Them door hangin’ bumper stickin’ yard signin’ Libertexians

The Libertarian Party of Texas has a record 173 candidates on the ballot for the November 2008 elections. The mere presence of candidates, whether active or minimally active, has generated lots of earned media for Libertarians in Texas.  Some of the candidates are running active campaigns complete with campaign materials like yard signs and brochures and volunteer organizing efforts.

For willing activists not engaged in specific candidate campaigns, the Libertarian Party of Texas is putting them to work promoting the party in general.   I don’t know what the elections results will look like on Tuesday, but I can say that we’ve done a great job in Texas giving every willing volunteer something to work on regardless of where they live in Texas.

Years ago I was bombarded by people offering to help, but I didn’t have something specific to recommend that was simple, achievable, and didn’t require a lot of assistance from me. For the past few years, when a volunteer stepped forward, I’ve had readily available projects to suggest.  Put up signs and door hangers! While we give the materials away for free to willing volunteers (the signs only cost us about $1.25 each and the door hangers about 5 cents each–plus shipping) many people donate far and above what the materials cost which helps to subsidize other willing volunteers who request materials for free.

We did this in 2006 as well. After the 2006 election season, we had tens of thousands of materials left over, but since they were generic “Vote Libertarian” materials, we’ve been able to use them in 2008.  In 2008, after having used up 2006 inventory, we’ve purchased an additional 100,000 door hangers, 2,000 yard signs, and 5,000 bumper stickers.  Most are deployed!

Here’s where we display them on our website:Libertarian Party of Texas Campaign Materials

While infighting amongst Libertarians seems to be the rule nationwide, I suspect having a way to put every willing volunteer to work on something productive here in Texas is why inherently independent and contrarian Libertarians in Texas are too preoccupied with Libertexian our state to be engaged in excessive destructive infighting.

I know I don’t have time to waste infighting and ridiculing. No way. Not me. Too busy. Too successful. Don’t have the time to stoop that low even if I were inclined to. Not gonna do it. Can’t.

Whoops! Just did it.

–Wes Benedict

Executive Director, Libertarian Party of Texas

Todd Andrew Barnett Produces New Boston Tea Party Ad

Yesterday, with the help of Windows Movie Maker, I created and produced a new political ad (which hasn’t been endorsed and commissioned by the Boston Tea National Committee) which attacks McCain and Obama for their tax plans. The original version of the ad was 1 minute and 27 seconds long (too long for an ad to air on network TV), so I recut it, bringing it down to approximately 61 seconds long.

Here’s the new recut ad that I put out on YouTube yesterday:

For those who want to watch the original extended version of the ad that I created before I recut it, here it is:

So far, the reception for the recut ad has been very positive. The same, to a minor extent, applies to the original lengthy incarnation of the vid.

Let me know what you all think. Any feedback, good or bad, positive or negative, is needed. All I ask is that the feedback, while it’s positive or negative, should be constructive, not nasty and hurtful in a mean-spirited way.

Thanks! I hope that these videos will generate some much-needed publicity for the BTP.

Literary Break

By request of ENM, a literary thread.

Let’s have your favorite books. Favorite libertarian books. Favorite socialist novels (I’ll admit to an early love of Steinbeck, and to being a closet Wells fan – check out Day of the Comet sometime). Favorite re-reads (you know, when you haven’t the energy to start something new – you novel version of ‘comfort food’).The last time you re-read the LOTR series. (C’mon… just admit it, you’re among friends).

I’d like to talk about novels, because elections always put me in an escapist mood, but you can of course talk about what econ or constitutional law tome is catching your interest these days. it’s a free country! or… hmm. not.

And, to keep it fresh, name at least one book published in the past, oh, ten years or so, that you think may still be in your ‘top ten’ a few decades from now. I have to ponder that one.

Fact that might surprise people who know me as an atheist: I have a very soft spot for Christian SF. Lewis. L’Engle. Zenna Henderson. I think it’s because I’m much more fascinated by good than by evil. I’ve been re-reading a collection of Henerson’s “People Stories” this week – I think the proximity to election time has made me crave Good People (even fictional ones) even more than usual.

Some on my (current) top-ten list:

Jitterbug Perfume
Crome Yellow
Cannery Row
Heretics of Dune/Chapterhouse Dune
The First Circle

“I am not politically correct”

So says Chris Barber of the LP GA’s Executive Committee in a fundraising email sent to folks on Stephen Gordon’s email list on behalf of Libertarian candidate for Senate Allen Buckley. Chris then goes on to helpfully demonstrate his lack of political correctness by outlining his idea of Buckley’s strategy: getting a higher vote total than Republican Saxby Chambliss (who, some of you will remember, was a recipient of funding from Bob Barr’s PAC during this election cycle while Barr was serving on the LNC), forcing a runoff between Buckley and and the Democratic Party candidate.

Why does he think this is such a no-brainer? Because… hold your breath … black people won’t bother to vote in a runoff! In his own words:

With your help, Allen Buckley can win a run-off against the Democrat. Why will this work? Because in Georgia, African Americans, which make up the base of the Democratic party, have an absolutely abysmal record of voting in run-offs, Obama will have already won… enough said.

Yes, enough said, indeed. In fact, more than enough said. This is not the sort of remark that needs to be going in Libertarian fundraising appeals.

The ’strategy’ – besides being based on fairly racist assumptions – is lame to begin with. Stipulating that Barber is correct that a runoff is ‘inevitable’ (that is; that no one will get over 50%), and that the Dem will get just under 50% and that Buckley will split the remaining half with Chambliss, Buckley will need around 27% (this is Barber’s figure – let’s just take it for now). The figures Barber cites for Buckley are “[a] recent poll put Allen Buckley for US Senate ‘08 at 8%; our Republican sources tell us that number could actually be as high as 13%” – which means that the ’strategy’ consists of taking a number, adding a few wish-points to it, and then making a double-wish sundae of it and adding a cherry-point at the top – all within in the next five days. This reminds me of the desperate ‘never say die’ appeals of the waning days of the Clinton campaign this spring.

Constant last-minute fundraising appeals based on Libertarian strategies for winning against odds those large this late really weaken the Party, I think. Saying ‘politically incorrect’ things such as that your strategy relies on blacks being habitutally too lazy to vote is simply stupid.

Farewell for now…

This will be my last post as a contributor to this great website, at least for a while.  I’ve decided to spend less time talking about my views and more time listening to others, so I expect I will continue to read and comment.  Mostly, I’ve just come to realize I am still figuring out what I believe and how to best work to realize it, and I prefer to spend time learning from others rather than writing myself.  I am trimming back my political involvement on several fronts, though I will continue writing for Independent Political Report, since I think I do play a helpful role in that capacity.  Thank you all for the chance to write and be heard.

LPNY Chair Eric Sundwall encourages voting for third parties and Libertarians

Robert Milnes gets an early start on 2012

This is to announce my candidacy for President of the UNITED STATES of America in 2012. I plan to run as an independent on a ticket to be called Progressive Libertarian Alliance Independent. I will also seek the Libertarian and Green party nominations and any other state ballots I can secure. I have learned from my campaign for 2008. The party nomination process is unreliable. The third parties and independents are almost certain to fall into the same old losing pattern of niche tickets and short ballot access again for 2012. An Independent candidacy will guarantee a fusion ticket and maximum ballot access. I will establish a website and organization for vote coordination for progressive independent, Green and Libertarian downticket candidates. I seek a woman libertarian to complement the ticket. It is an interesting coincidence that I believe Teddy Roosevelt was a progressive left libertarian in his campaign of 1912. He came closest to winning as a third party or independent in the past 100 years with a second place finish at 27% in a close three way race with his newly formed Progressive Party. I will need campaign assistance including manager, media coordinator, webmaster, legal counsel and others as well as interested volunteers. Presently my main website is www.robertmilnes4president2008.com also www.robertmilnes.net but I will be putting up a new campaign website for 2012 soon. I look forward to the campaign and your interest and support.

