.

Starr, Colley, Karlan, Flood, Dixon, Sink-Burris, Hinkle, Jingozian vote to destroy records as soon as the minutes are approved. It passes.

Region 5 – North Representative Dan Karlan explained his vote as follows:

The point of the minutes is to record what happened. Normally, that should be sufficient, and if that is the case, recordings become superfluous. Retaining them can readily become a filing nightmare, and it is certain that whoever has that task will be routinely called on to make copies of meetings going way back. That isn’t appropriate, as a policy.

Ms Keaton responded to Mr Karlan’s statement:

It’s typical parliamentarian drivel which does not address any of current problems the LNC has with regard to abuse of the Executive Session privilege or how RRON is used to manipulate and distort the interests of the membership.

What does the term “appropriate” mean? What are the actual metrics as to how often people ask for records? As a non practicing lawyer, I find it irresponsible bordering on idiotic that LNC does not keep tapes of the meetings.

Mr Karlan added:

However, I will report that we also had a mail ballot since the meeting, in which the motion was to preserve specifically the tapes of THIS meeting for longer, and I voted for that motion, overriding the POLICY when special circumstances warrant it.

Recordings from the Past Year Never Made

I emailed Mr Kraus again, asking if the policy manual revision applied to recordings of meetings from the past year as well. “We have not recorded meetings for several years. Sorry.” said Mr Kraus.

Mr Kraus confirmed that the Sep 6-7 meeting was the first one taped in years, adding: “We have an excellent secretary whose minutes have been unquestionably accurate.”

According to copies of the LNC Policy Manual dated March 1, 2005 and December 10, 2007, this exact same recording policy was in effect on those dates as well.

Recordings for Executive Sessions not Falling Under Limits

Recordings were also mandated for LNC executive sessions not falling under the limits set in I.2.F.3, saying in I.2.F.5:

With regard to Executive Sessions relating to topics not enumerated above [I.2.F.3, see below], recordings shall be made and minutes shall be taken. Immediately upon return to Open Session, the LNC may either – by majority vote – treat those recordings and minutes consistent with i [I.2.F.3] (destroy them) or to treat those recordings and minutes consistent with ii (to maintain them as non-public records subject to possible future release upon a vote of two-thirds of those LNC members present at a future meeting).

The absence of recordings presumably means that the LNC believes all executive sessions over the past year have fallen under the limits set for them in I.2.F.3, which are:

1. Legal matters (potential, pending, or past)
2. Regulatory and compliance matters (potential, pending, or past)
3. Contractual compliance
4. Personnel matters (including evaluation, compensation, hiring, or dismissal)
5. Board self-evaluation
6. Strategic issues (only those requiring confidentiality)
7. Negotiations (potential, pending, or past)

However, former LNC Vice-Chair Chuck Moulton, who served on the LNC from 2004-2008, said that executive session is overused. “In my opinion the restrictions are not tight enough.” he added.

I.8: Harassment and Offensive Behavior Prohibition

I.8 details what is considered offensive behavior and how it will be dealt with. At the September 6-7 LNC meeting, Ms Keaton reported that accusations of “sexual violation” were brought against her.

Starr: Motion to direct Angela Keaton to apologize two the sexually violated employees. #

The charges that I violated ExSession and that I sexually violated two employees. Yes, you read that right. #

The Policy Manual states that, among other things, the following conduct could constitute harassment:

• off-color jokes
• sexual innuendoes
• unwelcome comments about a person’s body

And dictates the following course of action to deal with accusations:

In response to every complaint, LNC will take prompt and necessary steps to investigate the matter and will protect the individual’s confidentiality, as much as possible, recognizing the need to thoroughly investigate all complaints.

According to Region 7 Representative Rachel Hawkridge at least a partial investigation was conducted:

There was printed copy of blogged material handed out. When asked if she did it, Angela said “yes”. So, yes there was some investigation. The more telling, and more important point? Did anyone ask the two young staffers involved? Apparently, not until later.

Alleged Sexual Violation Victim “Seemed Flattered”

According to Mr Moulton, who was present at the meeting, one of the victims of Ms Keaton’s alleged “sexual violation” “seemed flattered” and said that “it was no big deal” in response to Ms Keaton calling him “very sexy”.

III.2.A: Position Description of National Secretary

According to III.2.A, minutes for conference calls or “other technology that permits remote access” “shall be mailed or e-mailed to all LNC members not more than 10 days after each meeting.” And III.2.E says that LNC conference call minutes shall be posted “to an archive section on the LP.Org website.”

According to Mr Moulton all conference calls are Executive Committee meetings, the minutes for which are not confidential. The minutes at lp.org for the Dec 31 2005 and earlier conference calls support this claim.

But the policy manual has different rules for executive committee minutes, limiting their distribution only to LNC members. From VI.1.C:

Minutes shall be kept of Executive Committee meetings … Executive Committee minutes shall be distributed to all LNC members … within 7 days of such approval.

“I have not seen any evidence the policy manual is not being followed in this area.” said Region 6 Alternate Representative Jake Porter.

At the time of publication, however, there was no comment from LP Secretary Robert Sullentrup and another LNC member I queried. I have not been able to confirm that the Executive Committee minutes are indeed being distributed to LNC members.

In any case, there have been at least nine conference calls since Dec 31, 2005, including:

• June 1, 2006
• November 5, 2006
• May 23, 2007
• September 30, 2007
• January 27, 2008
• April 5, 2008
• May 4, 2008
• May 10, 2008
• July 16, 2008

Sources: 1, 2, 3.

And no minutes for these meetings are available at the lp.org archives. I did find minutes for the July 16, 2008 meeting.

Minutes for “other technology that permits remote access”

The LNC Discuss email discussion list qualifies as “technology that permits remote access”, but no minutes are posted for list activities and the archives are closed to the public. At the time of publication, there was no comment from Mr Sullentrup on this issue.

Supporting Materials List from LPHQ

According to III.2.H.:

The Secretary shall assure that LNC agendas, minutes, mail ballots, resolution updates, and other supporting material shall be sent without charge to all LNC members … Any Party member may obtain these materials at his or her own cost. A list of such material shall be available from LPHQ on request …

At the time of publication, there was no comment from LP HQ as to whether this list exists.

V.1.C. Contracts with Independent Contractors

Independent contractors doing business with the LNC are required to sign formal contracts which clearly set forth the parties’ intention that they be treated as independent contractors.

However, according to Paul, a veteran LP petitioner, this policy has not been implemented:

… there were no signed agreements [during the 2008 ballot access drive]. We are independent contractors.

We were contracted by LPHQ in most states. In Mass., I was first contracted 50/50 by the state and national parties, and later by the state party only. …

In IL and AL I was contracted by the national party (subbed through Pickens officially), and the same was true in PA with Mark and Andy.

However, earlier in the year in UT and AZ I dealt with the state/local parties directly. In all other states where I discussed going in, it was all through LPHQ. UT was the only written contract.

“Our attorney has asked me to not make any comments about these petitioners for publication. Sorry.” said LP Politicial Director Sean Haugh, in response to inquiries.

At the time of publication, there was no comment from Scott Kohlhaas, who reportedly also played a role in managing the LP 2008 ballot access drive.

LNC Member Fundraising

According to the lp.org leadership page:

Perhaps one of the most important task [sic] that is expected from a board member of the Libertarian National Committee is to raise funds for the organization through a combination of personal contributions and funds raised through personal solicitations.

However, there is no mention of this responsibility in either the bylaws or the policy manual.

“It appears to have been added after the new website was launched. I do not know who added it, but in the past I have requested it be removed.” said Mr Porter.

At the time of publication, there was no comment from any other LNC members I queried on this issue. LP HQ staff replied that they had forwarded the question to Mr Sullentrup. At the time of publication, there was no comment from him, either.

Related Files

• LNC Policy Manual Jun 26, 2008 (courtesy Marc Montoni)
• LNC Policy Manual Dec 10, 2007 (courtesy Chuck Moulton)
• LNC Policy Manual Mar 31, 2005 (courtesy smallgov.org)

License

This article (only) is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License.

Press Release: Barr files suit to remove McCain and Obama from Texas ballot

BARR ‘08

For Immediate Release – Sept. 17, 2008

Bob Barr Files Suit in Texas to Remove McCain, Obama from Ballot

Suit alleges that McCain, Obama knowingly missed filing deadlines

Atlanta, GA – Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party’s nominee for president, has filed a lawsuit in Texas demanding Senators John McCain and Barack Obama be removed from the ballot after they missed the official filing deadline.

“The seriousness of this issue is self-evident,” the lawsuit states. “The hubris of the major parties has risen to such a level that they do not believe that the election laws of the State of Texas apply to them.”

Texas election code §192.031 requires that the “written certification” of the “party’s nominees” be delivered “before 5 p.m. of the 70th day before election day.” Because neither candidate had been nominated by the official filing deadline, the Barr campaign argues it was impossible for the candidates to file under state law.

“Supreme Court justices should recognize that their responsibility is to apply the law as passed by the Legislature, and the law is clear that the candidates cannot be certified on the ballot if their filings are late,” says Drew Shirley, a local attorney for the Barr campaign, who is also a Libertarian candidate for the Texas Supreme Court.

A 2006 Texas Supreme Court decision ruled that state laws “does not allow political parties or candidates to ignore statutory deadlines.”

Orrin Grover, attorney for Bob Barr and Wayne Root, said that he believes that the Texas Secretary of State is bound by Texas law to remove the Republican and Democratic nominees from the November ballot. “Either we have rules and deadlines, or we do not,” Grover said.

The Chairman of the Texas Libertarian Party, Pat Dixon stated, “Libertarian principles require personal responsibility for your acts and failures. Obama and McCain failed to meet the deadlines. They must follow the law like everyone else.”

The petition also alleges that the Democratic Party’s late presidential filing falsely claimed under oath that Senator Obama had been nominated hours before the nomination actually occurred.

“The facts of the case are not in dispute,” says Russell Verney, manager of the Barr campaign. “Republicans and Democrats missed the deadline, but were still allowed on the ballot. Third parties are not allowed on the ballot for missing deadlines, as was the case for our campaign in West Virginia, yet the Texas secretary of state’s office believes Republicans and Democrats to be above the law.”

Barr will be holding a press conference this Thursday at the Texas Supreme Court at 11:00 a.m.

Libertarian Party presidential candidate Bob Barr represented the 7th District of Georgia in the U. S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003.

What Should Bob Barr Have Said?

You’re Bob Barr on Sep. 10, stepping to the podium after Chuck Baldwin makes the following pitch to the people who worked for Ron Paul’s success in the Republican primaries.

In the comments below, post (or vote on) what you think Bob Barr coulda/shoulda said to attract votes to the Libertarian Party ticket from Ron Paul fans who heard Baldwin’s remarks.  I’m sure the Last Free Voice community can show the Barr campaign that there were better options than simply not showing up.  (Readers can judge for themselves whether sarcastic or non-serious responses should be counted as agreeing with Barr’s decision to skip the event.)

1787: A Year to Remember

And, yes, that reference to the signing of the U.S. Constitution is deliberately ambiguous.

Whether you think the Constitution was a step toward a new and better type of governance or a step back from the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation, you probably will agree that a government that follows the U.S. Constitution is a durn sight better than anything we’ve got going now.

At the very least it’s a good excuse for a Constitution Day picnic!

But Constitution Day presents another great opportunity. If you’ve been feeling a bit overwhelmed politically (and/or otherwise) lately, and haven’t been able to get as much activism accomplished as you’d like to have gotten accomplished, today is Your Day.

Here’s how the memory of the Constitution can make even an anarchist happy:

• The Constitution was signed in 1787.
• You want to help your favorite candidate or libertarian cause.
• You’re working too hard at your job to drive to NH and knock on doors with Morey Straus, or fly to NC and hang out at the XYZ County Fair with Mike Munger. That makes you sad.
• BUT…
• Since you’re working so hard, you can easily enough afford $17.87. Heck, maybe you can even afford $178.70, or $1,787.00.
• Giving the money to a favorite candidate or libertarian cause will make you feel better. Happy, even! Take-my-word-for-it, I Know These Things. But it won’t cure your acne, so save some coins for the chemical stuff.

Pick a good one, so you won’t have buyer’s remorse! In case anyone is interested and wants a suggestion or three, my current favorites for giving are (in no particular order – and focusing on candidates because it’s That Time of Year):

Mike Munger – Libertarian for Governor in NC. Mike’s campaign is teaching the LPNC folks incredible things about organizing.

Paul Elledge – County Commission in NC. Paul’s got the message, man! And he’s taking it to the County Fair!

Morey Straus – Libertarian for State House in NH. Morey’s busting ass for the Side of Right! You’ve heard he is, and you can believe every word of it! That man wins the Sore Feets for Freedom Award!

And, OK, one non-candidate cause I can’t resist – for all you determined apolitical political activsits out there (oh, the moral travails of the anarchist activist… I do feel your pain, comrades!):

Rational Review News Digest (check out the funky fund-o-meter!)

I’m sticking with these, because I don’t want to dilute the message. There are many others! So off with you. And, err, off with me, because I’ve just remembered I haven’t yet sent Paul the $17.87!

U.S. going the way of Soviet Union (in more ways than one)

An article I wrote for Amateur Economists:

First, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were seized—Communist style—by the federal government. Then Lehman Brothers—which was worth $45 billion as recently as November—announced plans to file for bankruptcy. And now AIG, formerly one of the largest companies in the world, has been taken over by the Federal Reserve.

In 2000, American International Group, an insurance giant, was worth $250 billion. As late as August of 2008, the market set the battered company’s value at $80.4 billion. But following heavy losses on “Black Monday” (September 15, 2008) and the following day, AIG’s market cap now stands at just $10 billion—down over 94% for the year.

What Austrian Economists Knew All Along

These losses may be unprecedented, but they’re not unpredicted. Theorists from the Austrian school of economics have been prognosticating the implosion of the fiat-money-fueled financial system for decades. And according to Cato Adjunct Scholar Dr. Robert Higgs, we haven’t seen anything yet.

Higgs, who’s also a Senior Fellow at the Independent Institute and an Adjunct Scholar at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, predicts that many more financial dominoes will fall, with the end game being the collapse of Social Security and Medicare. “The question is not whether they will fail, but when,” Higgs says, “and then how the government that can no longer sustain them in their previous Ponzi-scheme form will alter them to salvage what little can be salvaged with minimal damage to the government itself.”

Higgs compares what he sees as the impending collapse of the U.S. financial system to what happened to the Soviet Union. And he points out that Keynesian economists—such as textbook king Paul Samuelson—didn’t see the Russian collapse coming, just like they didn’t see the collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Austrian theorists, however, did.

Read the rest.

Please Don’t Feed The Animals

Herewith, another version of my essay on the wasted vote syndrome, especially for Wes Benedict:

Also available in video form:

Vote By Your Principles, Not By Habit

Let’s explore the infamous “Wasted Vote Syndrome”.  For a vote to be “wasted”, it has to be cast in vain, without furthering the purpose for which it was cast.  So what are the reasons for which people vote?  Why do they even vote at all?

This is a surprisingly difficult question — difficult enough that economists call it the “Paradox of Voting” (or Downs Paradox, after the seminal 1957 paper by Anthony Downs).  They observe that the cost of voting is relatively high compared to its objective benefit to the voter.  To vote you have to invest at least an hour of your precious time – analyze your choices, travel to a polling place, stand in a line or two, enter your choices, and travel back. (Voting by mail only changes the time calculation a little.)  Your payoff from voting has to be discounted by the probability that your vote will tip the outcome of the election.  Even if you expect the outcome of an election to have a big effect on your life, the odds that your vote will change that outcome are usually vanishingly small.  When you do the math, you see that the net expected personal benefit to you from adding your vote to your candidate’s total is far less than the cost of the gas it takes to get to the polls — or even the cost of the stamp to mail your ballot.

So why do people bother to vote at all? The standard explanation is

‘How can you throw your vote away?’

In response to that all-too-common question, I’ve written a detailed reply. Since the argument is made in favor of any alternative candidate, not just liberty-minded ones, I put it over at Independent Political Report, not here.

Happy Constitution Day!

Federal Reserve taking over troubled insurance giant AIG

According to the New York Times, the Federal Reserve is close to a deal bailing out insurance giant AIG.  In exchange for an 80% stake in the company, the Fed will provide AIG with an $85 billion loan.

The Starr Resolution

The following is the letter Aaron Starr proposed the LNC send to Ron Paul, offered in response to the letter of apology suggested by Rachel Hawkridge.

September 13, 2008

The Honorable Ron Paul
Committee to Re-Elect Ron Paul
837 W. Plantation
Clute, TX 71531

Dear Dr. Paul:

The Libertarian National Committee is disappointed to learn that you have recently urged those in the freedom movement to vote for the likes of Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney and Chuck Baldwin, none of whom truly grasp the meaning of Liberty.

More than before, we remain committed to our nominees for President and Vice President, Bob Barr and Wayne Root. We believe both of them boldly present the ideals of limited government, lower taxes, lower spending, and more freedom to the American people.

We invite you to restore your commitment to Liberty by supporting the only candidates on the ballot this year who understand the Constitution and are prepared to restore our republic to what the Founders believe

Toward Liberty,

The Libertarian National Committee:

What LNC Should Have Said To Ron Paul

In the wake of Libertarian nominee Bob Barr declining to attend Ron Paul’s press conference last week for “principled” third-party candidates, the Libertarian National Committee reportedly will neither apologize to Ron Paul nor formally urge Paul’s support of its ticket.   If LNC wanted to say something formally to Ron Paul, it should have said something like this:

---

The Libertarian National Committee regrets that last week you and Bob Barr missed a chance to stand together for liberty.  Many in the freedom movement are disappointed that you urged Americans to “send a message” by voting for “principled candidates” like Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney and Chuck Baldwin – or by being a “principled non-voter”.  Examining the principles of these candidates makes us even more committed to our Libertarian nominees for President and Vice President, Bob Barr and Wayne Root.  Unlike their opponents, our nominees boldly proclaim the fundamental principles of your Campaign For Liberty — especially “that freedom is an indivisible whole, and that it includes not only economic liberty but civil liberties and privacy rights as well”.

In American politics there are many who campaign against the Establishment, and seek to infringe on our individual rights in a somewhat different way than does the current two-party duopoly.  There are very few in American politics who actually campaign for liberty.  In the presidential election this fall, there will be only one choice available to voters who want to be counted both as supporting the Constitution and as opposing the nanny state’s efforts to protect us from our own personal and economic choices. We urge you to campaign for liberty by supporting the one presidential ticket that is most faithful to the enduring libertarian principles of your 1988 and 2008 races for the presidency.

Not at all surprisingly, disgruntled PA Republican loses lawsuit to remove Barr from ballot

Victor Stabile, Chair of the Cumberland County (PA) Republican Committee, filed suit to remove Bob Barr from the Pennsylvania ballot.  Stabile’s argument was that the LP engaged in fraud, by substituting Bob Barr for the stand-in candidate, and by collecting petition signatures under the name of the stand-in even after Barr was nominated.

Predictably, the judge didn’t buy that argument:  pennsylvania-court-opinion

“Forget Jason” Money Bomb on 10/1

The following was written by the Committee To Elect Jason Gatties.

St. Joseph, Mi- The Committee To Elect Jason Gatties would like to announce a fund raising effort for the month of October. The only catch is, it isn’t for Jason. On October 1st, the campaign will launch a “Forget Jason” money bomb. A dedicated page will list several top libertarian candidates, with a direct link to their donation page. Some of the libertarian candidates to be listed include: Scotty Boman, Allen Buckley, Michael Munger, Thomas Knapp, Daniel Grow, Eric Schansberg, Tyler Nixon, William Parker, Wes Upchurch, Andy Horning, Rex Bell, Bill Hall, Eric Larson, Charles Jay, Chris Cole & Susan Hogarth.

“It is important that libertarian activists show their support for candidates who are the front lines of the freedom battle. I want to do my part to help these fine people succeed in November.”- Jason Gatties

The fund raising drive will last through out the month of October via www.VoteGatties.org. If you have a candidate you would like to see listed, please contact the campaign at VoteGatties@yahoo.com.

LP validity rate in Connecticut only 54%, 500 short of requirement

From Ballot Access News:

Connecticut elections officials say the Libertarian presidential petition lacks approximately 500 valid signatures. Libertarian activist Andy Rule will be reviewing these findings. The party submitted over 12,000 signatures to meet a requirement of exactly 7,500 signatures, but elections officials say only 54% of the signatures were valid.

A 54% validity rate?  Who was petitioning in Connecticut?

LPNH lawsuit

Click here to read the lawsuit filed Friday by LPNH, Bob Barr, Wayne Allyn Root, Brendan Kelly, and Hardy Macia:  lpnh-lawsuit1

According to George Phillies, the candidate they wish to remove from the ballot, the lawsuit lacks authority because the LPNH Executive Committee voted to merely join a suit by the LNC, yet the LNC is not listed as a plaintiff.

Press Release: The Liberty Agenda

The following is a news release from Brian Irving, Communications Director for the Libertarian Party of North Carolina.

Libertarian Candidates Propose Liberty Agenda

RALEIGH (Sept. 15) — Ending the state’s power to seize private property by forced annexation and eminent domain, improving public education through competition, restoring free, fair and open elections, and cutting off corporate welfare, will be the top legislative priorities of a Libertarians elected to the General Assembly.

Thirteen candidates announced the Liberty Agenda for North Carolina today. They are: Kira Howe (Senate 7), Brian Irving (Senate 17), David Rollins (Senate 20), Richard Evey (Senate 44), Jesse Mignogna (House 2), Sean Haugh (House 30), Barbara Howe (House 32), Susan Hogarth (House 38), Robert Richmond (House 71), T.J. Rohr (House 87), Jeffrey Ober (House 95), Lawrence Hollar (House 96), and Keith Calvelli (House 108).

“I originally ran for council because my property was involuntarily annexed and have vigorously opposed any future involuntary annexations,” said second-term Lenior City Council member Rohr.

“After the U.S. Supreme Court incorrectly allowed the practice of eminent domain for purely economic development purposes, I proposed a city resolution condemning that decision and calling for an amendment to the NC Constitution abolishing such practices,” he said. “The resolution passed unanimously.”

Improving public education is as much a priority for the legislative candidates, as it is for Mike Munger, Libertarian candidate for governor.

“There are many good things happening in North Carolina education,” Munger says on his website. “And the path to continued improvement is to foster choice.”

“We expect Governor Munger will get strong opposition from the education lobby and teacher’s unions,” said Irving. “So he’ll need all the allies in the General Assembly he can muster.”

Irving agrees with Munger that it’s fashionable to bash public education, rather than sincerely seek ways to improve it. “The problem is that anyone who proposes thinking out of the box when it comes to education is beat over the head with the supposed public school mandate in the state constitution,” he said.

“This selective devotion to constitutional principle is curious, since the legislature freely ignores other parts of the constitution, including the part that says ‘all elections shall be free, fair, and open’ by restricting the right of people to vote for anyone other than Democrats and Republicans,” said Irving.

The Liberty Agenda candidates also oppose economic incentives to businesses, more properly called corporate welfare, as an immoral tax on individuals for the benefit of corporate profits. Recent news reports that the Dell computer company may sell their three-year old Winston-Salem plant, built with nearly $300 million in corporate welfare, demonstrate corporate incentives are ineffective as well as immoral, said Irving.

As proof that Libertarians will do what the say when elected, Rohr said, “I was the only local elected representative to vote against the infamous Lenoir-Google government handouts.”

“Ending property theft by government, improving education, restoring fair elections, and cutting off corporate welfare — these are just our top four issues” said Hogarth. “We will then go on to work to reduce the size, scope and power of government at all levels and on all issues, and
will consistently oppose increasing the size, scope and power of government at any level, for any purpose.”

-30-
The Liberty Agenda for North Carolina

Here is the text of the Liberty Agenda

We, Libertarian candidates for North Carolina General Assembly, pledge that our priority while in office will be to put Freedom First for all the state’s citizens. This Agenda fully supports the campaign agenda of Mike Munger, Libertarian candidate for Governor of North Carolina.

1. Ending forced annexation and stopping private property seizure under the power of eminent domain by amending the state constitution.

Forced annexation and the seizure of private property for ostensible “public purpose” is a violation of the fundamental rights of all Americans. Forced annexation is not about providing services, or controlling growth. Forced annexation is about money. Communities should only be annexed with their consent. No government, at any level, should have the power to take or seize private property for any purpose, without the express consent of the owner and without just compensation..

2. Improving public education through school choice and competition.

We agree with Mike Munger, Libertarian candidate for governor, that it has become fashionable to bash public education rather than sincerely seek ways to improve it. There are many good things happening in North Carolina education, and the path to continued improvement is to foster choice.

The problem is that anyone who proposes thinking out of the box when it comes to education is beat over the head with the supposed public school mandate in the state constitution.

This selective devotion to constitutional principle is curious, since the legislature freely ignores other parts of the constitution, including the part that says ‘all elections shall be free, fair, and open’ by restricting the right of people to vote for anyone other than Democrats and Republicans.

3. Restoring free, fair and open elections to North Carolina by removing barriers to ballot access.

North Carolina has arguably the most restrictive ballot access laws in the nation. These barriers are specifically designed by the Democratic-Republican duopoly to restrict the people’s freedom of choice, prevent independent and third party candidates from getting on the ballot. Elections laws also are used to restrict free speech, by limiting how much an individual can contribute to the candidate of their choice. The people should have the unregulated and unrestricted right vote for and support candidates of their choice.

4. Cutting off all corporate welfare and subsidies.

Economic incentives and subsidies, more properly called corporate welfare, are an immoral tax on individuals for the benefit of corporate profits. Recent news reports that the Dell computer company may sell their three year old Winston-Salem plant, built with nearly $300 million in corporate welfare, demonstrate that corporate incentives are ineffective as well as immoral.

Conclusion

Ending property theft by government, improving education, restoring fair elections, and cutting off corporate welfare only the beginning of the Liberty Agenda. Our goal and our pledge is to reduce the size, scope and power of government at all levels and on all issues, and consistently oppose any increase in the size, scope and power of government at any level, for any purpose.

/signed/

Kira Howe, Senate 7

Brian Irving, Senate 17

David Rollins, Senate 20

Richard Evey, Senate 44

Jesse Mignogna, House 2

Sean Haugh, House 30

Barbara Howe, House 32

Susan Hogarth, House 38

Robert Richmond, House 71

T.J. Rohr, House 87

Jeffrey Ober, House 95

Lawrence Hollar, House 96

Keith Calvelli, House 108
——————————————————————————–
LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF NORTH CAROLINA
PO Box 28141 Raleigh NC 27611 * 877.843.5762 * www.LPNC.org
Brian Irving, Communications Director, 910.987.5844

Bleak Humor Break

Has culture of timidity paralyzed the LNC?

Blogs are on the bleeding edge of 21st century politics.  What’s the last thing you heard from any LNC member posted on a blog or elsewhere (besides from Angela Keaton who is a special case–an under-understood case in my opinion)? I can’t remember seeing one written word from my regional LNC rep since speaking to him in person at the Denver convention.

I’ve got a pamphlet about leadership sitting on my desk.  I’m reading this thing and nothing in this leads me to find positive comparisons with the current LNC, and for the record, almost everyone I voted for in Denver is currently sitting on the LNC (it ain’t a radical versus moderate thang).

In my opinion, a culture of timidity has paralyzed the LNC.  Don’t want to say something stupid!  LNC members seem reluctant to post something, anything, on the internet with their own name attached to it.  I can’t blame them too much.  With personal exposure comes risks.

But the LP is in desperate need of leadership.  Staff tries.  Barr tries.  The LNC doesn’t.  Bill Redpath hasn”t and that hurts me to say because I know he’s overly busy.  I’d love to help fill the current leadership vacuum and assist Redpath and the LNC as the National Executive Director.

I can do it.

And I’d be communicative with the outside world, because even though I’d be opening myself up to criticism, I’d expect some occasssional worthwhile suggestions (plus a bunch of worthless ones).

But back to my first point.  Why is it we hear so little from the LNC members?