The Onion: ‘Bob Barr on Two-Party System’

From The Onion:

Bob Barr On Two-Party System: “Waaah! Waaah!”
In a speech delivered to a small group of supporters in Pennsylvania, Libertarian presidential candidate Bob Barr made a number of statements regarding the unfair nature of the two-party system and generally whined and moaned like a huge baby. “Waaah! Waaah! I want my own special party because I don’t like altering my positions to attract voters. Waaah!” Barr said, his panties reportedly all in a bunch. “I believe in a lot of Republican and Democratic ideologies, but not all of them! Boo-hoo. I want my name on the ballot! I waaaaaant it!” According to the Federal Election Commission, during the time it took Bob Barr to throw his 20-minute temper tantrum, John McCain and Barack Obama collectively amassed another $12.2 million in campaign funding.

Libertarian Activist Eric Sundwall interviewed by WAMC

HUDSON VALLEY, NY (2008-10-27) Many of us are burned out by constant news from the presidential campaign but Hudson Valley bureau chief Susan Barnett reports that supporters of third party candidates say that the Internet is the reason they’re not totally invisible this election season.

 

You can hear the Eric Sundwall interview at WAMC Public Broadcasting.  You can view their coverage area, which encompasses much of the northeastern US, here.

You can see Eric Sundwall’s website here.

Great job as always, Eric!

Dr. Tom Stevens health concerns

Tom Stevens, former BTP Vice Chair and current Objectivist presidential candidate, has apparently suffered some extremely serious health problems requiring emergent medical care, but is refusing further treatment.

Since word is getting around, I do wish to confirm that on Thursday night, I was rushed to the hospital on an emergency basis. I may have suffered a small stroke and had a massive infection exacerbated by uncontrolled blood sugar levels. Since I had to teach two classes this morning and in light of the fact that I am an idiot, I signed myself out of the hospital against medical advice. You should have seen the statement I had to sign where the doctors warned me of “coma, inpending death, further stroke, etc.”

 

I have been in extreme pain and even oxycodone has not relieved it. The left side of my body is numb.

 

I appreciate the good wishes I have received and I apologize if I am not in a position to take phone calls at the current time. It is quite difficult for me to speak.

 

I always thought it odd that when crisis occurs in some people’s lives, they withdraw from their commitments and involvements. I will not take that course. I will do what I can to get better and will continue to be involved in the fight for liberty until I can no longer do so.

 

Things are serious, to say the least, and my spirits are not what they should be.

 

Thanks to all who have expressed concern.

 

Respectfully,

 

Dr. Tom Stevens

Best wishes for improved health (and improved spirits) go out to him from all of us at LFV.  

Some thoughts on the Boston Tea Party

As the founder and 2008 national vice-presidential nominee of the Boston Tea Party, that party is naturally on my mind a lot, especially as it wraps up its second biennial national convention and nears its first presidential election. And, also naturally, I find myself saying various things about it to various people (including, as of a few minutes ago, a reporter for the Associated Press).

Some of the points I’m trying to make keep coming up, so they seem worth writing down in one place … like maybe here.

When I founded the BTP, I held out hope that it would, sooner or later, merge back into the Libertarian Party as an internal caucus. That’s obviously not going to happen. With the nomination of its own presidential slate and the placement of that slate on several state ballots, our split from the LP at the national organizational level is complete. The split also proceeds apace at the state level as we recognize new affiliates which are likely to seek their own ballot access in 2010 and beyond.

Where that split is concerned, I once viewed it with trepidation, but that view has now changed to one of hope. The LP had a 36-year virtual monopoly and head start on cornering the libertarian political niche in America — yet the BTP appears to be doing better coming into that competitive niche for the first time than the LP did when the niche was effectively uncontested.

We have more members than the LP did as of its first presidential election. We’re on the ballot in more states than the LP was as of its first presidential election. I expect that our presidential slate will outpoll the LP’s first presidential slate.

The LP appears to be unable to expand the American libertarian political niche against its major party opposition, or to defend its monopoly on that niche versus newcomers.

Enter Darwin. Personally, I expect that the next major stage of the Boston Tea Party’s growth will include several state Libertarian Parties disaffiliating from the Libertarian National Committee and re-affiliating under the BTP umbrella.

The obvious cause to point to for the current situation — up-and-coming BTP, LP teetering on the edge of the dustbin of history — is the descent of the LP as a national organization into cargo-cultism. The nomination of the 2008 Libertarian Party Barr-Root ticket represented a final triumph of image over substance, and now we’re watching that image crumble to dust under the wind of apathy. Image can’t survive or thrive on its own. Without substance, it is dead.

Beyond the obvious, however, the BTP has its own reasons for optimism. We are a “principled populist” party, not just in rhetoric but in action. Just as we oppose the rule of “power elites” (in libertarian class theory, the political class) in the world at large, we deny those elites the ability to run our own party.

We are an activist-powered party — our national committee is constrained by our bylaws from becoming a money sink, and therefore from becoming a central planning board. If something gets done, it’s because our members want it to be done and go out and do it. Ernie Hancock, your new party is calling — your approach failed in the LP because the Politburo/Commissar structure had already taken firm root before you tried so valiantly to shatter it.

We are a genuine mass-participation party. If you want to be involved, you don’t have to travel hundreds of miles, shell out hundreds or thousands of dollars, and miss a week of work every time there’s a convention. You don’t have to send a representative and hope that representative actually represents you. If you’re a member of our party, you can take part in its business activities via any Internet connection.

Finally, we’re a consistently “smaller-government” party. Our platform isn’t going to be cut by 3/4th at one convention and completely re-built at the next like the LP’s has. It’s perpetual and unmodifiable:

“The Boston Tea Party supports reducing the size, scope and power of government at all levels and on all issues, and opposes increasing the size, scope and power of government at any level, for any purpose.”

Until and unless the state is completely eliminated, we will always be the party agitating to make it smaller tomorrow than it is today. That’s the standard the national LP is going to have to meet if it wants to recapture its place of primacy in the freedom movement … and I no longer believe that it can, or will, or even wants to, meet that standard.

I realize that many fellow libertarians whom I know and respect will continue to cling to the LP for some time … and that’s okay. I continue to work in my state LP and plan to do so for at least awhile longer. Breaking up is hard to do. I urge those libertarians remaining in the LP to think of the BTP as an ally, not an enemy. Our existence is an incentive to the LP to become better at what it does, and to think harder about what it wants to do. If it responds negatively to that incentive (as I believe it will continue to do), at least it no longer holds the claim over your head that “you have no place else to go.” Because now you do.

[Cross-posted at the Boston Tea Party web site and KN@PPSTER]

Libertarians Nationwide Unite To Oppose Proposition 8 and Demand The Truth

N.B.: Received via e-mail from Angela Keaton.

LOS ANGELES and SAN FRANCISCO – With slightly more than a week to go until Election Day, Libertarians in California and across the country came together once again to voice united opposition to California Proposition 8, and to call for Proposition 8 proponents to cease efforts to deliberately mislead the public about the intent and impact of the bill.

In a recent press release, supporters of Proposition 8 repeated the often-discredited claim that without the passage of that amendment to the California constitution, children would be subject to mandatory education about same-gender relationships. The press release also went one step further than in the past, claiming that all opponents of Proposition 8 are in favor of overruling parental choice in education.

The reality is quite different from the misleading rhetoric of those in favor of Proposition 8. Libertarians, the country’s most outspoken and principled defenders of school choice and parental rights, are proud partners in No on 8, and Libertarian organizations Outright Libertarians and Liberty For America wanted to set the record straight.

FACT: Pro-School Choice and Pro-Parental-Rights Libertarians Oppose Proposition 8 Without Hesitation

Proposition 8 has nothing to do with educational choice, standards, or curriculum. The ballot proposition is a very simple effort to revoke the equal protection rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) Californians to equal marriage treatment by the state government of California – nothing more and nothing less.

“The proponents of this hateful proposed constitutional amendment in California are trying to change the subject in a deliberate effort to mislead,” said Brian Miller, National Secretary of Outright Libertarians. “Proponents of the proposition know that if its true intent is clear to voters, voters will overwhelmingly reject it. By muddying the waters with this fabricated (and discredited) education argument, they are hoping to change the subject and fool otherwise tolerant voters into supporting the unsupportable.”

Miller asks “If Proposition 8’s proponents were seriously concerned about education, why haven’t they created a proposed amendment directly addressing educational priorities such as school choice and parental consent? I think the answer to that question is quite obvious.”

“Libertarians support the rights of parents as the final arbiters of their child’s education,” said Miller. “We also are outspoken proponents of school choice. The fact that we are taking such a clear position in opposition to Proposition 8 should underscore the established fact that it has no meaningful impact on curriculum, parental choice, or parental rights. Discussion of education in the context of Proposition 8 is utterly meaningless, except as an effort to mislead.”

Libertarians throughout California and across the United States from the very highest levels have committed their resources to lobbying against Proposition 8 and educating voters on the facts, and many of them have stepped forward with comments of their own, addressing the continued unethical and immoral campaign tactics employed by the Yes On 8 campaign.

FACT: California’s Libertarian Leaders Stand Up For Equality Under The Law For All

“As the proponents of Proposition 8 are so fond of saying, this Constitutional Amendment is only 14 simple words — it’s nothing more or less than a government definition of marriage and has nothing whatsoever to do with schools, taxing churches, or limiting judicial activism,” said Rob Power, Chair of the Libertarian Party of San Francisco.

“I’ve had a few rare encounters with self-professed ‘libertarians’ who still don’t want to help with the NO on 8 campaign, because they believe that ‘government shouldn’t be involved in marriage at all.’ My response is that they are looking at this issue completely backwards. My question to these libertarians is: How does writing a government definition of marriage into the state’s Constitution ‘get the government out of marriage’? The answer, of course, is that it doesn’t. Instead, the one and only thing it does is increase government meddling in marriage by codifying discrimination against gays and lesbians into our state’s Constitution. All libertarians, whether you think the government should have any role in marriage at all, must vote NO on Prop 8 and encourage friends and family to do the same.”

“Libertarians are America’s most outspoken and consistent defenders of both school choice and parental authority over education,” said Angela Keaton of Los Angeles, an at-large member of the Libertarian Party’s National Committee. “That’s why the efforts by the Yes On 8 campaign to paint opponents of their amendment as anti-school-choice and anti-parental-rights are so absurd. The Libertarian Party platform, as approved in our May convention in Denver, stands up strongly for both equal recognition under the law of LGBT people, and for the rights of parents to choose the most appropriate educational environments for their children. Proposition 8 does nothing to guarantee parental authority or school choice – rather it is a mean-spirited effort to target the LGBT community. Proponents of this divisive amendment should come clean and stop lying about their intentions and the issues. I encourage Californians to reject the lies, stop the hate, and vote NO on Proposition 8.”

Keaton has been a regular and enthusiastic participant in the No On 8 campaign, devoting numerous hours to staffing the phone bank at her local No On 8 office.

Phil Berg, Libertarian candidate for San Francisco’s Congressional seat and opponent of incumbent House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, noted that “nobody wants busybodies interfering in our relationships or forcing ideas on our children. It’s hard to imagine the heavy hand of government being used to ban adults’ most intimate life choices. The Yes on 8 folks might look in the mirror the next time they complain about government forcing its views of morality on others, because that’s exactly what they themselves are trying to do.”

California Libertarian candidates for state and federal office have rallied to oppose the amendment as a core part of their campaign communications, including:

• Jill Stone (L), candidate for US Congress in California District 29

• Wayne Dunlap (L), candidate for US Congress District 50

• Edward Teyssier (L), candidate for US Congress District 53

• Jesse Thomas (L), candidate for California State Senate District 39

Anthony Gregory, research analyst at the non-partisan Independent Institute in Oakland, noted that “a lot of discourse surrounding Proposition 8 is confused, misguided or even misleading. Many have conflated this issue with what is taught in schools, which indeed should be up to the children, teachers and parents – not activist judges or politicians on either side of the marriage debate. However, even those who reject public school social engineering across the board can find good reasons to oppose the effort to have the state define marriage in this way. In fact, such a uniform, state-imposed definition intrudes upon the rights and values of families and localities who do not share the views of this Proposition’s proponents.”

FACT: Leadership On Marriage Equality Is A National Priority For Libertarians

Leaders in the libertarian movement across the country are urging Californians to support the equal treatment under the law of the Golden State’s LGBT citizens.

“When the proponents of Proposition 8 lie about their opponents, it shows how desperate they are to move California backwards,” said George Phillies of Massachusetts. Phillies, chair of the Libertarian Party of Massachusetts, is on the ballot in New Hampshire as Libertarian candidate for President.

Phillies notes that “two centuries ago, Massachusetts Courts used the Quock Walker case to end slavery. It took America eight decades to realize that Massachusetts was right. Not ten years ago, Massachusetts Courts again took the lead, ruling that gay people must be allowed to marry the person they love. This November, Californians have a choice: join with loving Massachusetts, or sink backward with hate-filled Utah. I urge the good people of California join free Massachusetts: Vote NO on Proposition 8.”

Allan Wallace, Outright Libertarians’ Tennessee Coordinator, stated that “the proponents of Proposition 8 in California say that they’re fighting for Christian values. But how can that be when they knowingly lie about what Prop 8 will do and what failing to pass it will do? For example, they claim that Prop 8 prevents the ‘teaching of homosexuality’ in public schools when, in fact, it has nothing to do with education.”

“Proposition 8 is motivated by Hate,” contends Wallace, “and as a Christian myself, I would like to remind the proponents of this discriminatory legislation that Hate comes from the devil, not from God, the Ten Commandments instruct believers not to bear false witness, and Jesus commands us to love our neighbors in the same way we love ourselves. By this example, Proposition 8 isn’t very Christian.”

THE UNDENIABLE CONCLUSION: A Vote For Proposition 8 Is An Un-Libertarian and Un-American Vote To Revoke The Constitutional Rights And Liberties Of LGBT Californians.

TO LEARN MORE, CONTACT:

Outright Libertarians

Liberty for America

My Second Speech at the Boston Tea National Convention

I wrote a second speech and posted it to the Boston Tea Party’s website during convention time. The first one was my keynote address, and this one was the really big one. I hope you enjoy it. It’s rather long, but quite worth the reading.

Here’s the text of the speech:

Good evening my fellow Boston Tea’ers!

On this glorious second and final day of the Boston Tea National Convention, it has been, it is, and it shall always be the best convention in the history of this Party. The national Boston Tea Party, its recent ups and downs notwithstanding, is the libertarian party of the future. Not the LP, not the LNC, not the LP Headquarters staff, and certainly not the Bruce Cohens, Aaron Starrs, Eric Dondero Rittbergs, and the Wayne Allyn Roots of the world. That honor belongs to the BTP, and, as far as I’m concerned, rightfully so.

The Libertarian Party once did deserve that distinction, from the time of its inception until when it began to water down, and then subsequently, eviscerate its ideologically pure principles that made it stand out from the Republican and Democratic Parties. But, as soon as the LP’s disastrous Portland convention took place, its reputation as the Party of Principle no longer applied. The repeal of more than 80 percent of that party’s platform and subsequent Republicanesque principles and positions on the issue infecting and dominating its heart and soul show that the LP no longer deserves that spot. It no longer has the right to call itself the Party of Principle, because it has entirely rejected that paradigm. It has jettisoned the ideological purity of its principles and the libertarian philosophy that it purports to believe in now.