Why Multiple Freedom Parties Is Dumb

Tom Knapp and George Phillies and Carl Milsted are very smart guys, but offering multiple  parties/candidates to the voters in our quadrant of Nolan space is dumb for multiple reasons:

• Having multiple liberty-oriented choices tells voters that libertarianism is too incoherent to be worth understanding.
• Having multiple liberty-oriented choices tells voters that the freedom movement is too poorly organized to be worth supporting.
• Having multiple liberty-oriented choices vastly increases the cognitive/investigative burden imposed on a voter asked to cast her single vote for liberty.
• Having multiple liberty-oriented choices tells politicians that pro-freedom voters are far from being a coherent caucus whose votes can be earned (e.g. by the party not running an opposing candidate).
• Getting liberty-oriented candidates on the ballot requires a threshold amount of signatures/fees.
• Getting a liberty-oriented party ballot-qualified requires a threshold amount of voter registration and/or votes in statewide races.
• American elections generally do not allow fusion voting.
• American elections do not allow approval voting, but instead uses plurality voting.
• Duverger’s Law suggests the natural tactical response of voters to plurality voting is to gather into two parties straddling the political center along its major axis, or into one party for each natural cluster of voters in the political space.

A party should focus on the exercises of franchise whose effectiveness is magnified when the franchisees act in concert rather than through competing organizations. There’s no interesting limit to how many liberty-oriented parties we could indulge in creating. With over 20 free variables in libertarian theory, that’s over a million potential parties even if you assume only two possible values to each variable.  If two liberty-oriented parties are better than one, why aren’t 20 better than 2?  Why shouldn’t every intra-party caucus be its own party?

There are at least two possible exceptions to this analysis.  The first would be when the dominant freedom party has become immune to repair through caucus efforts and needs to be destroyed and replaced.   I for one am nowhere near ready to make war on the LP, and I’ll gladly defend the LP from those who make war on it.  Whatever the faults of the LP and its current nominee — faults I’ve never been shy about naming — they aren’t serious enough to stop telling the average voter she should always take the single choice called “Libertarian” whenever it’s available.  Democracy is an incredibly blunt instrument, and we can’t delude ourselves that the ballot box is a place for making subtle philosophical distinctions.  Remember, if every voter had as much political passion as we Libertarian activists, the streets would run red with blood — and plenty of it would be ours.

The second exception would be a zero-government abolitionist anarchist party.  I don’t mind working with anarchists wise enough to realize it’s harder to overthrow a big State than a small State — as long as they don’t insist the party endorse their abolitionist rhetoric (and thus help the State resist the party’s efforts to shrink it!).  However, having a separate anarchist party would be useful in clarifying that the LP has no official plans to abolish the state, and would siphon off radicals who fret too much about the LP’s lessarchist tent getting bloated with people lacking sufficient hatred of the state.

The Barr is closed, the W.A.R. is over

Unless some major uproar takes place between now and 51 days from now — and in Libertarian politics it seems there has been a major uproar every 20 minutes or so for the past week and a half — I do not plan to comment publicly any further on the LP’s Bob Barr/Wayne Allyn Root ticket until at least Election Day. I have made up my mind about the ticket, and to engage in further carping would be counterproductive. This is not to say the efforts of those in the LP who are working to replace Barr are “carping”; just that since I have no official role, my own input will not help anyone much.

For those who wish to see Barr off the ballot and a more palatable candidate inserted, I wish you luck. For those who have decided to continue to back Barr despite all the hullaballoo, I wish you luck as well. In the end, this presidential campaign is about expanding the libertarian cause, and I hope any sincere effort at doing so will be fruitful.

Despite my fears last weekend that I might not be long for the LP, I have actually become more committed to it over the past few days. I see a lot of good folks trying their best to deal with difficult realities, and to work through genuine differences on approach and philosophy. So I will be sticking around, and after the election is over, I hope to help re-establish the LP of the District of Columbia. As I’ve noted elsewhere, I am not a leader — I’ve discovered throughout my career that I’m bad at running the show, though I am a fine lieutenant. I again offer my help to any credible libertarian effort that could use it.

While I am sticking with the LP, I also have worked through my concerns about the Boston Tea Party and gotten involved with it as well. (I expect to vote for the BTP’s Charles Jay/Thomas Knapp ticket in November, though I always reserve the right to change my mind right up until I cast my wasted vote.) I do not see the LP and BTP as competitors but as complements. I do not feel the need to restrict myself to one favorite food, favorite film, or even favorite religion, so why should I feel bound to support only one political party? The goal is the expansion of freedom, not the triumph of a faction. I am favorably disposed to Dr. George Phillies’s new Liberty For America organization as well.

I admit to early skepticism about the BTP. When I thought about it, the only reasons were that it was tiny and new, and the LP was long established. But those who first heard about the “Livingroom Party” in December 1971 must have found it tiny and new as well, and I expect more than a few felt sheepish about casting their votes for John Hospers, on the ballot in two states. Is that much different from Charles Jay in 2008, on the ballot in at least four?

It was perhaps fate that led me to start reading “Radicals For Capitalism” by Brian Doherty (a.k.a. Mr. Angela Keaton) this week. As a reasonably bright fellow who has a hard time getting his head around theory and philosophy, I am finding it very helpful in understanding the philosophical roots of what we, and I, believe. So until the election, I will stick to my studies (and to my IPR reporting and LFV commenting), and leave the LP political battles to the warriors.

New Hampshire lawsuit filed, seeks to remove Phillies from ballot

A reporter for the Nashua Telegraph has been calling libertarians today about a lawsuit filed in US District Court.

Bob Barr and the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire Executive Committee are named as plaintiffs in the lawsuit.  However, this is not a typical ballot substitution action; instead, it is an action to remove George Phillies from the New Hampshire ballot.  This therefore appears to be the expected lawsuit previously discussed on Last Free Voice.

Bob Barr is the Libertarian Party’s presidential nominee.  George Phillies was nominated as presidential nominee at the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire state convention.  Currently, both Barr and Phillies are ballot-qualified in New Hampshire as Libertarian presidential candidates.  The state does not allow substitution of candidates, and the New Hampshire Libertarian Party began collecting signatures for Phillies before Barr announced his candidacy.  Phillies has declined to remove himself from the New Hampshire ballot, citing his belief that he has an ethical obligation to those who signed the petitions to place him on the ballot.

As of this afternoon, New Hampshire Secretary of State William Garner had not yet been served with said lawsuit.

New Libertarian Video

More video mashups at http://libertarianmajority.net/videos.

Motion for Removal of Bob Barr as LP presidential nominee

The following is a draft Removal Motion for the LNC’s consideration. Please feel free to suggest changes or improvements in comments.  Incidentally, I didn’t personally write it.

Should the LNC remove Barr from his position as LP presidential nominee?

REMOVAL MOTION

WHEREAS, Article 12, Section 5 of the Libertarian Party’s bylaws provide for the suspension of the party’s presidential candidate by the Libertarian National Committee; and

WHEREAS, said bylaws provision requires a 3/4 vote of this body;

BE IT KNOWN that Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party’s 2008 presidential nominee, is hereby suspended on the basis of the following causes:

- Failure to appear, with little or no notice, at a major media event to which he had been invited and to which he had committed to appear;

- Vicious public attacks by his campaign staff on the character and reputation of the event’s host (1988 Libertarian Party presidential nominee Ron Paul) and sponsor (Campaign For Liberty);

- The disrepute and discredit which the aforementioned misbehaviors have brought upon the Libertarian Party.

The committee advises Barr that he has seven (7) days to appeal this action to the party’s Judicial Committee. Absent a successful appeal, his nomination will be deemed null and void and he will be replaced as the party’s presidential nominee.

Jason Gatties supports the removal of Bob Barr from the Michigan ballot

Press Release: Gatties Supports The Removal Of Bob Barr From The Michigan Ballot

For Immediate Release

St.Joseph, Mi- Lake Michigan College Board of Trustees candidate and Libertarian Party member Jason Gatties announced on Thursday night that he is in support of the removal of Bob Barr and Wayne Allyn Root from the Michigan ballot this November. Bob Barr is a former congressman who gained the Libertarian Party’s presidential nomination in late May during the Party’s national convention in Denver. Wayne Allyn Root was a former Libertarian Party presidential candidate who ultimately won the Vice Presidential nomination.

“Bob Barr continues to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is not a libertarian and not a friend of the freedom movement” Gatties said in a written statement. “Barr shows no respect towards libertarian activists or down-ticket libertarian candidates.”

Bob Barr has recently become the center of controversy within the libertarian movement due to “no-showing” a unity event hosted by long-time libertarian & former presidential candidate, Congressman Ron Paul and ignoring party by-laws when, after insulting Ron Paul with the no-show, offered the Congressman a spot next to him on the Libertarian Party ticket, replacing Wayne Allyn Root.

“Bob Barr turned his back on the Libertarian Party the moment he accepted the nomination. Disrespecting Ron Paul should be the final straw. I encourage the Libertarian Party of Michigan’s Executive Committee to remove Bob Barr from the Michigan ballot. If they are unable to remove Mr. Barr, I encourage Michigan citizens to cast their vote for Chuck Baldwin or perhaps, write-in a freedom candidate who will not appear on the Michigan ballot. Your write-in vote may not count, but at least you will be able to sleep at night knowing that you made the right decision. I support our Michigan Libertarian candidates and I encourage people to cast their vote for these fine defenders of liberty. However, I refuse to support Bob Barr and his anti-freedom agenda.”

For more information regarding this story, please visit www.IndependentPoliticalReport.com or LastFreeVoice.wordpress.com.

“Liberty For America” offering memberships

The following is a membership offering for Liberty For America, sent to LFV by George Phillies.  Please note that LFV is not affiliated with, and has no financial interest in, the Liberty For America organization.

Liberty For America Now Offers Memberships

$15 per year

For more information see the Liberty for America Web Pages at http://LibertyForAmerica.com

Also, the September issue of Liberty for America magazine is now out.  You can read it on the Liberty for America web pages.

Note in particular the Libertarian Centrist manifesto

Libertarian Centrism

How are we to tell Libertarian Centrism apart from radical anarchism, Republican-lite conservatism, or conspiracy theorism? I offer a few thought.

Libertarian centrism is about real politics. We libertarian centrists do not agree about everything. Here are litmus questions. The fact that an issue is a litmus test does not make it an important issue. Some important issues are not litmus tests. Warning: Some centrists will disagree with some of my answers. What do most Libertarian centristsbelieve?

We are 100% pro-choice, because government has no valid business running women’s lives for them.

All Americans are entitled to equality in marriage, adoption, divorce, and access to military service.

Slavery was the American Holocaust. Confederate apologists are rightly grouped with Holocaust deniers, and are shunned by all decent people.

Thomas Jefferson correctly wrote: “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men’. It is only through government,limited government, that men and women will stay free.

The so-called ‘States Rights’ doctrine, claiming that states may keep African-Americans from voting and women from having abortions, is un-American. Politicians who say ‘leave it up to the states’ are an
opposite of libertarian.

While there have been conspiracies, the incoherent mutterings of conspiracy theorists, including 9/11 truthers, central banking foes, and 16th amendment deniers, offer nothing to the Libertarian political
movement. They should be politely ignored.

More important, what does Libertarian Centrism offer America? What is the clear, positive, uplifting message we send about the American future? How will Libertarian centrism advance the Libertarian political
movement?

We’ll get to that in the future.

Here’s your chance to SHOW the Barr campaign what you really think

From Bob Barr’s Deputy Campaign Manager Shane Cory:

Don’t be a Party Puppet

Dear Friend,

Maybe it’s the kid in me, but a great Libertarian in Washington State, Bruce Guthrie, ran my all-time favorite political ads during his 2006 senate run.

The production of his commercials was simple enough: Lunch bags, glue, yarn and construction paper put together with very entertaining voiceover.

Bruce’s theme was brilliant: “Don’t be a party puppet!”

If you have a minute to enjoy, here are two spots that aired: the Party Puppet Girls and Party Puppet Rick.

Now that only 53 days remain before the election, I think it’s about time we kicked off our advertising campaign!

While we sill have ongoing ballot access battles going in many states and funds are still very tight, only three weeks remain before early voting begins in some states! Despite our challenges, I don’t want to delay our media campaign any longer.

We need your creative help to get the ball rolling.

Rather than produce stuffy, standard political ads, we want to get your concepts or even full commercials.

If you’re the creative type or want to spend some quality time with a few friends and a video camera over the weekend, we sure could use the help. Please keep them to 30 seconds, leaving about 3 seconds at the end for the government mandated, “I’m Bob Barr and I approve this message.”

Once you have a concept or finished product, just send us your videos! Here’s a drop box where you can upload your videos and concepts.

Not very creative like me? No worries, you can help just as much by making a donation today. I’ll throw in the first $100 and if you can match or contribute $25, $50 or more, we would greatly appreciate the help. Click here to donate.

Thanks for everything that you do!

In Liberty,

Shane Cory
Deputy Campaign Manager
Bob Barr for President

If anyone reading LFV decides to make a video, be sure to post it on YouTube and leave a link here.

Record vote total for LP in 2008: Here’s how!

Bob Barr and the coterie of conspirators who helped him hijack the LP in May are either intent on destroying the Libertarian Party, or the most incompetent imbeciles in the history of world civilization. Either way, these odious self-important cretins — Bill Redpath, Aaron Starr, Shane Cory, Andrew Davis, Richard Viguerie, Robert Kraus, Russ Verney, etc. — cannot be shamed. Furthermore, they are emboldened by the feeble will of the “outsiders” on the LNC (a few heroic members notwithstanding) who are like infants afraid to do anything or say anything that might contradict Mommy and Daddy. Indeed, these “responsible” libertarians still do not admit that there was a plot to make Barr the nominee dating back at least two years, even with all of the evidence staring at them in the face.

Now Barr — a neocon who is already counting the days until his jump back into the evil Party of Lincoln — has destroyed any claim that the LP had as the rightful political vehicle of the Ron Paul R3VOLution. Well, almost destroyed. There is one way that the LP’s reputation could be restored, and that’s a complete disavowel of the heinous Barr candidacy. Anything less is a slap in the face to Ron Paul and his supporters, and as time continues to tick off the clock, even this radical action is losing its would-be potency.