It is one of the reasons why I’m no longer a capital L libertarian or even a lower case (l) libertarian. It is the reason why I reject that label, because of Bob Barr and his McCainesque ideals and positions as well as the Republicanesque stooges who have become the heart of his campaign. They can call themselves libertarian all they want, but they have neither the right nor any business to use that term. But they use it anyway, much to the peril of the liberty movement and to the activists who not only work in it, but also support it. The true libertarians — and that’s everyone who supports small government, real free markets, not the kind of capitalism that Republicans want — are the ones who rightfully guard, protect, and nurture the values, beliefs, and ideals that encompass the very heart and soul of liberty. Not only that, they encompass the very fabric and soul of the Constitution, despite the flaws that were created by the once-great Founders of this country.

The statists, the collectivists, the social engineers, the central planners, and the religionists, cheerleaders, and worshippers of the cult of the state see democracy as a living, breathing institution that must be protected. Their values tell them that the majority must rule over the minority. That’s what democracy is and has been for thousands of centuries. That’s their religion. And, because of that coercive religion that they have been foisting upon us, it’s what they would like to call the Church of Democracy. Their view, in the language of civics, is that the state is their god, and their beloved and precious democracy is the Church where they worship that god. Socialism, communism, populism, and fascism ae all part of that Church’s bible. That’s what it’s all about, and that’s how they proselytize their religion to others.

Free marketeers (such as Yours Truly), individualists, propertarians, libertarans, voluntaryists, and all lovers of liberty see the individual — including themselves — as the living, breathing person that must be protected from the likes of those religionists, cheerleaders, and worshippers of the cult of the state. As those freedom-loving individuals, we worship ourselves, not the state. Yes, we do help those who need the help, but not out of some altruistic, utopian idealism. We do it because we’re generous, we DO care about them, and we want to help them to succeed. We want to help them succeed, without the state and its cultists standing in the way.

The Republicans claim to be the Party of Limited Government, National Defense, Freedom, Free Markets, and the Law of Rule. They play a good game about the virtues of civil society and the vices of political society and the need to do away with the latter. They rhapsodize about the need for limited government, the evils of costly government regulations, and their goals to cut taxes, regulations, and spending. They even promise, in a shameless manner, to reform health care by keeping government out of it (whichever that means in their language) by furnishing tax credits to the insured so that they can purchase medical insurance under the phony guise of free markets. Oh, and if Senator McCain gets his way should he be the President-elect, that credit would be “refundable.” It is nothing more than a ploy to coerce people into believing that, if they pay an income tax liability of, say, $10,000, their bill is surely and simply pared down to $5,000. The other part of that lie is, if someone has no income tax liability, that credit would not apply.

But, in the real world within the realm of the state, nothing is ever simple. Someone who has a zero tax liabilty would find that the credit IS “refundable.” It is NOT a refund, but a cash hand out. It is a machination of the welfare state. It is a form of weath redistribution — that is, a transference of wealth from those who reap the fruits of their labor to those who don’t, even if it’s for the good of society. How is that reconciled with the principles and platitudes of limited government, things that are often shared by conservatives in the GOP?

Republicans are not just hypocrites in that area. They are also hypocrites when they claim to be for free markets. The recent $850 billion bailout that the BTP denounced in its unanimously-passed resolution of which I am the proud author epitomizes that. McCain and his Republican allies want the government to purchase risky mortgages in which the owed amounts surpass the present value of the homes. The banks would receive payments for the face value of the mortgages and then the state would refinance them at a lower principal and interest rate. The taxpayers would be given the short end of the stick. That is nothing short of redistribution.

That is economic fascism. There’s nothing inherently good about this. This is the swindle of the 21st century. And our futures are now mortgaged because of the bailouts and the never-ending war in Iraq. Thanks to those vile Republicans, our country will never be the same.

This is the reason why the Republicans will lose this election and why Barack Obama and his fellow Democrats will be the victors. When the smoke clears, they will assume command of this economy and this country.

The Republicans are to blame for all this, even for eight years of one economic failure after another. They have tainted the system of free markets by blending socialism and free markets into one system — capitalism. Sure, regulations do cost the economy money, and so they are right on that account. But they, along with their corporate lobbyists and supporters comprising of Big Business and Corporate America itself, would love to reduce regulations, but not the subsidies, privileges, and guarantees that come with the package. That’s what fascism is. And Republicans are crazy for associating themselves with the term “capitalism,” as it IS a term coined by Karl Marx and his minions. It is a system that favors protected business interests in THE NAME OF capital.

Libertarians are guilty of this too. Kevin Carson was correct when those libertarians who claim to be for free markets and economic liberty but support the corporate status quo are nothing but vulgar libertarians. They ARE vulgar libertarians. Libertarians are guilty for associating with them because of that. I share that guilt too, and I reject that term completely. I believe in free markets, not capitalism of any kind. Marrying the terms “free market” and “capitalism” as a unified term is like marrying the terms “Satanist” and “Christians” as a unified term. You can’t be both. You are either for free markets or you’re for capitalism.

And that is why the Democrats have an advantage over us on that ground. They pound on us because we have a habit of saying “deregulation is the answer” as if that’s the be-all and end-all as a magic bullet to the economic crisis with which we have been hit. Yes, the Democrats are socialists. Yes, they are for expansive government. Yes, they are not for free markets. Oh, and yes, they are for wars too. But that’s because a lot of this is the fault of conservatives and libertarians who used to ally themselves to one another in their quest to get rid of Bill Clinton at the end of his legacy term in 2000.

Free markets are not about “deregulating business,” although that is a small part of it. Yes, deregulation occurred to an extent in the 1980s and 1990s (but not during the Bush II years). Free markets are all about getting the government out of the way completely, entirely, and permanently. It is also about ending subsidies, privileges, and guarantees. If you only deregulate (or even partially deregulate) but keep the subsidies, privileges, and guarantees in place, you are not moving toward any free market. You are moving towards a corporatocracy a.k.a. economic fascism at its worst.

The Democrats are for bigger government, more expansive government, higher taxes, higher spending, and wars from which they would benefit. They can spend all evening griping about how we must tax and regulate the economy to death, how we need to protect jobs, how we need to cut ourselves off from the world economy, how important unions are, and how crucial universal health care (socialized medicine) is. But they are naive to think that this is the cure for the slowdown of the economy. Government cannot produce things; it merely steals from those who DO produce. It cannot create jobs; it merely destroys those jobs that businesses and individuals create due to the demands of their consumers. Health care and education are not “rights” and are not “free.” No one has any moral, ethical, and philosophical right to anyone’s labor in health care and education. No one has any moral, ethical, and philosophical right to the health care and educational services that people desire. Certainly, individual Americans should have access to them, but if a free market were called into existence (and, under the present system, it doesn’t exist), there’s no telling what can come of this.

The Boston Tea Party understands these differences. Its members understands them as well. And liberty must be defended and guarded, no matter the cost. We cannot submit to the state. There are no excuses for this. As the late U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater (R-AZ) said, while giving his speech, to the delegates of the GOP Convention in 1964, “Extremism for the defense of liberty is no vice; moderation for the pursuit of justice is no virtue.” Those words are true today, as they were then. And thus they remain true for posterity.

The Boston Tea Party is the future of liberty. It is my future. It is your future. The Democrats, the Libertarians, and the Republicans are not our future. We are the future. And let’s make the future of liberty a positive, rewarding, and happy one.

Thank you all, and good night.

I hope everyone enjoys it.

I’m going to vote for Charles Jay

After a lot of pondering, I’ve decided I will write in Charles Jay for president on November 4. I have written a ridiculously long account about why, but since most of it deals with why I will not vote for John McCain or Barack Obama, I won’t post it here. If you care, you can see it on Facebook. If you aren’t on Facebook, I’ll happily e-mail it to you on request.