No one seems to know how “removing” Barr would affect various state ballots. It could be that not having a candidate would ruin the LP’s already crumbling ballot access — crumbling under eunuch gun-grabber Bill Redpath’s purposefully destructive “leadership” — which is quite possibly the agenda behind the Barr/Root neoconspiracy. So I have a better idea.

The LNC should immediately disavow Bob Barr. “He is not a libertarian but a neocon, and anyone associated with him in any way is not a libertarian,” would be my preferred language. “Forty-nine-point-seven percent of our credentialed delegates — many of them never-before ‘libertarians’ there solely to nominate Barr — were duped by this repugnant man, and we now see this. Our apologies to Ron Paul, to America, and the world.”

That’s part 1. Now here’s part 2.

“As the LNC, we are instructing the various Libertarian electors to vote for Ron Paul if the Libertarian ticket carries their state. A vote for ‘Bob Barr’ is a vote for Ron Paul.”

We get rid of Bob Barr, we heal the LP’s relationship with the Campaign for Liberty, and we get a record vote total.

What’s not to like?

A Teachable Moment

This evening I was giving my sons (who will be four in two weeks) a bath. I was half-listening to their conversation while I read “Radicals for Capitalism” nearby. When I went in, they were playing some game that involved their toys going to jail. Conversation ensued:

ME: Why are they going to jail?
MILES: They work at jail.
ME: Oh. Do you know what jail is for?
PORTER: No.
ME: Jail is a place where, if you are bad or the government thinks you are bad, they come and take you and lock you up and you can’t leave. Sometimes it’s for things that are actually bad, like hurting people or taking things from them. But sometimes it’s for doing things the government doesn’t want you to do, like doing certain things with your body, or for criticizing them.
PORTER: Did you ever go to jail?
ME: I got arrested once because I did something bad [driving severely drunk, which is what got me to wise up and stop drinking] but no, I’ve never been in jail.

A few minutes later, I heard Porter say something disparaging about “the government”.

George Phillies continues New Hampshire campaign with signs idea

George Phillies, who is ballot qualified as a Libertarian presidential candidate in New Hampshire, has come up with an idea to use his candidacy to support all Libertarian candidates in that state.  Click below to see his fundraising brochure in PDF format.

phillies-new-hampshire-fundraising-letter

LP founder David Nolan: “The Barr Campaign Is Over”

David Nolan is an original founder of the Libertarian Party and, it goes without saying, an expert on Libertarian politics. Mr. Nolan created the “World’s Smallest Political Quiz” and regularly posts on nolanchart.com, where he shares his views on politics and the libertarian movement. The following is an excerpt from his excellent article, “The Barr Campaign Is Over”, posted on his website today.

Why has the Barr campaign has gone so badly awry? The simple answer is that the two men running it — Russ Verney and Shane Cory — are not Libertarians, do not understand what motivates Libertarian activists, and have no interest in building the LP. Verney is a gun-for-hire of no discernible ideology. Cory is a Republican who left his former job at LP headquarters in disgrace, after abusing his authority prior to the Denver convention. (Just today, Verney posted a Campaign Update on the Barr ‘08 website, praising George W. Bush for his “leadership” during the days following the 9/11 attacks seven years ago. Any true Libertarian would have instead pointed out that Bush has USED the 9/11 attacks as an excuse to erode our civil liberties!)

With these two running the campaign it will continue to embarrass Libertarians and waste our resources. Bob Barr will never qualify for inclusion in the phony “Presidential debates.” He will not get the 5% of the vote that would qualify the LP for future matching funds — which it should not accept in any case. Indeed, at this point it seems likely that Barr will not get even 1% of the popular vote. (Bettors on intrade.com are currently betting 2:1 against Barr receiving 1%.)

Click here to read Mr. Nolan’s article in its entirety.

Voices from the anti-Barr petition

As previously noted, a petition has been started to remove Barr/Root as the LP nominee. In glancing through the hundreds of petition signatures, I found a number of comments, including many stating simply that they absolutely will not vote Libertarian unless Barr is removed. Some even said they are leaving the LP. Here’s a sampling, in no particular order:

The LNC is once again showing a failure in leadership in not bringing forth a motion to remove Barr/Root. It only takes one LNC member with courage to bring the motion and another to second it. I am getting KILLED by my Ron Paul associates for my association with what they see as an arch-enemy of liberty, the disgraced LP.

Bob Barr is nothing but a Neocon

Bury Barr

Barr = CIA Schill (Shame on you for the 90s)

My support for Barr ended when he went before the cameras and lied to the nation. The lies continued today from Russ Verney. These people are pathetic and are destroying the LP.

Why snub RP?

This is what happens when you make a deal with the devil.

Barr has shown by his actions he is still a neo-con at heart. He is a disgrace to himself and the Libertarian Party.

Barr is not a Libertarian. The delegates who voted for him did not vote with principle.

I have voted Libertarian in the past. I was planning on voting Libertarian again. Not Now. I will not vote Libertarian as long as Barr is on the ticket. I will never vote Libertarian again if Barr is allowed to get away with his actions without any consequences.

ex-LP member after the “Party of Principle” became just another “Party of Compromise”. Good luck, LP.

You have shamed yourself and made known to all just who and what you are! I will never vote for such a scoundrel

Bob Barr cannot be trusted!

Thank you to Bob for continuing to make American politics a bigger sham than it already is. goodbye!

Pack your bags and go home.

I knew something like this was going to happen from the moment he was nominated. Kick this neo-con off our ticket.

Bob Barr has nothing to do with the pure ideals of liberty. It is a disgrace to the Libertarian Party the way he has treated Ron Paul, the true soldier of Liberty.

As a libertarian candidate, I am appalled by the continued anti-freedom actions of Bob Barr.

More and more the LP continues to sell out. It will not get my votes or money anymore.

Russ Verney says Bush showed “incredible leadership”, makes excuses for Barr’s no-show at Ron Paul event

Yet Verney still fails and refuses to recognize that Barr has absolutely no authority to replace Root with Ron Paul, or anyone else.  By the way, where’s Osama bin Laden?  We can see a quarter on the sidewalk from space, but we can’t find a strange-looking human giant?

Dear Friend,

Before I move forward with an important report for today, I would like to recognize and remember the 2,819 men and women who lost their lives seven years ago. As a result of the attacks of September 11th, Americans came together, setting aside differences in order mourn our shared losses and assist our neighbors in need.

May we never forget . . .

In times of crisis, strength in leadership requires boldness of character, clear direction and firm resolve. As we witnessed after the attacks of September 11th, President George W. Bush showed incredible leadership as he stood atop a fire truck amidst the rubble of the twin towers to rally America.

While the quality of leadership is rare enough, principled leaders are few and far between. Those who do appear to posses the traits necessary to lead, for reasons only known to themselves, frequently choose not to stand on principle.

Yesterday, our vice presidential candidate, Wayne Allyn Root, offered to step aside to allow Congressman Ron Paul an opportunity to serve on the presidential ticket of the Libertarian Party and move the agenda of Liberty forward.

On the surface, a simple offer was extended. In fact it was principled leadership at its finest.

Wayne Allyn Root showed his deep commitment to the principles of our cause. Without hesitation or regard to the effort, time and personal funds he has committed to the issues of freedom, smaller government, less taxes and the Libertarian ticket, Wayne offered to step aside to allow another leader to step up.

I could not be more proud of his actions and selflessness.

As America is hurling towards crisis on many fronts, we need principled leaders like Bob Barr and Wayne Allyn Root. We have no time to waste on anything other than spreading the message of smaller government, less taxes, and more personal freedom issues across this nation.

That brings me to my next point.

Today our campaign is being criticized by a few people for my decision to not attend a press conference sponsored by Ron Paul’s political action committee. I thought I would take a minute to explain to you why I made that decision.

It became evident to me after meeting with Ron Paul’s staff that this media event was not about promoting the liberty agenda; it was about promoting a man. That’s not what we’re in this for.

After rumors were spread in advance of the news conference that Bob Barr was dropping from the race – just to hype the event – I became even more hesitant to attend. Those tactics were unacceptable and when asked about it, Ron Paul’s staff simply smiled and said it would attract the press.

When I was provided a copy of Ron Paul’s prepared remarks just hours before the start of the planned news conference it became clear to me that the message Ron Paul intended to deliver was essentially to scatter the votes for the liberty agenda to the four winds.

His remarks not only encouraged anyone listening to support any one of four candidates, he also applauded ‘non-voters’. To me encouraging people not to vote is not principled leadership for the Liberty agenda.

I made the decision that attending that news conference was not consistent with Bob Barr’s principled leadership for the Liberty agenda.

Once I informed Ron Paul’s staff of my decision I was rudely informed that my decision would have permanent ramifications, I was personally threatened and Bob Barr was politically threatened. That’s a far cry from principled leadership.

One thing that did occur as a result of yesterday’s events is a clear separation of certain factions. Up until now, we have been dealing with two groups, those who want to advance the issues of liberty and those who have been drawn into a cult of personality.

There are those who support a specific politician and then there are those who support the liberty agenda regardless of standard-bearer.

Bob Barr, Wayne Allyn Root and the Libertarian Party stand for the issues of personal freedom and responsible government. As they have proven, both Bob and Wayne are willing to lead or follow for the advancement of our issues.

Now is their time to lead.

As we move into the final 50 days of the campaign we are in place to make a strong impact on the future of our country.

At the end of the day, the number of votes cast in support of the Liberty agenda in the General Election will influence the national political agenda of the next four years.

If we do our jobs, work hard and give us much as possible until Election Day, our voices will be heard and our agenda of smaller government, lower taxes, more personal freedom and government accountability will be on the table for years to come.

I appreciate your commitment and dedication.

Sincerely,

Russ signature

Russell Verney
Campaign Manager

Petition to renounce and remove Barr/Root

A petition has been started, urging the LP to renounce its support of Bob Barr and Wayne Allyn Root, and to ask Barr to step down.  If interested you can sign the petition here.

We, the supporters of freedom and liberty hereby petition you to immediately remove Bob Barr as the Libertarian Party nominee for President of the United States. Furthermore, we request that he not be replaced by the current vice presidential nominee Wayne Allen Root, but by another, less divisive candidate.

This request is not made lightly, but with much seriousness. The actions, track record, and history of Bob Barr has divided libertarians and other liberty leaning individuals across the nation.

WHEREAS the primary goal and purpose of the Libertarian Party is and has always been not conservatism but liberty,

WHEREAS Robert Barr has, not only refused to participate in the 10 September 2008 press conference of Rep. Ronald Paul of Texas and the Campaign for Liberty but has deliberately sabotaged this event with a false RSVP,

WHEREAS Robert Barr’s campaign has simultaneously called for Rep. Ronald Paul of Texas to be its vice presidential candidate and called him a thief, demonstrating either gross incompetence or a deliberate attempt to undermine the drive for liberty,

WHEREAS refusal to participate in a promising avenue for the enlargement of the party and the advancement of the cause of liberty is not in the best interests of the Libertarian Party, and

WHEREAS the Libertarian Party was not founded and does not exist for the aggrandizement of Robert Barr,

WE THE UNDERSIGNED hereby affirm that we are registered voters in the several United States of America, and do petition Robert Barr to step down from his position as candidate of the Libertarian Party for President of the United States; we do petition the Libertarian Party to renounce its support of Robert Barr’s candidacy for the office of President of the United States; or both.

Campaign For Liberty, or Campaign For Iconoclasm?

It seems the Barr campaign only belatedly realized that while the Ron Paul R3volution has lots of libertarians in it, it is not quite a libertarian movement.  Ron Paul’s team seems to have more ties to the Constitution Party than to the Libertarian Party.  Despite all the complaints LP radicals have about Barr, do any of them seriously suggest there was ever any chance that Paul would have endorsed Mary Ruwart and thus snubbed all his CP and leftish donors?

I fear there is a bit of truth to the insinuations from the Barr campaign that Paul considers himself and his Campaign For Liberty to be too big/important to stoop to endorsing anyone else for President this year, no matter how ideologically aligned that candidate (or his party) may be.  Ron Paul appears more interested in being a power broker for generic protest votes than in maximizing the vote counts for liberty — or even for constitutionalism.  That’s extremely disappointing.  The Greens and Naderites of 2008 are like the Socialist Party of 1928, who went on to have almost the entirety of their nanny-state economic platform enacted in the subsequent decades.  For Paul to suggest any kind of moral equivalence among these third-party choices is simply disgraceful.  As David Weigel sarcastically wrote on Reason.com: “I’m sure Ron Paul’s campaign got $35 million in donations because people wanted him to advocate for Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader getting into presidential debates. Not because people wanted a libertarian-minded candidate to succeed or because they wanted to reform the GOP.”

Still, the Barr campaign appears to have badly fumbled the question of attending Paul’s press conference.  I too loathe socialist Greens and Naderites, but Paul’s “presser” was prima facie about coming together on Paul’s 4-point manifesto and calling for broader participation in the two-party presidential dialogue.  The Barr campaign was tone-deaf to think that Barr is too big a “player” to share a stage with McKinney, or to think it could erase this mistake by making a VP offer that Paul would never accept.  However, in Barr’s defense it made Ron Paul look somewhat ridiculous to turn a microphone over to Ralph Nader and have him prattle on for multiple minutes about how devoted Nader is to the Constitution.  Somebody needs to point out Article I Section 8 to Ralph. I haven’t seen McKinney’s remarks, but I doubt they were any better.  If Nader could use his mic time to hypocritically embrace the Constitution, then Barr could have used his mic time to make the case that voting Libertarian is the right choice for true liberty lovers.

It’s unlikely that any of this will have much impact on the Barr’s vote totals, which I still predict will be a little over a million.  The mainstream media covered this story as “Paul rejects McCain, urges 3rd-party vote”, and only a few thousand voters will ever hear otherwise about this dust-up.  It was already clear that Paul was not going to put his Campaign For Liberty behind the only pro-liberty party on the ballot, no matter who our nominee was — and that’s a very sad commentary on both the C4L and the LP.   This underscores why the freedom movement needs to unite all the voters who seek both more personal liberty and more economic liberty behind the single choice will most move public policy in a libertarian direction — the Libertarian choice.

LPMass residential elector Art Torrey withdraws support for Barr substitution

The following was written by Arthur Torrey, and sent to attorneys for the Massachusetts substitution lawsuit as well as the Massachusetts Secretary of State. It is reproduced with his permission.

I am one of the Presidential Elector Candidates for the Libertarian Party of Massachusetts (LPMA). As such I feel that it is necessary and appropriate that I express my feelings concerning the ongoing litigation concerning the right of the LPMA to substitute the names of the National Libertarian Party nominees for President and Vice President for those of George Phillies and Chris Bennet whose names currently appear on the LPMA petitions for the offices.

I wish it to be known that as a Presidential Elector Candidate, while I support the RIGHT of the LPMA and it’s electors to make a substitution, I am no longer willing to do so in the case of Bob Barr and Wayne Allen Root. I will NOT pledge to vote for Barr / Root in the event that their ticket wins the vote in Mass. and I will NOT sign any agreement to authorize the substitution of their names on for those of Phillies / Bennet on the presidential ballot.

This decision is due to actions taken by the Barr / Root campaign subsequent to this litigation being filed and, in my opinion, does not impact the basic facts of this case. While it is very true that there are considerable differences between Barr / Root and Phillies / Bennet as the Secretary of State alleges in the defense document, this is properly a matter for the members of the Libertarian Party to decide, not the Secretary.

I firmly believe that the basic circumstances of the case, which are that the LPMA initiated its petition drive with Phillies / Bennet under the advice of the Secretary of States Office that *IF* the LPMA desired to make a substitution, then this would be permitted. It is manifestly unfair for the Secretary’s office to change the “rules of the game” in the middle of the petitioning process.

As both a voter and taxpayer I would pray that, while I do not support substitution in THIS instance, the Court will see fit to rule that the electors have the right to substitute a candidate if they so choose, and direct the Secretary of State to develop fair and consistent rules for doing so. This would help to avoid the trouble and expense of future litigation on this topic.

LP Acting ED Robert Kraus responds to criticism of Barr non-attendance at Ron Paul event

The following is a statement posted on the LP website, signed by LP Acting Executive Director Robert Kraus.  Despite his claim that people need to rely on facts and not blogs, the LP and the Barr campaign are still ignoring the extremely significant fact – pointed out only on blogs at this point – that neither Bob Barr nor Wayne Allyn Root have any authority whatsoever to ask Ron Paul to replace Wayne Allyn Root as the LP Vice Presidential nominee.

For those unfamiliar with the LP nomination process, the Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates are chosen separately by the delegates.  As such, unlike in major parties, Barr has absolutely no right to replace Root with Ron Paul, or anyone else.  Furthermore the LNC, which may have the authority to make that substitution, was not apprised of that offer to Ron Paul prior to it being publicized today.

To our supporters and volunteers
posted by Andrew Davis on Sep 10, 2008

I have been hearing a lot from many LP Members about concerns over Bob Barr not attending Ron Paul’s press conference.

However, before you form an opinion, perhaps you may want to consider the facts and not rely on blogs for your news.

First, the Barr campaign met with Ron Paul’s staffers yesterday afternoon to deliver the offer of the LP’s VP slot to Ron Paul and to discuss the details of the event that Bob Barr was invited to attend. More details were to be submitted to the Barr campaign but did not arrive until nearly 3 a.m. the morning of the event. At 9 a.m. Barr’s campaign manager, Russell Verney, informed the Paul campaign that Bob would not be attending however he would still give his backing of the four principles highlighted by Dr. Paul.

Second, read the press release by the Barr Campaign you will see why Bob’s own press conference (attended by many members of the press) was so significant:
http://campaign.blog.bobbarr2008.com/2008/09/10/bob-barr-shows-leadership-to-unify-liberty-movement/

Third, as CNN and others reported, Ron Paul’s press conference was more about him not endorsing McCain and less about Dr. Paul’s non-sanctioning of other candidates running for president.

The Barr campaign chose not to attend in order to make a very valid point, which was expressed, in their following press conference. Bold leadership is needed right now! Scattering support for the liberty agenda to the four winds as Dr. Paul is proposing will not serve liberty.

Ron Paul deserves respect and credit for what he has done over the last year in rejuvenating so many people across this nation, however either him or possibly his staff have made the bland decision to remain ambiguous with their intent and direction for liberty.

Personally, I will say that I do not appreciate the treatment that LP personnel received today by Ron Paul’s staff and the games they have attempted to play over the past year. This morning, our volunteer coordinator was rudely ejected from the press conference before it even started. This was followed by Ron Paul staffers and supporters close to the staff disrupting Barr’s press conference.

This pattern is something that we never wanted to disclose but holds true to previous treatment where staff members for Paul’s campaign tried on more than one occasion to have Bob Barr uninvited from events, including Bob’s gracious introduction of Ron Paul at last year’s CPAC conference.

I do doubt that Dr. Paul was aware of these antics.

I hope this answers some of your concerns and questions. Our staff, volunteers and the Barr/Root campaign are totally psyched up and ready to work very hard for all Libertarians through November and beyond – including ballot access, in as many states as possible, which will benefit all Libertarian Candidates!

We hope you too will continue to support those candidates that support your views, even if just on a local or state level. Please fill out the volunteer form here if you are: http://www.lp.org/action/volunteer.shtml and please do not forget to donate so we can continue to “send a message” between now and November: https://www.lp.org/contribute.

In Liberty!

Robert Kraus
Acting Executive Director

Barr’s website says he invited Ron Paul to be his VP

The following was posted today on the Bob Barr website by Shane Cory. It is of particular interest given that Barr did not show up today at the Ron Paul third party press conference, thus causing a major rift with the Ron Paul camp.

It is unclear why Barr thinks Ron Paul should be his VP candidate, and not the other way around when Ron Paul has far more support both in and out of the LP, and far more experience in Congress. Furthermore, Barr’s current VP Wayne Allyn Root was nominated by the delegates at the Libertarian Convention, so Barr doesn’t have the power or authority to replace him.  Root seems to think it’s a fine idea, but he doesn’t have the power or authority to overrule the delegates either.

Many thanks to LFV reader Bubbu Blanco for bringing this link to LFV’s attention!

Bob Barr Shows Leadership to Unify Liberty Movement

September 10th, 2008 by Shane Cory

Asks Paul to Run as his Vice President

Atlanta, GA – Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party nominee for president, has invited GOP Congressman Ron Paul to be his running mate in the upcoming election. In a letter sent to Paul, Barr called Paul one of the “few American patriots” who exist in today’s society, and asked him to “seriously consider this final offer as an opportunity to show true, lasting leadership beyond party politics.”

Barr cited Paul’s 1987 letter to then-GOP Chairman Frank Fahrenkopf, in which Paul stated that, “after years of trying to work through the Republican Party both in and out of government…[Paul] concluded that [his] efforts must be carried on outside the Republican Party.”

Though recognizing Paul’s personal investment in the Republican Party and his recent attempts to reform the party from inside, Barr said he disagreed with Paul’s strategy. “Better options remain that will carry a message of liberty onto the ballot in November and beyond,” Barr stated, adding at a news conference called today at the National Press Club, that “change in politics and public policy in America cannot and will not be done from within the current, two-party system.”

Barr continued, “‘The status quo will not change the status quo’ and impact comes entirely from gaining votes in the General Election.” That is why Barr said he would remain focused on the Libertarian Party’s electoral effort and clear message, and why he invited Paul to join him.

“While you declined my offer to seek the Libertarian presidential nomination many months ago, I ask that you seriously consider this final offer as an opportunity to show true, lasting leadership beyond party politics,” Barr stated in his letter to Paul.

Barr’s running mate, Wayne Allyn Root, expressed support: “As the Libertarian Party vice presidential nominee, I believe in one thing above all else—principle. There can be no compromise on the ideals of limited government, lower taxes, lower spending, and more freedom for the American people. Those are the principles to which I’ve dedicated my life. The GOP and Democratic candidates only give lip service—at best—to these ideals and principles. It is only an act at election time every four years.”

“I want to end the charade once and for all,” Root continued. “I am willing to sacrifice anything to advance the cause of liberty, freedom, smaller government and to enable the American taxpayer to keep more of their own money and property. Understanding Dr. Ron Paul’s reputation and name recognition in the freedom movement, I am willing to step aside as Libertarian vice presidential candidate if he would be willing to take my place. I will pledge to work day and night, just as I have as the vice presidential nominee, to support Dr. Paul. I believe this is a wonderful opportunity for the Libertarian and freedom movements. I encourage Dr. Paul to accept Congressman Barr’s offer. The campaign is making this offer because we believe there is no sacrifice too large when it comes to improving the lives of the American people and American taxpayers.”

Barr’s letter to Paul can be found here.

Paul’s letter to the GOP can be found here.

Libertarian Party presidential candidate Bob Barr represented the 7th District of Georgia in the U. S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003.

Andrew Davis responds to accusations re Barr no-show

The following is a statement by LP Media Director Andrew Davis, with regard to Bob Barr’s failure to appear at this morning’s press conference.  The original LFV post on this controversy are here and here.

The real question is why Bob, who is a major player in this election, want to be on stage with people like McKinney, who stands against everything the LP does, and Baldwin, who is barely on enough ballots to have a statistical chance of winning.

Barr is not a minor party candidate. Barr is a major player this year.

He is holding his own press conference right now.

Statement from Don Rasmussen re Bob Barr

What follows is a statement from Don Rasmussen, Events Coordinator for Campaign for Liberty.

“The following reflect my personal feelings and is not endorsed by Dr. Paul or Campaign for Liberty.

I am deeply disappointed by Bob Barr’s decision not to participate in today’s press conference just as I have been disappointed with the Barr campaign throughout this election cycle.

The idea that he was busy is absurd. I am sitting in the National Press Club right now waiting for his hastily called press conference to begin. This is the same building where Dr. Paul’s presser just ended. Barr committed to participate, but had his campaign manager call us minutes before it started to tell us that Bob thinks “it just isn’t worth it.” I look forward to hearing him explain how breaking a promise to Congressman Paul constitutes a wise campaign strategy.

It is my great hope that the alternative parties will present the American people with quality candidates that offer a real option. Clearly the Libertarian Party has failed to do so. Bob Barr has
repeatedly broken his promises to Dr. Paul, showed up uninvited at C4L events, and made statement contrary to Dr. Paul’s beliefs while still claiming the mantle of heir to the R3VOLution.

Hopefully, the LP will find a way to reject this candidate without rejecting the idea of engagement in practical politics.”

Don Rasmussen, Events Coordinator for Campaign For Liberty

Ron Paul Press Conference: Where’s Bob?

Ron Paul’s vote-your-heart press conference was held this morning. Video and story here. Apparently Bob Barr was not there, though Nader, Baldwin, and McKinney were. Barr’s published schedule has a press conference in DC at noon today.

Paul pointed out that the ‘four candidates’ had come together to agree that it is the (electoral) process that they are trying to change. Paul went on to introduce the other three candidates, and mentioned they were still ‘waiting for Barr to show up’. The video ends there, and does not contain the statements of the other candidates or the Q&A. I’m sure someone will point to a more complete video.

I generally like Paul as a speaker, but didn’t feel like he was in very good form for this announcement.

Robert’s Rules And a Plea to Angela

Brian Miller wrote:

An individual sitting on the body cannot be ‘removed from the room’ unless he or she is also removed from the body through a 2/3 vote. [...]  LNC has one of two options — it can pass a resolution condemning Ms. Keaton (which she has full right to debate and participate within, including a vote, as a sitting member). Or, it can vote on expulsion, which requires a 2/3 vote of the committee. It may not ‘kinda expel’ a member.

RRONR pp. 626-628 discusses “Breaches of order by members in a meeting.”  It says in part:

A motion offered in a case of this kind can propose that the offender be required to make an apology, that he be censured, that he be required to leave the hall during the remainder of the meeting or until he is prepared to apologize, that his rights of membership be suspended for a time, or that he be expelled from the organization. The offending member can, by majority vote, be required to leave the hall during the consideration of his penalty, but he should be allowed to present his defense briefly first.

It’s arguably a breach of order to divulge information from an executive session in near-real-time (i.e. before the weekend’s meeting ends, and more executive sessions are possible).  The LNC Policy Manual excerpts at http://lncregion7.blogspot.com/2008/09/for-breaching-confidentiality-in.html make it clear just how serious the LNC is about confidentiality of such sessions.

Miller also wrote:

As a finalist in the Northeastern Parliamentary Debate Society for several years in the mid and late 1990s, and a semifinalist in the world competition, I am quite familiar with Roberts’ Rules. [...] RR is not a difficult book. It’s about 90 pages long. Read the damn book and get to know it.

RRONR is 704 pages long.

Lots of people involved in this contretemps are shooting themselves in the foot, but as Chuck Moulton says, that doesn’t necessarily mean they are breaking a rule in some actionable way.  Libertarians, of all people, should know that not all ill-advised actions are (or should be) against the rules.

I don’t like Angela allegedly breaking executive session confidentially about contract discussions, but I tend to like the idea of LNC members live-blogging their meetings.  LP convention delegates are grownups who can decide for themselves whether to keep Angela on the LNC, and whether her commendable dedication to transparency outweighs public comments like this (at http://disinter.wordpress.com/2008/09/03/back-from-the-rally-for-the-republic/) :

they need to put more effort into those displays if they want to be taken seriously. Not by me of course. I gave up months ago. The LP is hopeless.

Angela, please issue the narrowest and most succinct apology you can muster for this alleged breach of executive session confidentiality, and then stay on the LNC.  The LNC needs to keep hearing you speak for your constituents, and all of us members need to keep hearing your reports on what the LNC does.  If you want to give up on the LP, that’s fine, but those of us who haven’t given up think it would only hurt the Party if you accept the martyrdom that was offered to you.

LP: suggested bylaws changes

Per Chuck Moulton’s suggestion, an open thread on suggestions for the LP’s bylaws committee.

Have at it! It’d be nice if folks indicated in their replies whether they are:

• An active member of the LP (how long)
• An ex-member of the LP (and since when)
• An interested bystander

Another LNC Conflict of Interest Goes Almost Unnoticed

This article has been removed due to inaccuracy.  – ENM

LP Ballot Access update: 42 states; LP passed by Nader

LP-specific ballot access chart is here:

http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pYQ3qoagoxGP9larocVyiGA

I’ve taken Richard Winger’s comprehensive ballot access chart and extracted and reorganized the information relevant to the LP.