Multiple BTP NatComm candidates not even old enough to drive

Earlier today, I covered the ongoing BTP convention.  Checking into some of the National Committee candidates with whom I am unfamiliar, I ran across an admission on the BTP site that Matty Grossman, candidate for Vice Chair, just turned 16 years old within the last few days (if he’s even 16 yet).  Looking closer I discovered that Andrew Martin, candidate for At-Large Representative, has admitted that he is only 13 years old.  There may be others who are also that young, as I don’t know most of the candidates.

Normally I would never name anyone under the age of 18.  In this case, however, I feel I have no choice because these boys are on an election ballot for a national political party, and those voting have a right to know they are that young.

I cannot support anyone that age seeking a National Committee position, because they simply don’t have enough life experience to make the types of decisions necessary at that level of responsibility.  Even if, for the sake of argument, they are the most mature young teenagers on earth, they are not old enough to legally enter into any kind of contract.  They also are completely dependent upon their parents’ authority; and their parents may not even know, or approve, of their candidacy since this is all being done online.  

This could cause some very serious problems for the BTP.  Who knows how their parents may react, if they are opposed to the idea but didn’t know about it until it was too late?  Who knows what someone that young may be interested in next month, much less next year or two years from now?  The truth is, at their ages even they don’t know.  There’s nothing wrong with that, because it’s normal for young teenagers.  However, it is problematic if they are running for an elected office in a national political party, with a two-year term.

It also raises another extremely serious concern. Very recently, a woman contacted Todd Andrew Barnett, in his capacity as BTP Vice Chair – the same position now sought by Matty – regarding alleged childhood sexual abuse which she thought needed to be brought to the party’s attention.  I really don’t think a 16-year-old, much less a 13-year-old, should be exposed to details of such an obviously adult subject.  Furthermore, to discuss it with someone that young may even be viewed by authorities as abuse, thus opening up a whole other can of worms.  In some states, having a sexual conversation of any type with a child online is a felony, and it doesn’t matter whether you knew they were a child.

I also do not believe that lady (or any other responsible adult) would ever intentionally share adult conversation of any type with someone that young. However, had Matty or Andrew already been elected to BTP NatComm, there would be no reason for anyone to even suspect they were talking to a child.  It simply would never occur to anyone that National Committee members of any political party are young teenagers.  It makes absolutely no sense that someone that young would ever hold such an office, or even be permitted to become a candidate.  It makes absolutely no sense that adults would place these boys in a position where they are likely to be exposed to harassment and abusive behavior from disgruntled and angry adults, as we all know happens regularly in third parties, and especially online.

Don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against these boys.  I don’t even know them, though I wish them only the best as with all young people, and strongly encourage them to follow their dreams.  However, at this point in their lives, they cannot possibly be mature enough or experienced enough to hold that kind of position.  It is not in their best interests, and it is not in the party’s best interests.  And frankly, it worries me for their sake that they are being allowed to get themselves into a situation which is definitely not for children.

This brings me to my final point.  Unless someone has actually met these boys, how do you know it’s not someone just messing with the BTP, trying to make the party look ridiculous just because they can?  It wouldn’t be the first time that happened, after all.  During the BTP Presidential nominating convention, the site was invaded by a group of teenagers intent upon skewering the election results.  While the damage was undone by quick recognition and intervention, there is absolutely nothing to stop someone from perpetrating a hoax intended to harm the party, if they simply take the time to become accepted on the site.

My Keynote Address Speech to the BTP Convention Attendees

This is my keynote address speech (in text form) to the attendees at the Boston Tea National Convention online tonight. This speech, which was updated periodically just to correct any grammatical and spelling errors and missing words, was posted eight minutes prior to the start of the convention.

I hope everyone enjoys what I wrote. Here it is:

I have a few thoughts on tonight’s convention as well as my endorsements that I’d like to share with everyone, and I think this is the best time to do it.

I hope everyone has fun at this convention, because it’s going to be an exciting event online. But, more importantly, it’s going to shape the future of the Party as we all know it, and we must do what is best for the BTP with caution.

Why caution? Because I think, after the recent events that unfolded in the Party, we are now more vulnerable than ever. But, in the days after the unfortunate sequence of events that transpired on this site and on the BTP Yahoo groups, I feel that the Party is going to turn around, and I feel the unity by the membership is stronger than it has ever been.

As the old saying goes, “What doesn’t kill us makes us stronger!” I know it’s cliched to say this, but it speaks truth to power. And stronger we shall be in the days, weeks, and months to come!!

As the former Boston Tea Party vice chairman and the former Bylaws Committee chairman, I think our goals are well developed and the bylaws proposals we have presented are great. Even if any one of them doesn’t pass (and I hope they all do), still it shows that we have strong membership at our finger tips.

Imagine where the BTP was months ago soon after the calamitous Denver convention: membership was over 30, we didn’t have any state affiliates, our presidential ticket wasn’t on ballot in one state, and we have several states where he’s now on the ballot. In states where he’s not on the ballot, there are only a few write-in registrations, but look how far we’ve come.

The reason that we are gathering tonight is because we are so passionate about liberty, the spirit of liberty is stronger than ever. I certainly believe this. I hope you do too.

But, more importantly, I hope everyone treats each other better tonight, tomorrow, and beyond. As the late Joseph P. Abell, whom I used to call “Papa Joe” and who, as my drama and English instructor and yearbook advisor as well as my drama club director and old friend, used to say, “If you can’t boost, don’t knock. If you can’t support, why are you here?” I’ve lived by them then, I live by them now, and I’ll live by them for the rest of my life. He presented those words to me and to my graduating class in our senior year in spring of ‘93. How proud he would be of me today if he were to know how far I’ve come.

I’m proud of you guys today because of how far we’ve come. And you should be proud. You’ve worked for it. You’ve worked really hard for it. Be the best that you can be, in this Party and for liberty. Make the most of it for the rest of your life. It’s worth it. Make every moment count, because you’ll never have it again.

Tonight’s convention will be exciting. Why? Because we get to choose the direction of the Party. When Tom, with me at his side in 2006, decided to create and build this wonderful party, I couldn’t turn him away. I HAD to help him. The LP betrayed me. But I know, for many of you, it betrayed you. It has betrayed its values, its beliefs, and its ideas. It is now living a lie.

We’ve accomplished far more than the LP has ever had in its 30-plus year history. And we should be proud of it. And yet there’s more to do. We must do more for liberty. The battle for the heart and soul of human liberty in this country is not over. As another old saying goes, “It ain’t over ’til the fat lady sings.”

And that fat lady won’t be singing anytime soon. We must fight for liberty. We must fight it ideologically, politically, intellectually, morally, ethically, financially, and consistently. We cannot turn to the Dark Side that the LP has. We must be more vigilant, now more than ever.

My endorsements for the candidates tonight are:

Chair: Jason Gatties

Vice Chair: Doug Gaking

Secretary: Michelle Luetge

At Large: Steve Newton, Neil Kiernan Stephenson, Steve Trinward, and Tom Knapp

Those are good, brave souls with passionate ideas. We must unite behind them now. Please, I beg you to do this. This is our last chance for survival.

Do it for our children. Do it for our country. But, more importantly, do it for our liberty.

Thank you, God and Goddess Bless Us, and God and Goddess Bless America and the world. Our survival depends upon it.

Yours in Liberty,

Todd Andrew Barnett
Former Vice Chair, Boston Tea National Committee
Proud BTP Member and Wiccan

I hope everyone likes it. It made me smile the entire time I re-read it.

Boston Tea Party convention starts this evening

The Boston Tea Party starts its online convention this evening (Friday, October 24th) at 9pm ET.  The party will be voting in new officers, as well as voting upon various proposals.

The convention continues for 24 hours, and ends on Saturday, October 24th at 8:59pm ET.  If candidates and proposals are not resolved pursuant to their Bylaws, futher polling cycles will start, each running 24 hours, until a final candidate / proposal decision is made.  

I am excited to note that some of our most respected LFV contributors – including George Donnelly and Thomas Knapp – are running for BTP office.  

Tom Knapp is of course also the founder of the Boston Tea Party, and in my opinion showed excellent logic, temperament, and leadership ability in his handling of a controversy which recently resulted in the resignation of multiple BTP officers and officer candidates.  I therefore very highly endorse Tom Knapp, as he has proven his ability to handle any situation which may arise, no matter how delicate or controversial.

Additionally, a couple of other BTP candidates are also well known to LFV readers, including Jason Gatties (a longtime contributor who took a break to work on his local political campaign) and Steve Newton (”Delaware Libertarian”, whose writing has regularly appeared on LFV with his permission).

The current Chair is not running for reelection, and the Vice Chair recently resigned along with multiple At-Large Representatives.  Interestingly, as a result, the only incumbent is Michelle Luetge for Secretary.

Both Chair candidates have BTP blogs, which you can read to get a feel for both candidates.

You can read Jason Gatties’ BTP blog.

Here is George Donnelly’s BTP blog.

I was especially impressed to see that Jason Gatties actually nominated George Donnelly to run against him, in the belief that competition will only make the party stronger.  What a great attitude!  Either Jason or George would be excellent as Chair, in my opinion, so the BTP is lucky to have them as candidates. 

In the meantime, here is the election information from the BTP website, which (thanks to Tom Knapp!) LFV readers are the very first to see.

Per the bylaws, each member may vote for one candidate for each office; polls repeat as necessary until either one candidate, or NOTA, receives a majority. Each polling cycle runs 24 hours, beginning at 9pm Eastern, October 24th, 2008. Human candidates listed in alphabetical order by last name.

Chair
George Donnelly
Jason Gatties
None of the Above

Vice-Chair
Douglass Gaking
Matty Grossman
None of the Above

Secretary
Michelle Luetge
None of the Above

Election of At-Large National Committee Members

Per the bylaws, at-large national committee members are elected by “approval voting.” Each member may cast one vote for each candidate whom that member supports; the four candidates who receive the most votes are elected. Because of technical issues (no “approval voting” module available for this version of the site’s software), each candidate appears in a separate poll. YOU MUST VOTE IN A SEPARATE POLL FOR EACH CANDIDATE WHOM YOU SUPPORT IF YOU WANT THAT SUPPORT TO COUNT. These polls remain open for the duration of the convention. Human candidates listed in reverse alphabetical order by last name.

Candidates
Steve Trinward
Neil Kiernan Stephenson
Darryl W. Perry
Steve Newton
Andrew Martin
Thomas L. Knapp
Bill Jones
Matty Grossman

Bylaws Proposals (from committee)

This space will link to bylaws amendments recommended by the national committee/bylaws committee for polling. Each member may cast one vote (”yes” or “no”) on adoption of each proposal. Per the bylaws, polling on these proposals will last 24 hours, beginning at the opening of the convention, with with 2/3 or more of voting members’ support required to adopt an amendment.

Committee Bylaws Proposal #1

The Bylaws Committee proposes a change to Article 9, Section h, which states,

“Any action of the National Committee may be appealed by Party members comprising 5% or more of the membership, said appeal to be transmitted or called to the attention of both the Chair and the Secretary. In the case of such appeal, the appeal shall be published to the Party’s web site and the Party’s membership shall be polled on the question of whether to sustain or uphold the Committee’s action to suspend. The poll shall open within 10 days of the appeal’s publication, and shall remain open for 10 days. The National Committee’s action shall be overturned by a vote of 2/3 or more among voting members.”

The change would be the section which says “5% or more of the membership” to “5 or more party members,” so that the complete section will be as follows:

“Any action of the National Committee may be appealed by Party members comprising 5 or more party members, said appeal to be transmitted or called to the attention of both the Chair and the Secretary. In the case of such appeal, the appeal shall be published to the Party’s web site and the Party’s membership shall be polled on the question of whether to sustain or uphold the Committee’s action to suspend. The poll shall open within 10 days of the appeal’s publication, and shall remain open for 10 days. The National Committee’s action shall be overturned by a vote of 2/3 or more among voting members.”

(the changed section is in bold)

Committee Bylaws Proposal #2

The Bylaws Committee proposes the addition of Article 8, Section i:

“Officers of the National Committee may serve no more than two consecutive terms in the same national party office.”

Committee Bylaws Proposal #3

The Bylaws Committee proposes the addition of Article 9, Section i:

“National Committee members, under any circumstances, are strictly prohibited from working for the party’s nominated Presidential or Vice-Presidential candidates in a public, official capacity while serving their terms on the National Committee. Officers who wish to engage in such activity shall either resign their seats from the National Committee or recuse themselves from an official public and political capacity while serving on the Board.

“1) Official capacity is defined as any campaign officer, manager or coordinator of campaign activities, any person listed in campaign web sites or documents as member of the campaign, and anyone otherwise involved with the national campaign in a paid or voluntary capacity.

“2) Other activities such as assisting with ballot access in a voluntary capacity, donating personally to a campaign, and promoting the campaign as an individual supporter are acceptable.

“3) Members of the National Committee may run for the party’s nomination for President or Vice President. While running for the party’s nomination, National Committee members must recuse themselves from all voting in any National Committee decisions until after the nomination is complete. If nominated to run for national office, a member of the National Committee must resign from the committee.”

Bylaws Proposals (from the membership)

After the adoption or rejection of the national committee/bylaws committee’s proposals, bylaws proposals shall be solicited from the membership in a post linked to from this space. Proposals shall be submitted via the appended comment form, and polls shall be linked to from this space. Each proposal moved and seconded in this manner, within 24 hours of the solicitation posting, shall be considered concurrently with all others, with proposal polls open for 24 hours. Each proposal receives the support of 2/3 or more of the voting members shall be deemed adopted.

Program Proposals (from committee)

This space will link to program points recommended by the national committee/program committee for polling. Each member may cast one vote (”yes” or “no”) on adoption of each point. Per the bylaws, polling on these points will last 24 hours, beginning at the opening of the convention, with 2/3 or more of voting members’ support required to adopt a program point. If fewer than five program points are adopted, the floor will be open for member proposal of additional points.

Committee Point Proposal #1

Foreign Policy: The Iraq War must end as quickly as possible with removal of all our soldiers from the region. We must initiate the return of our soldiers from around the world, including Korea, Japan, Europe and the entire Middle East. We must cease the war propaganda, threats of a blockade and plans for attacks on Iran, nor should we re-ignite the cold war with Russia over Georgia. We must be willing to talk to all countries and offer friendship and trade and travel to all who are willing. We must take off the table the threat of a nuclear first strike against all nations.

Committee Point Proposal #2

Privacy: We must protect the privacy and civil liberties of all persons under US jurisdiction. We must repeal or radically change the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, and the FISA legislation. We must reject the notion and practice of torture, elimination of habeas corpus, secret tribunals, and secret prisons. We must deny immunity for corporations that spy willingly on the people for the benefit of the government. We must reject the unitary presidency, the illegal use of signing statements and excessive use of executive orders.

Committee Point Proposal #3

The National Debt: We believe that there should be no increase in the national debt. The burden of debt placed on the next generation is unjust and already threatening our economy and the value of our dollar. We must pay our bills as we go along and not unfairly place this burden on a future generation.

Committee Point Proposal #4

The Federal Reserve: We seek a thorough investigation, evaluation and audit of the Federal Reserve System and its cozy relationships with the banking, corporate, and other financial institutions. The arbitrary power to create money and credit out of thin air behind closed doors for the benefit of commercial interests must be ended. There should be no taxpayer bailouts of corporations and no corporate subsidies. Corporations should be aggressively prosecuted for their crimes and frauds.