Of note:

• LA is in dispute because of a late filing. Story here.
• The MA and NH suits are both over substitution. NH currently has both Barr and Phillies listed; MA has only Phillies.
• Nader passed the LP in number of states where he is on the ballot (43).

LNC Recollections Indicate Keaton Completely Abandoned By “Radicals”

Rachel Hawkridge recently sent out an e-mail to a number of Libertarians about the final vote to try and boot Angela Keaton.

Keep in mind that this resolution was passed AFTER an earlier effort to brand Ms. Keaton a sexual predator, and still earlier efforts to smack her down for her outspoken, pro-transparency nature.

A shrewd observer would note this was the modus operandi of those who attempted to frame Mary Ruwart as a child porn acolyte. But I guess shrewdness is not a gift of the average LNC member.

Without further ado, Hawkridge writes in her summary of events, and I comment with my thoughts:

PLEASE read it carefully, and note that things are not nearly as bad as have been reported – anything red is note from me to Sully. Notes from me to you are ****. Most of the bold or italics are my attempts to highlight important points.

I did not receive any coloring in my e-mail, so I have no clue what is from “Sully” (LNC treasurer Sullentrup).

I’ll start with the substantive description of what happened, based on the Sullentrup and Hawkridge discussion:

After a break, the Chair announced Angela Keaton had blogged on the Internet some information that had been revealed in executive session.

“Executive session” is a fancy term for “secret meeting where various LNC members can engage in various shenanigans off the record, without any notice.”

Such secret meetings are useful for highly important classified stuff — like discussing lawsuits, etc. — but not for the purpose that they’re generally used for in the LNC (such as the BS politicking that we’ve witnessed this weekend).

**** Also note that some of this was reported incorrectly, and had already caused problems for some members. ****

I guess we’ll have to take Rachel’s word that there were some factual inaccuracies, since we’ll never actually know the content of the double-super-secret LNC meetings in question — which took up quite a bit of time last weekend.

From what I can tell, the “problems” were mostly constituent feedback. Unfortunately, lots of LNC members consider constituent feedback to be bad and something not to be replied to… hence its lack of connection to the paid membership in general.

Pat Dixon moved to censure Angela Keaton for having blogged what she had put onto the LastFreeVoice website.

Angela Keaton does not have access to LFV’s website as a poster.

Angela Keaton left the room after having admitted to the transgression.

Why did she leave the room?

The report is that she was ordered from the room.

Did she voluntarily leave the room? Was she ordered from the room? Did Imperial Shock Troops drag her out of the room?

Michael Jingozian read the passage to the body.

Aaron Starr moved a substitute motion: It is the belief of this body that Angela Keaton should resign for having disclosed material in executive session.

Hilarious. Aaron Starr swoops in for the kill.

How did the motion go?

Everyone in the room voted for the substitution. ****I believe this was a voice vote, and that I did not vote. – R****

So Keaton was not in the room — presumably because she was ordered out (as reported). Then there was an Aaron Starr resolution demanding her resignation for revealing material in one of the double-super-secret sessions (we still don’t know what the material was).

We also don’t know who voted or didn’t vote, and a voting member is claiming that she “believes” it was a voice vote and that she didn’t vote at all. That’s not very precise.

Angela Keaton returned to the room.

And the response was?

Aaron Starr moved to have her leave the room while the body decided what actions to take.

This is where it gets even dodgier.

As I noted prior, this is a clear violation of both the Libertarian National Committee’s Bylaws, and a violation of Roberts’ Rules. The body cannot order a sitting member of the body to leave the body other than through a valid vote to suspend the member.

The bylaws of the LNC clearly mandate a 2/3 vote of the LNC to suspend a member of the committee. Starr’s motion was not a motion to suspend, thus he (and the LNC) did not have authority to expel a sitting member of the body.

Angela Keaton was removed from the room

Whoa, holllllld on a minute, partner.

“Removed from the room?” Through what mechanism?

How did Starr’s illegal removal-from-room motion get introduced? Was there a vote? Who voted for it?

If not, was Keaton ordered removed from the room by Redpath and Starr (as reported)? If so, what basis do they claim the removal?

Was she removed physically?

but was afforded an opportunity to speak in her defense before departing.

By whom? In what capacity?

Her defense was that executive session was inappropriate for the material being discussed.

She wasn’t on trial. If the LNC was voting to suspend her from the LNC, calling it a “defense” would be appropriate. However, this was an illegal motion made by a politically motivated member of the LNC to expel a valid sitting member of the committee from the room. No “defense” needed other than “you don’t have the authority to do this.”

I wish Angela had not given in to this bullying.

Moreover, some of the material was an affront to her, and she had no opportunity to meet her accusers.

Typical day in the Starr Chamber.

Mary Ruwart invited Ms. Keaton to try again to address the specific issues the Committee had raised, since she had not appeared to have addressed them.

By whose estimation?

Again, the LNC is not a court.

There can be debate, there can be discussion, but the LNC does not have “powers of trial.”

It has one of two options — it can pass a resolution condemning Ms. Keaton (which she has full right to debate and participate within, including a vote, as a sitting member). Or, it can vote on expulsion, which requires a 2/3 vote of the committee.

It may not “kinda expel” a member.

**** I believe that Mary diffused some of the emotion here by injecting a moment of calm, loving . . . and allowed the discussion to later evolve into the apology compromise.****

I believe that Mary Ruwart folded like a cheap suit, at least if this account is accurate.

Bob Sullentrup called the question, which passed.

Was Keaton still in the room? What motion (if any) was used to “expel” her?

Moving then to a vote on the LNC recommendation to ask Angela Keaton to resign:

Voting in favor

Mary Ruwart, Jim Lark, Julie Fox, Pat Dixon, Rebecca Sink-Burris, Mark Hinkle, Michael Jingozian, Aaron Starr, Stewart Flood, Dan Karlan, Bob Sullentrup

Rachel Hawkridge abstained and the chair did not vote.

And there you have it. Your LNC voted to ask Angela to resign over absolutely nothing.

Worse, Mary Ruwart sold Keaton down the river, after earlier dirty dealing by several people in the same room targeting Ms. Keaton had earlier resulted in an attempt at a resolution (as well as a press release by Shane Cory) attempting to essentially smear her as a pro-child-porn activist.

Word to the wise — if you fight for the radicals, this is the “support” you can expect to get when your back is up against the wall later.

**** Note that this is not hostility in any way from Mr. Redpath. Both Gene and I feel that he was truly trying to be fair, and I got a sense of reluctance on his part in the whole matter. Mr. Redpath also DID NOT comment, suggest any motions, demonstrate any pleasure or anything else undesirable. He was FAIR and IMPARTIAL, and the overwhelming feeling and discussion then and later was that The Keaton had left us no choice. This was the second time in 2 days, and the revelations made on Sunday were made after discussion about secrecy about some of these revelations. ****

Absent for the vote were Lee Wrights, Admiral Colley (airport), Angela Keaton

Bob Sullentrup moved the LNC suspend the membership on the LNC of Angela Keaton for breaching confidentiality in executive session.

And now they move in for the kill.

Pat Dixon moved to amend with the phrase ‘as denoted in Article 8 Section 5 of Bylaws’.

The amendment was adopted.

Aaron Starr moved to make this matter a mail ballot. There was no second.

Aaron Starr moved to append ‘in the event she does not apologize with 10 days and commit to never repeating the offense again’. **** Once again, no malice or glee detected here. This was a major softening of the original motion, and I appreciate and commend Mr. Starr’s strength in being willing to back off the original motion.

Yadda yadda yadda.

At this point, we amended the agenda to remove Jim Lark’s goals item from the agenda and move Rachel’s to the email list.

When Aaron’s amendment passed, the main motion read:

The LNC shall suspend the membership on the LNC of Angela Keaton for breaching confidentiality in executive session as denoted in Article 8 Section 5 of Bylaws, in the event she does not apologize with 10 days and commit to never repeating the offense again

At some point the Chair returned to the room after a brief absence and reported Shane Cory had sent a text message noting the Barr campaign did not want Ms. Keaton removed from the LNC.

After some discussion that Mary Ruwart and perhaps others would talk to Angela to get her to understand her breach and how it affected LNC business, the body withdrew the motion, pending Mary’s report on her conversation. There was no objection to the withdrawal.

In plain English — Starr moved to eject Keaton, the LNC effectively had the votes to remove Keaton lined up (apparently including that of Mary Ruwart), but they suspended their final vote on expelling her to give LNC members an opportunity to browbeat Keaton into submission and compliance with their wishes.

And that, in a nutshell, is what “your” national committee spent so much time on this past weekend.

Opportunity for Pubic Comment

Perhaps the funniest typo I’ve read on this yet.

Chuck Moulton invited the LNC to consider Philadelphia as a convention site for 2010 or 2012.

Chuck also pointed out the maxim that if ‘a person is committing political suicide, step out of the way.’ This he said was true for both Angela Keaton and the LNC. He forecast ‘blowback’ and expressed relief he was no longer on the Board.

There are many lessons in here, if you care to read them. Hints: excessive sense of self-importance by the LNC, lots of emotional gobbledygook, and a generous dollop of good old-fashioned dirty gotcha politics.

None of which does anything to contribute to the advancement of liberty in the slightest.

If you are reliant on the integrity and support any of the LNC members who voted to eliminate Ms. Keaton (or did nothing to stop this obvious third-attempt-in-the-weekend of bullying her), I suggest you reassess your relations with those people.

Myself, I no longer have confidence in any members of the Libertarian National Committee based on what I’ve heard and the details in this account. And I certainly cannot be a member of a political party with such a deficit of leadership and a lack of transparency.

Burying the lede

I realized that in the course of my 1,000+ word piece yesterday, I managed to obscure one of my key points — that though I’m not up for traditional activism right now, I would be happy to assist any credible libertarian publication or organization with writing, editing, copy-editing, etc.  I also invite LFVers to find me on Twitter (http://twitter.com/orvetti) and Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=664064495).

Keaton Agonistes

I am not an activist, and by many definitions, I’m not much of a libertarian, either.  I have an essentially libertarian outlook — “freedom’s just another word for get the f— out of my face,” as a Bureaucrash poster puts it — but I’m more interested in expanding personal and economic freedom than in reducing government.  I know the two go hand-in-hand, but the point is, no one would call me a purist.  (If I ever get around to finishing my book on my political outlook, ya’ll can read it and then disown me.)

I know very few Libertarians in person, having been only briefly active eight or nine years ago, and then having come back just half a year ago.  I know a lot of you online, though, and I’m happy to say there are few Libertarians I don’t like, and most seem to like me well enough.  I don’t count myself as a member of any faction.  I’m in an odd situation in that I find myself often with the “reformers” on ideology but not at all on tactics, and I find myself with the “radicals” on issue focus and internal LP politics.  I backed Dr. Ruwart for the presidential nomination this year even though her ideas are very different from mine, because I think she has the right focus and right approach toward selling our heterodox ideology.

But again, I am not an activist.  This is in part because of my other commitments and in part because it would conflict with my profession, but really, a lot of it is that I just don’t wanna.  That’s selfish of me, I know, but I’m not going to lie about it to folks I like and respect.  I’m too much of a misanthrope to go out petitioning or to try to run a local party.  I would make a pretty crappy candidate, too.  (If I ever do run for office, I’m sure that will come back to haunt me, but just tell Future Me that it’s as true for him and he should stick to the background.)  I have never been an LP convention delegate, and I’m only a lowly sustaining member.  This is all a long-winded way of saying nobody really needs to care about what I think.

But if you do care, what I think is that the LP is going insane.  If not for the fact that I’ve just returned and I’m sensitive to (completely fair) charges of being politically flaky, I’d consider heading back out the door again.  I do not support Bob Barr for president, though I am glad he is in the party; I hope he will stay.  I think his political evolution is basically sincere, and I give him credit for being honest about where he stands, rather than pretending to be more libertarian than he is.  But he’s not the guy for me.  I like Wayne Allyn Root more than a lot of folks in the LP seem to — he has a libertarian outlook on life, if not a truly libertarian political perspective.  I was quite impressed — and personally touched — that he issued a statement denouncing the imposition of first-ever regulations on homeschooling in the District of Columbia after I contacted him and asked him to say something.  (For those who don’t know, the Roots homeschool their children, and if Dakota Root’s remarks at the LP convention are any indicator, they do so quite successfully.)  But Root’s recent insinuations about Barack Obama’s college days, and other odd statements, make it hard for me to support him, either.

But this was just one ticket, I thought, and after November we could move on — hopefully richer for the media attention Barr and Root had received.  I still think that’s true, but after following the misadventures of the Libertarian National Committee over the weekend, I see the problem runs much deeper than the nomination of an unpalatable national ticket.  I only know what Angela Keaton, Chuck Moulton, and a few others have been able to report, so I do not want to make any assumptions, but it seems like the LNC used a large amount of its valuable meeting time to try to censure and censor an elected representative of dues-paying party members.  If what I have read is correct, the LNC did not decide to prevent Ms. Keaton from liveblogging the meeting in the first place — which would have arguably been a reasonable action, though I wouldn’t have voted for it if I was on the LNC — but instead tried to silence her after she wrote things they did not like.  The two things are very different — the difference between a politician refusing to grant an interview and using his pull to censor criticism after the fact.

So, what do we do?  There is the newly revived Boston Tea Party.  I participated in the BTP’s online convention in June, but then stopped being active because I was not sure I could fully endorse the party’s agenda.  I have worked out this conflict for myself and rejoined this weekend after the LNC hullabaloo.  I am staying with the LP as well, and will keep paying dues for now.  As I said elsewhere on LFV, I am hedging my bets.  (Neither the LP nor the BTP is on my D.C. ballot, so I will either write in the BTP ticket or someone else.  I may write in Dr. Phillies.)

But factionalism troubles me.  As you may know, I write for Independent Political Report, where I get a front-line view of the many socialist and communist parties in the U.S. today.  When it is suggested they work together, they angrily state that each has a irreconcilably different perspective.  There’s some truth to that.  But more often, these parties ruptured years ago over issues of internal politics and personal conflicts.  The LP took quite a hit along these lines in 1983, and I worry another split would be fatal.  The Libertarian vote base is small enough as it is.  I really do not want to see the Libertarian Party, Libertarian Freedom Party, Freedom Libertarian Party, Free Libertarian Party, Party for Freedom and Libertarianism, etc. etc., each drawing a couple thousand votes in each national election from now until the statists blow up the world.

I think the best thing to do is to elect a true reform slate at the next LP convention — one based not on reforming the party’s policies but its internal workings, one that wants openness and transparency in national operations.  Failing that, decentralization and the formation of a network of state and regional parties may be more effective than the current structure.

I have gone on too long here, but if you are still reading: While I am not an activist, there are ways I want to help.  I would be interested in assisting any credible Libertarian media enterprise as a writer and editor — what I do for a career — as well as taking part in Libertarian broadcasting and media.  If you think I can help, please contact me at peter [at] peterorvetti [dot] com or here.

A message from Angela Keaton

Comrades:

After my first night of more than four hours of sleep, I have a little, a wee little, clarity. I’m also more objective now that I have a little distance and some protein. In the meantime, I have agreed to nothing but to listen and contemplate the advice of others.

That said, I have much fondness and appreciation for all of you. Each of you should do what is best for your activism. You were included on this thread because you are champions of anything peaceful. I will be fine. We should be laughing. Our detractors are clowns. As I am fond of saying, getting kicked out of the LP is like fired from a titty bar. It doesn’t go on your permanent record. No one in the outside world cares.

Mush over, now back to matters at hand:

Everyone needs to take a step back and evaluate the whys as much as the what. We are in an ideological and structural meltdown. While it is fun to speculate which mommy issues M Carling might be laboring under or what went so wrong in Aaron Starr’s potty training, this is about whether we are part of the libertarian movement or merely an adjunct to the GOP death machine.

We will never have peace from those who wage war. When my support is coming from unexpected places like Admiral Colley who said he wanted a resolution like Hogarth’s since Atlanta, we need to be reminded what is at stake. Among my high crimes is my refusal to raise money for a ticket which includes a mildly repentant war monger, initials Wayne Root.

As to the events of yesterday:

Have not been able to keep up with volume of emails and blog post generated by the LNC meeting. Everyone has a version of events, usually self interested or representing a collective concern. Particularly among those who are now eyeing what may be empty seats on the LNC. No plans to respond to every claim of “factual error” since the level of posturing and feigning “fairness” is getting silly even with my taste for the absurd. People can see that for what it is. Further, I was not allowed to see the last set of proceedings so I have nothing to go on but my impressions of the credibility of those reporting. Still quite unclear about much of it.

After the meeting adjourned, agreed to listen to Ruwart, Hawkridge, Wrights and Fox in a private lunch yesterday. They have certain concerns, not the least of which is losing my vote on the LNC. This is serious since Haugh (who has been very fair to me) pointed out that if I leave, Mattson is likely my replacement. That weighs heavily on me. Mattson is a conservative with all the baggage that term carries as suggested by Rockwell’s brilliant speech at the Rally for the Republic. (I’m dropping the term “Christian Right.” It’s offensive to our many libertarian Christian brethren.)

While this is not confirmed, Mattson is the sixth place finisher and I am the “weak link.” It would be nearly impossible to knock Ruwart off the LNC without a mass exodus from the LP. If I’m gone, they have gotten rid of one pesky anarchist without alienating authentic libertarians who will hold their noses and vote for the ticket.

Now, I will only be allowed to stay if I tender an apology on the narrow action of writing about Carling and Redpath’s statements during the executive session with a promise that I never reveal anything said in executive session again. I violated a rule that I think is unjust. I don’t know how sincere I can be but if Wrights, Ruwart and Hawkridge need me in a plan to return the party to the movement, I will consider taking one for the “libertarian wing of the Libertarian Party.” Besides, as party stalwarts like Gene Hawkridge and Ernie Hancock have said, the best one can do is object to executive session before the session and on the record.

Also, Hawkridge asked that I write a detailed but non inflammatory statement about the various forms of harassment sexual and bullying from Carling and Starr. Need to run this by Doherty, my mother and our lawyer first.

Now for the “shocker.” Cory has a very different version of his conversation with Carling as well as his take on charges by Starr and Carling that Cory and the Barr campaign have not cooperated with the LP. There is a dispute between what is the former Root campaign and the Barr camp over donor lists and access. I’m merely a prop in this drama. Very likely, Cory and I will speak man to man this week in DC. If he did not make those statements to Carling, Cory is the one who deserves the apology from me for not extending the courtesy of at least asking him whether he made such statements.

Meanwhile, don’t let the minor differences amongst us to divide us. Sullentrup has not only slandered Knapp repeatedly but is actively encouraging a schism. Don’t allow such a little man a great victory.

Peace,

Keaton

LPMass Resolution: Leave LSLA, encourages removal of Stephen Gordon as LSLA head

The following is a resolution from the Libertarian Party of Massachusetts

Whereas State Chair Phillies received an apparently legitimate advertisement “We’re giving away 100,000 signs to support every campaign in America”, and

Whereas State Chair Phillies out of the generosity of his heart took time out of his busy schedule to forward this opportunity to his fellow State Chairs via the Libertarian State Leadership Alliance (LSLA) email list, assuming that the average Libertarian candidate could find out how to divert this opportunity to her or his own benefit, and

Whereas without giving an opportunity to defend himself, LSLA State Chair Stephen Gordon took punitive action against Phillies, and

Whereas the nature of the complaint and the identity of the complaintant have been kept secret so that there was no opportunity for Phillies to defend himself against the unknown complaint, and

Whereas, contrary to the false claim of Gordon, a claim that would have been refuted if Phillies had been given a chance to defend himself, Phillies as of this writing as a result of Libertarian National
Committee action is the National Party’s choice of candidate in Massachusetts, then

Be it resolved that the Libertarian Party of Massachusetts State Committee in accord with its authority under Party Bylaws orders and directs that all ties of LPMass with the LSLA are severed, and furthermore

Orders and directs that its officers under their ex officios may not invoke their ex officios to join or participate in the LSLA, and

While recognizing that each individual Libertarian is free to do what they see as best for the Libertarian Party, nonetheless encourages individual party members to seek activism opportunities otherwhere than the Libertarian State Leadership Alliance, and

Encourages the State Chairs remaining in the Libertarian State Leadership Alliance to seek, forthwith, the removal of Stephen Gordon as their head, and

To the extent useful, the Libertarian Party of Massachusetts will operate on its web site LPMass.org a forum for State Chairs and State Party leaders to participate and communicate at no cost to them.

Resolution passed 4-1, State Chair Phillies not voting.

LNC Alternate, Scott Lieberman, do the math for us regarding Keaton

Scott,

Scott Lieberman

Previously you presented your reasons for opposing an Iraq Withdrawal Resolution on another blog. Part of your reasoning involved the amount of person-hours spent on it:

2. There were approximately 40 people in the room when this motion was considered during the Feb 17, 2008 LNC Meeting. The original agenda stated that we would give this agenda item 5 minutes, but we spent at least 10 minutes debating this motion plus related secondary motions. That means the debate regarding this resolution wasted over 6 person-hours of LNC member’s time and the audience member’s time, to pass a resolution that will get zero publicity outside of libertarian blogs.

Can you provide similar calculations regarding the efforts to kick Angela Keaton off of the LNC at the recent meeting?

LNC = Lawless Narcissism Chamber

What more can be said?

They ejected a member of the body FROM the proceedings of the body.  There are no provisions that allow this.

They then conducted a secret vote on the status of that member of the body, apparently without allowing that member to actually cast a vote.

None of the so-called “leaders” in the room introduced a resolution to table this insane purge of a popular and well-supported member of the LNC and focus on the important business at hand.

As a result, 80%+ of the real business time was spent on a small clique’s agenda to isolate and exclude a duly-elected member of the committee.

No comment or action taken on the LNC’s financial situation.

No comment or action taken on any number of ballot access lawsuits threatening the status of state parties around the country.

No comment or action taken on the election.

No comment or action taken on the nationalization of Fannie and Freddie, and the $2.8 trillion in “guarantees” the feds added to our already staggering national debt.

Oh, some throwaway resolution about Afghanistan, issued three to five years late.

The LNC is a fool’s chamber.  In its current incarnation it serves no purpose.  It has no function, impedes the growth of liberty, and cannot adhere to basic principles of openness, accountability, or even its own bylaws for basic administration of a democratic body that is supposed to represent its constituents (who pay, lest we forget, to be members).

It is useless.  Stop sending it money and let it go out of business.  That will only aid the candidacies of folks like Dr. Munger who are actually doing exciting things, and it will eliminate most of the angst and roadblocks that make running for office as a Libertarian a difficult proposition internally.

Hopefully, the marketplace of ideas will provide something more useful and dynamic in its place.

Boston Tea Party comments on Libertarian National Committee meeting

Press Release

“Libertarian National Committee Goes on Witch Hunt”

The Libertarian National Committee spent almost 2 hours in executive session today condemning Angela Keaton for making supposed sexist statements about 2 national committee staff members. Ms. Keaton will publicly apologize for making such statements. Mr. Redpath has been trying to remove Ms. Keaton from the national committee for a long time now but was unable to do it this time. He will keep trying. Redpath has made it known that he will do anything he can to remove any of the people
who align themselves against the reform caucus.

Meanwhile those same people will not address the situation of Tom Stevens. He is a Presidential Contender on at least 2 state ballots: Florida and Colorado and aspires to be on others. Tom Stevens is the head of a competing political party known as the “Objectivist Party” The Objectivist
Party was formed by Thomas R. Stevens in February 2008. Tom Stevens is a long time NY Libertarian Party activist.

Contrary to the best interest of the Libertarian Party Mr. Stevens is currently serving on the National Libertarian Party’s Judicial Committee, The New York Libertarian Party State Executive Committee and the Queens County Libertarian Party Executive Committee. He is also serving as a New York Presidential Elector for Libertarian Party Candidate Bob Barr.

He continually says he is Bob Barr’s opponent so he can get Mr. Barr more votes. Besides being ludicrous, such actions are a violation of Florida law.

And the man continues to hold important positions in the Libertarian Party, The Libertarian National committee continues to refuse to do anything about it while persecuting an overly friendly but harmless woman.

Bill Redpath and the other officers of the National Libertarian Party should be removed forthrightly before they take the Libertarian Party into the gutter and into oblivion.

As a 34 year activist for the Libertarian Party I had to leave the Libertarian Party because of these people. I now have taken up direct opposition to them by becoming the Florida Favorite son “vice presidential candidate” for the budding “Boston Tea Party,” which is the replacement of the once “Party of Principle” and the only political party with 2 libertarian candidates on the national ballot.

Thank You,
John Wayne Smith, Chair
Boston Tea Party of Florida
http://www.bostontea.us
2008 Vice Presidential Candidate for the Florida Boston Tea Party
CEO, 1000 Planets, Inc.
Building a Private Road to the Stars!
Http://www.1000Planets.com
203 W. Magnolia St.
Leesburg Florida 34748

LNC Bylaws Committee Appointments

Via Angela Keaton – thanks to Paulie, Morey, and Chuck for clearing up some of the names for me.

Rob Latham

Dan Karlan

Chuck Moulton

Heather Scott

Bill Redpath

Nick Sarwark

Rob Oates

Aaron Starr

Ruth Bennett

Gene Hawkridge

Frank Manske (alternate)

CALL TO ARMS: LNC at it again, voting on whether to ask Angela Keaton to resign

This is a follow up to Angela’s liveblog for today, as well as the statement re Cory.

The LNC has removed Angela Keaton from the room, and are voting on whether to ask her to resign.

I have spoken with Angela, and she has stated that she will not resign.

This is the second day in a row that the LNC has attempted to remove this elected representative from the LNC.

Twitter updates from Angela Keaton:

Sitting in exile with Gene Hawkridge. Will I be excommunicated? You get better due process when three rabbis or the holy see meet.
14 minutes ago from web

Then it got really WEIRD…the Barr campaign sent message to Redpath to request to keep me on the LNC.
5 minutes ago from web

**********

Lee Wrights and I spoke in the hall.

He asked me to that if the offer is made for me to apologize to do it b/c he needs me.

Shane Cory sent me a text telling me not to step down.

**********

Updates from Twitter:

Meeting adjourned. Told by Redpath after the fact that the motion was that body should ask me to resign. That’s all. 9 minutes ago from web

Have no idea what the wording is or how anyone voted. Stewart Flood is out of my life. 8 minutes ago from web

**********

From Twitter:

Knapp: please report. My hotmail is done. I may owe Cory an apology. He may never have said those things. Curious. 21 minutes ago from web

LNC Passes Afghanistan Resolution: Get the H*ll Out!

Exciting and positive news from the LNC meeting!

The Libertarian National Committee finally passed a strongly-worded out-of-Afghanistan-now resolution. Yes, only seven years too late, but better late than never. The resolution was offered by Pat Dixon and passed ‘easily’ according to Angela Keaton, but I do not have the exact vote tally.

This resolution was, in my opinion, vital to the LP at this point to serve as a countermeasure to Obama’s obvious desire to escalate U.S. involvement in Afghanistan, and to position the LP as the legitimate Peace Party.

The resolution follows:

WHEREAS the government of the United States should return to its historical libertarian tradition of avoiding entangling alliances, foreign quarrels, and military adventures; and

WHEREAS the stability and security of Afghanistan lie outside the jurisdiction of the government of the United States; and

WHEREAS the Libertarian Party recognizes that the only legitimate role of the military is to defend America against direct attack or the imminent threat of attack;

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Libertarian National Committee calls on the government of the United States to withdraw the armed forces of the United States from Afghanistan, without undue delay.

Cory scapegoats Angela Keaton to get out of entering into contract between LNC and Barr campaign

The following is part of Angela Keaton’s Day Two liveblog of the LNC meeting. However, due to its importance, it rates a post of its own.

Then it got weird.

I left an executive session. I had no idea this was coming.

Said in ExSession. I’m within my rights to reveal this:

We don’t have a contract b/t the Barr Camp and LNC b/c….Cory asserted to both Carling and Redpath that
they were afraid that someone would reveal data. I didn’t know what the hell they were talking about until
it was further explained that Cory was afraid that I would misuse “data.”