Program Proposals (from the membership)

In the event that fewer than five committee-proposed program points are adopted above, this space will link to a member proposal space and polls on proposed points. Points will be polled in the order proposed and seconded, with no more polls running than would cause the program to exceed five points if all were adopted. Each proposal will be polled for 12 hours, with 2/3 or more of voting members’ support required to adopt a program point.

Resolutions

At the opening of the convention, this space will link to a resolution solicitation post. All members may move resolutions (statements of the party exclusive of its platform, program or bylaws). All resolutions moved and seconded within 24 hours of the opening of solicitation space will be polled. Polls will run for 24 hours; resolutions supported by 2/3 or more of voting members will be adopted.

LFV readers, what do you think of the candidates and proposals? Please note your endorsements, as well as any concerns, in the comments section.

New Yorker: platform gutted–membership grew by 28%, or dropped by 32%?

The New Yorker published an extensive piece on Bob Barr:  The Third Man: Bob Barr’s Libertarian run for the White House.  Overall, I enjoyed the article and it gave a lot of interesting history on 2008 Libertarian Party Presidential nominee and former Congressman Bob Barr.

A quote from the article referencing comments from one of the founders of the LP, David Nolan:

In 2006, Nolan told me, the Party had a “civil war” over its platform, most of which was subsequently dropped. The following year, the Party’s dues-paying membership grew by twenty-eight per cent.

What the reporter could have written instead:

In 2006, Nolan told me, the Party had a “civil war” over its platform, most of which was subsequently dropped. That year, the Party’s dues-paying membership dropped by thirty-two per cent.

While many Libertarians place a lot of emphasis on the platform (both radicals and moderates) I’ve often claimed that the success of the LP, especially with respect to membership, has little to do with the platform.  I tend to think the frequency of direct mail, management of the database, the website, and overall quality of communications from the National HQ have a lot more to do with membership numbers than whatever faction has control of the platform. The New Yorker misplaced the cause and effect.

I’ve got a couple of more suggestions regarding membership that the New Yorker could have published:

• In 2006, Wes Benedict was elected to the LNC. The following year, the Party’s dues-paying membership grew by twenty-eight per cent.
• In 2007, President George Bush extended Daylight Savings time.  That year, the Party’s dues-paying membership grew by twenty-eight per cent.

H/T to Eric Sundwall on the New Yorker article.

December LNC meeting details

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 available this link:
https://resweb.passkey.com/Resweb.do?mode=welcome_ei_new&eventID=72453

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

I’m Changing My Name to Fannie Mae

Arlo Guthrie performs “I’m Changing My Name to Fannie Mae”

Hat Tip: Iowa Liberty

George Phillies: “In Support of Angela Keaton, Part 4″

The following was written by George Phillies, and is posted with permission of the author.

In Defense of Angela Keaton, Part 4

In a prior post, I reminded readers that the Libertarian National Committee had voted to ask Angela Keaton to resign. They then considered a motion to expel Keaton from the LNC. It is inescapable that Keaton will soon need a coherent defense against the forthcoming motion of expulsion. In this and following messages, I offer such a defense.

In the prior post, I proposed that Keaton’s acts were far less serious than the acts of Bob Barr, who while on the LNC had through his PAC supported Republican Federal candidates.Here I turn to actions of National Chair William Redpath. When Redpath was not penalized for his acts, it is transparently unjust to penalize Keaton.

Acts of William Redpath.

1) Redpath is and was the Chief Executive Officer of the Libertarian National Committee. As such, under LNC Bylaws Article 7, Section 4 “The Chair is the chief executive officer of the Party with full authority to direct its business and affairs…subject to express National Committee policies and directives…”

In accord with its authority Under Article 8 of the Bylaws, the LNC has voted a series of policies. These National Committee policies from the current LNC Policy Manual, are listed in part below as Appendix A. The next several articles will examine what are in my opinion failures to follow these requirements, failures for which Redpath has not been sanctioned, leading to the conclusion that Keaton should not be sanctioned for her less serious actions.

We first turn to Policy Manual

ARTICLE III

B. The Chair serves as chief executive officer of the Party, reporting to the LNC, and in that capacity:

1. is responsible, along with the LNC, for ensuring the direction and management of activities, affairs, properties, and funds of the Party is consistent with the Party Bylaws and LNC policies;…

The most important of these bylaws statements is of course the Statement of Principles, eschewing the use of theft and fraud for political gain.

I begin with what is in my opinion an attempted use of theft and fraud, broadly defined as intended by the original authors of the statement of principles, for political gain, by the LNC, an attempt that in my opinion could not be continuing if Redpath had discharged his duties under B1. However, Redpath has not been sanctioned for what appear to me to be his failures here, so Keaton should also not be sanctioned.

I refer to the LNC lawsuit attempting to steal my ballot status in New Hampshire.

1. In my opinion there can be no reasonable doubt that this is an LNC action, even though the LNC is not yet named as a plaintiff in the suit.

First, the non-local attorney in the suit represented himself to me as having the LNC as his client. Furthermore, I am assured by eyewitnesses at an LPNH meeting after the suit was filed that LPNH state committee members did not know who the non-local attorney was, and, if this is true, it is scarcely credible that he was retained by LPNH. Also, the LPNH vote to adhere to the suit reads

From: Brendan Kelly
Date: Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 2:59 PM
To: Seth Cohn, babiarz@endor.com, “Sandy C. Pierre”, Faith Cook, Avens O’Brien

At about 2:00 PM Aug.27th 2008 I’m calling a meeting of the LPNH E.C. for the purpose of addressing the question of our joining with national LP in their substitution suit. This meeting will be open until 2:00 PM on Aug. 28th 2008 or until an unbeatable up or down vote with a quorum has been reached.All internet response should be sent by reply all.

I Brendan Kelly as chairman call this meeting to order. I’d like to make a motion that the LPNH join the LP substitution law suit to be filed as plaintiff’s. Do I have a second.

That is a motion purely and entirely to join ‘the national LP’ suit. No attorney, presented with this motion, could have added LPNH as a plaintiff, as has been done, unless this was a national LP suit.

2. Point 15 of the LNC suit as filed reads

15: Upon information and belief, anticipating that he might win the nomination but have insufficient time to obtain the 3,000 valid nomination papers required for access to the New Hampshire ballot, Phillies caused the requisite number of nominating papers to be circulated and filed on his behalf prior to the convention.

These claims are false. Presenting them was an act of fraud in the sense of the statement of principles, though perhaps not as a matter of law. The National Chair was not sanctioned for allowing this act of fraud to go forward, and therefore Keaton should not be sanctioned for her alleged acts, which were clearly less serious.

Why are the claims false? In Spring, 2007, LPNH staged a nominating convention. You can read about it in the LPNH newsletter Libertarian Lines, Volume 32, Issue 3

http://www.lpnh.org/LPNH/Libertarian_Lines_files/LibLines_June07.pdf.

I didn’t attend the convention, but my campaign Treasurer Carol McMahon did. Liberty Lines page 1, bottom, “Nominations” says in part “The main item for the convention was candidate nominations for President down to Executive Council. We made nominations for each of these offices…In the end, our final list of nominees were: President: George Phillies,” Having identified me as a candidate, Liberty Lines then twice says “please start collecting petitions for our candidates.”

It was the LPNH State Convention that asked its volunteers to collect signatures for me. The claim that I caused nominating papers to be circulated and filed is a baldfaced lie. However, our National Chair has not been sanctioned for allowing these false claims to go forward, and therefore Angela Keaton should also not be sanctioned for less serious acts.