Why this is ExSession? No idea. To Redpath’s credit, he, Ruwart and several other believed that this was an excuse. That I am a scape goat.

Well, doesn’t that beat all?

**********

(Later message from Angela)

Kafka? Oh for the love of G-d! I’m about to be censured for blogging about the accusations against me.

I’ve been kicked out of the room b/c I blogged about the Cory accusations against me.

Oh, Afghanistan Res passed easily! While I sat in exile along in the hallway, the Admiral took his bags to the airport. “Hang in there,” he smiled.

UPDATE: The LNC is taking a vote on whether to ask Angela Keaton to resign.
From Twitter:

I was allowed back into make a brief defense. They are now going to vote to ask me to resign.

Angela Keaton: Day 2 LNC meeting liveblog

This is Day Two of LNC member Angela Keaton’s liveblog of LNC meeting. You can see Day One here.

Same disclaimer applies as yesterday. If you want a goddamn transcription, make it yourself.

These are my words and mine alone. –Keaton

—————————————————————————
8:10am Agenda

Carling on Audit
Boring monotone. Explains the audit co purpose. They are happy with …/Wilcock (sp?)

Asked Kraus to negotiate K. Saved 1k. Reviewed by staff.

Starr: What is cost per year? 11k for 2008 plus 2k for midyear review.

Redpath: Any sort of mang report w/ comments, will there be one issued?

Carling: yes. Unlike last audit, “big thumbs up.”

———————————————————————————
Report from Barr/Root Campaign

Carling: Obv media is doing great for Campaign. Barr is getting more and better and root is getting better than our past Pres. Fund Raising is sig better than past campaigns, but not nearly as good as the media coverage. Several people have vol to make calls including Root, Carling. Promised by Shane Cory a list of names. Did not get it. Told by Cory that Carling was not needed since they had “plenty of money.” (Carling quoting Cory.) Claims that Root, Bruce Cohen and others received similar treatment.

Redpath: That is contrary to what Cory said.

Flood: That’s not what Russ (Verney) told me.

Starr: Is there any particular agreement with the Barr/Root campaign and us?

Redpath: There is not. Spoken to Cory several times. Better with me to talk to Shane. There seems to be no interest in such.

Lark: Seemed to remember in Denver such was agreed upon. Need to flesh out.
Was this an “F-U”?

Carling: It was polite.

Redpath: if we explore it further, we have to go Ex Sess

Wrights: I want to hear it.

Lark: not subject guests to ExSess again until later

Jingozian: Why is there is no mention of Libertarian party on signs, bump sticks, website, carries more
recogn than the name Barr. Link it to something to some clout.

Carling:would have to get back to you.

Redpath: Wants answer to that question ASAP.
Asks Carling to call Cory.

Sullentrup: my sign says both Barr and Lib.

Wrights: It is a concern for website but not as important stickers/signs.
Everyone knows Obama is a dem. If we are running the campaign to mirror big two…

Starr: Agreement with Wrights.
Typically pols will put on signs and website that which get them votes.
Will focus on name and party where party will not help.

Jingozian: Now most americans don’t like two parties, they would find LP a pleasant alt.

Starr: The premise is that they would be more happy with us.

Redpath: Verney wanted to run campaign that would appeal to independents. We can stand to benefit by appealing to independents. 3% to retain ba status. If we get 3% we would get ba in many places.

**********

Ruwart: LNC vote for law suit.
First heard of it when Phillies told me about it. Haugh reported it to last term but not new. Should we be voting for entering lawsuits? Always potential for backlash. I would like opp to discuss any lawsuit in any case where I am a plaintiff.

Dixon: The co should vote unless it is urgent and EC then can vote on it. Aware in Tx that
Obama/McCain lawsuit over missed deadline.

Starr: 2 issues. Question of size. If it is the equiv of small claims, no reason. Budget line item,
do I use cts to change public policy? (Starr’s voice like Carling’s is lower than usual. Can barely hear.)

Lark: Tech speak
Policy manual that the very requirement of budget and spending is part of the Co. LNC should vote.
Anytime LP takes legal action, at least EC.

Dixon: How many lawsuits per year? Do we need to stream line?

Kraus: report from Hall.

Hall: We pay for some law suits where we are not the plaintiff (LP Ohio, example)

Dixon: how many?
Hall: 2 suits.

Starr: Should Lark work on resolution for next meeting on law suits?
(This is quite manipulative–AK)

Jingozian: Wait, Wrights is waiting to say something.

Wrights: The issue is not money. My butt is on the line. Trying to help, but there is anticipated suit. I had to get this info from a member while I sit on the board. What does our name go on?

Redpath: I want to apologize to anyone who did not know and if I contributed to it. I deal with it everyday. I apologize for any problems that caused. It is controversial for some people but not for me. There is one ticket for the LP coast to coast. I would do the same if it were Mary Ruwart or Daniel Imperato.

Is there is a move to extend for 5?

Starr: bring it back to next meeting.

———————————————————————————————————————————-
Open LNC list.

Can’t type this b/c it is my issue.

Starr, Karlin and Flood don’t want it.

Dixon wants to know if list can be divided b/t that is ExSess and other discuss.

Starr thinks that people won’t use the list b/c years ago someone used to forward the list.
No one will keep open discussion.

Wrights: we have two lists in NC. Read only one list. Everything on EC list is read only for any
member who wants it. Chair uses other list for confidential.

Karlin: everything should be treated confidential b/c accidents with scroll down lines one too many.

Hawkridge: blogs, members would be friendlier if they knew what was going on. It is a meeting.

Dixon: Does everyone use NC exclusive list because…?

Haugh: I have resentment b/c secret list was were my overthrow as NCED was plotted.

Hinkle: Basic problem. Perception of closeness and not enough information. If there is a perception
by members, we need each LNC member to solve that one on one to let members know what is going on. Solution in search of a problem. Two lists will not solve.

Starr: Would like to move on to next item of business.

Dixon/Hawkridge objection.

Move to extend.

Lark: Torn. I try to keep everyone informed. been both at large and regional. Too easy to make accidents. List is really for biz. Not sure how large a problem.

Dixon: Hinkle has it right. Self regulating. Regions can remove non-open members. At Large should not be reelected.

Starr: No win. We either don’t disclose or members don’t really understand the issues so you spend all your time justifying. People just bash you.

Folks, you are not going to get an open list. Your only solution is to stop reelecting the same people to the LNC. You elected these people. You are responsible.–AK

Flood: someone started meet up list to communicate with regions. These meeting would be much longer if we did not have the ability

Kraus: This would be an absolute burden for staff. You would have to pay to have someone do this. Who would stay in that job for more than a week?

Wrights: to Kraus, you are making something more complicated than it needs to be.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Tom Stevens.

Hawkridge: T.S. Member of Jud. Co. Stevens wants to funnel votes. He has no party loyalty. Was member of BTP. Hawkridge explains Stevens camp history.
Would like to ask him to resign?

(I don’t care about this issue. Some old kook is party hopping to from one fake party to another including this one. It’s just the LP, folks. Just the LP.–AK)

Starr has RR objection. Two types of offenses. One in meeting, one out of meeting.
In order to discipline, you have to give notice, have them show up….this motion out of order.

Debate b/t Wrights and Redpath over whether Carling can speak on the narrow parl issue.

Wrights make heroic stance by demanding that RR quotes come WITH citations.
Someone asks if the LNC even can remove someone from Jud. Co.

Starr suddenly decides that asking someone to resign is a big deal (unless you are me of course. These people are movement bottom feeders.)

Lark says it makes him queasy. Take it up in December.

Wrights: Jud. Co is indy committee which is elected by delegates. We have no ability other than ask (Hall nods head.)

Redpath: Why make a decision when we can punt? (That’s leadership, boys.)

Sullentrup: Send him a letter to find if he is a member of another party.

Postponed. Starr is beginning to run rough shod over Redpath.

End of tape.

**********

Starr wrote a “shut Keaton up” motion. It’s not actually going as far as he thought. Wrights and I don’t want any part of it.

Dixon, Hinkle, Fox, Jingozian, Hawkridge, Sink-Burris think it is either a.) overbroad, 2.) already addressed in RR, 3.) other ways of handling this.

**********

Bylaws Results

latham, karlan, moulton, h. scott, redpath, sarwark, oates, starr, bennett, hawkridge and manske

**********

Kafka? Oh for the love of G-d! I’m about to be censured for blogging about the accusations against me.

I’ve been kicked out of the room b/c I blogged about the Cory accusations against me.

Oh, Afghanistan Res passed easily! While I sat in exile along in the hallway, the Admiral took his bags to the airport. “Hang in there,” he smiled.

**********

I was allowed back into make a brief defense. They are now going to vote to ask me to resign.

**********

LPMass to consider severing all relations to LSLA

The following statement was written and distributed by George Phillies.

I received an ad “We’re giving away 100,000 signs to support every campaign in America.” followed by various html links on how every campaign in America can get signs. I have no idea whether the ad is real, or whether Obama or McCain has already ordered the 100,000, but http://www.buildasign.com/ appears to be real. I forwarded this to the state chairs list, assuming that the average Libertarian candidate can find someone who can cut through the mystery code and line up signs for their people.

I thought I was being generous and helpful.

I instead receive from Steve Gordon a message cutting off my access to the LSLA list, for advancing my Presidential campaign. His message follows.

At the moment I *am* the LNC’s choice of candidate in Massachusetts, because of a decision *they* made. Indeed, I have asked several LNC members to include as a discussion topic support for my campaign as their candidate, should our suit fail.

I observe that there is no identification of the complaint, the complainant in best Soviet informant style is anonymous, and I am given no chance to defend myself against the lack of accusation.

Instead of courtesy, I am given a response that in my opinion is more fit to have emanated from the Alabama KKK.

Accordingly, I will offer at tomorrow’s LPMASS State Committee meeting, under our bylaws, a motion ordering and directing that LPMass sever all relations with LSLA, calling upon all officers and members to do the same, and making clear that individual LPMass members pursuing Federal or LNC office are in no sense discouraged from attending LSLA meetings.

I will not take it amiss if our exact position relative to the substitution suit is called up for reconsideration.

RE: The e-mail correspondence below

Dear Dr. Phillies,

Due to complaints regarding your recent promotion of a political campaign, one which is in opposition to the campaign of a legitimately nominated Libertarian Party candidate, I am placing your access to this e-mail list on the “moderation” level until some time following the upcoming presidential election.

Should you have any questions pertaining to this communication, please feel free to attempt to contact me at any time.

Regards,

Stephen Gordon
Chairman, Libertarian State Leadership Alliance

ENM notes:  George can “attempt to contact” you for questions?  Does that mean you foresee that he will not be able to contact you?

Angela Keaton updates

Ok folks, I need to sign off, but you can follow Ms. Keaton’s live updates at twitter.com/AngelaKeaton. I’m told you do not need to sign up for Twitter in order to view the page.

LP membership dues = taxation without representation

Angela Keaton wrote in comments:

Sullentrup, Flood, Starr, Karlan voted to remove me from the room.  It failed.

The motion is to have me removed.

Sullentrup made a scene regarding my calling Knapp.

Referred to me as “swamp.” Or something.  MO has weird terms.

Since the LNC is trying to remove an elected member of the LNC, without the knowledge or consent of the people she was elected to represent, then ALL support should be removed from the LP. Stop sending money, stop volunteering. Do not support an organization which has a leadership that thinks they can overruled the vote of the membership.

Your LP membership dues are therefore nothing more than taxation without representation!

Let them pull their Gestapo tactics in the major parties.  There is no room for this kind of nonsense among the very group which runs the so-called “Party of Principle”.

Also posted on Adventures in Frickintardistan

CALL TO ARMS: LNC trying to censure Angela Keaton for writing on blogs

I just received a call from Angela Keaton, and the LNC is attempting as I write this to censure her for writing on the blogs.

I heard their bullying of her for myself, with my own two ears (well, one ear, it was on the phone).  They clearly didn’t want me to hear what was going on, but as she openly pointed out to them, she needs to protect herself.

Why should the LNC care what Angela Keaton does, unless of course they really are hiding something as many have suggested?

If Angela Keaton is censured for exercising her First Amendment rights in the so-called “Party of Principle”, the LP should be censured by its members.  No money, no support for the Gestapo organization that it has become.

I will keep readers updated.

Barr to be thrown off Pennsylvania ballot?

I received a call this morning from a Green Party honcho in Pennsylvania telling me that a lawsuit filed by the GOP against the Barr campaign could result in the LP losing its ballot access in Pennsylvania.

This person mentioned that the Greens are apparently concerned that this could end up with a repeat of 2004, when the Democrats bullied the Greens off the ballot and then sent their six-figure legal bills for the challenge to senior state Green officials, effectively bankrupting them.

The repercussions from that effort are still reverberating, with Green officials suing the involved Democrats and law firms, and a prosecutor’s office becoming involved in the fray (suggesting some dirty dealing on behalf of the Democrats).

Fast-forward to 2008.  The LP of PA is both larger and better funded than the Greens.  If the Republicans succeed in knocking off the LP in this state, the Democrats likely will do the same to the Greens.

I could find nothing on this, other than an oblique reference in a letter distributed on Facebook by Stephen Gordon, claiming to quote Shane Cory:

From Barr’s Deputy Campaign Manager Shane Cory:

Today, I’m sitting here in Atlanta nervously awaiting word from a trial that is taking place today to kick Bob Barr off of the ballot in the state of Pennsylvania.

Although we did everything correct to get on the ballot in Pennsylvania and compete in the election against John McCain and Barack Obama, an operative for John McCain, Victor Stabile, decided that he didn’t “like to see anything taint that process.”

. . .

While losing sleep over of the case filed against us in Pennsylvania, I’ve been on pins-and-needles waiting all week to hear the outcome of our case in West Virginia.

It’s interesting to note the implication that the Barr campaign and LNC lack the resources to fight this battle — especially considering the threatened-yet-not-yet-filed lawsuit in New Hampshire. The city of Philadelphia alone has over 100,000 more residents than the entire state of NH, and if the LP is thrown off the federal ballot, there will be no Libertarian party alternative for voters in the nation’s sixth most populous state.