3. Point 21 of the LNC lawsuit claims “The plaintiffs have sought to substitute the Barr candidacy for the Phillies candidacy and to have Barr listed on the November ballot as the sole Libertarian candidate for President.” Point 22 claims in part “The Secretary of State has refused to permit such substitution…”

These claims are also false. Presenting them was an act of fraud in the sense of the statement of principles. The National Chair was not sanctioned by the LNC for allowing these false claims to go forward, and therefore Keaton should not be sanctioned for her alleged acts, which were clearly less serious.

Why are these claims false? First, Barr is already on the ballot, and therefore the proposed change is not “substitution”; it is my removal from the ballot. Furthermore, at no time prior to the LPNH ExComm vote to join the lawsuit did the LPNH ExComm vote to ask Secretary Gardner for anything of the kind.

4. Point 23 of the LPNH lawsuit claims that failure “to list Barr on the Libertarian ballot as the sole Libertarian Party candidate for President” would “unduly burdens their rights to cast their votes effectively” and “to associate for the advancement of political beliefs”.

The claim that you cannot vote effectively because someone else is on the ballot is absurd on its face. In fact, if this suit were to succeed, the right of attendees of the LPNH State Convention, not to mention my petitioners and supporters, to associate for the advancement of their political beliefs, would be stolen. This taking would be an act of theft in the sense of the statement of principles, if perhaps not in the legal sense. The National Chair was not sanctioned by the LNC for allowing this attempted theft of freedom of association to go forward, and therefore Keaton should not be sanctioned for her alleged acts, which were clearly less serious.

You may correctly assume that I could go on at great length about this suit, but I think I have made my point.

We’ll return in Part 5 to other LNC member acts whose actions were more serious than Ms. Keaton’s.

Appendix A. Segments from the LNC Policy Manual.

I first quote from the Policy Manual as to the duties charged by LNC vote to the LNC Chair:

ARTICLE III. OFFICERS

Section 1: POSITION DESCRIPTION OF NATIONAL CHAIR

A. The Chair serves as the presiding officer of the LNC and of all National Conventions and, in that capacity:

1. guides the deliberations and activities of the LNC according to Party Bylaws, convenes an LNC meeting according to the Party Bylaws, serves as a full voting member of the LNC and serves as a nonvoting member of all committees appointed by the LNC;

2. guides the deliberations and activities of National Conventions according to the Party Bylaws and adopted Convention Rules.

B. The Chair serves as chief executive officer of the Party, reporting to the LNC, and in that capacity:

1. is responsible, along with the LNC, for ensuring the direction and management of activities, affairs, properties, and funds of the Party is consistent with the Party Bylaws and LNC policies;…

C. The Chair represents and serves as the chief spokesman of the Party as appropriate, including: representing the Party to the public, including the business community, media, other political and educational organizations, government agencies, and elected officials;

not to mention

ARTICLE VII. LP NEWS

Section 1: LP NEWS EDITORIAL POLICY

Article VII.1.C.2 The selection of articles, their layout and the graphics for LP News, the relative amount of space assigned to articles, advertisements, Party announcements, and regular features shall be the responsibility of the Chair except as detailed in this Policy Statement.

The exception for the LP News Editor makes clear that the responsibility of the Editor is for production, so that VII.1.A. 2. provides

Final responsibility for the production of LP News must rest with one person: the Editor. It is the responsibility of the Editor to produce the best possible publication within the guidelines of these policies.

Among the LNC policies that the Chair is responsible for carrying out are

Article VIII. Section 3: LIMITATIONS ON PARTY SUPPORT FOR PUBLIC OFFICE

Party resources shall not be used to provide information or services for any candidate for public office prior to the nomination unless: (a) such information or services are available and announced on an equal basis to all Libertarians who have declared they are seeking that nomination, (b) such information or services are generally available and announced to all party members, or (c) the service or candidate has been approved by the state chair.

Article VIII. Section 4: LIMITATIONS ON PARTY SUPPORT FOR PARTY OFFICE

Party resources shall not be used to provide information or services for any candidate for party office unless: (a) such information or services are available and announced on an equal basis to all Libertarians who have declared they are seeking that office, or (b) such information or service(s) are generally available and announced all party members.

and

ARTICLE IV. NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS

Section 3: EMPLOYMENT POLICIES

A. Employees are bound by the Bylaws and the policies adopted by the LNC. A statement to this effect shall be included in all employment agreements and contracts between the Party and its employees.

D. Except as otherwise noted in this Policy Manual, no employee of the Party shall:

1. endorse, support, or contribute any money,

2. use his or her title or position, or

3. work as a volunteer, employee, or contractor

to aid (1) any candidate for public office prior to nomination, or (2) any candidate for Party office.

Barr Campaign Misfires Yet Again

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/15/still-to-come-the-third-party-debate/

Poised to set record-breaking vote totals for an LP presidential campaign due to his high name recognition and his alleged “big tent” appeal (to conservatives anyway), Bob Barr continues his remarkable underachieving ways by apparently turning his nose up at a rare opportunity to participate in a third-party candidates debate.

The only question mark is Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party candidate. Mr. Barr has made it clear that he will only debate Mr. Nader and no one else.

Christina M. Tobin, an event organizer and a Nader campaign staffer, said that she “challenges” Mr. Barr to show up.

“Let him show that he is a true Libertarian,” said Ms. Tobin, who grew up in a prominent Libertarian family. “This is a golden opportunity to get exposure and for people to hear his views. For him not to show up would be denying his Libertarian principles.”

After essentially giving the finger to Ron Paul and his legions of pro-liberty supporters just over a month ago, what will be the Barr campaign’s next brilliant move?  A televised graffiti defacement of the Statue of Liberty?  A huge book burning in front of the Library of Congress?  I can’t wait to find out!

The more things change…

Springtown, Texas’ “Wild West Festival:” can you spot the Libertarian?

Spot the Libertarian

One thing Libertarians who are serious about building a real political party and winning elections have always stressed is that if we want the voters to take us seriously, we have to fit in with the community. Having said that, let’s play “can you spot the Libertarian in the picture?”

This photo is from the September, 2008 Springtown, Texas Chamber of Commerce’s “Wild West Festival.”  Springtown is a city about a half-hour west of Fort Worth. The Libertarian Party of Texas sponsored a booth there in 2008. Bonafide Libertarian Party candidates whom are elligible to be voted for by honest to goodness Springtown residents are not pictured here.

NC Coverage of ticket-toppers

Interviews with candidates Barr, Munger (Gov) and Cole (Senate).

Anarchy w/o Bombs: where Less provides More

The title is a silly pun. 

Less Antman – whom I once picked up at a hotel* – has finally gotten around to posting some of the extremely clever things he has to say about freedom in one place. It’s a friendly mix of philosophy and politics. Great ideas for presenting libertarianism in startling but nonthreatening ways.

A tasty sample:

Many people say the housing crisis and subsequent credit meltdown were caused by inadequate regulation: they’re right. In a free market, business behavior is severely regulated by the potential to lose money when bad decisions are made.  What the government did was eliminate that regulation by guaranteeing people against losses, thereby encouraging outrageously risky behavior.

*There is no footnote. I just wanted to create the expectation of some salacious** details. You’ll have to use your imagination.

**OK, I just really wanted to use ’salacious’ in a sentence***.

***I’m channeling**** Wes Benedict.

****Ouch.

This is funny…

LM - for real this time?

… but is it funny ha-ha, or funny-sad?

Anyway, there certainly has been an interesting series of logo designs for this project. I’m not sure how long this one has been up; I only check this when I have too much of my own work to do and am desperate to avoid it, like now. Living in my glasshouse of slackerdom in the fragile Village of Overcommittment, I should not be casting stones at SvD. But it’s such a tempting target.

Well, off to finish that Pullman novel!

The Boston Tea National Committee Passes Anti-Congressional Bailout Resolution

The Boston Tea National Committee passed a resolution that I authored by Yours Truly. It passed by a majority vote (4 yes, 3 not voting, 0 no).

It officially denounces the $850 billion congressional bailout that was signed into law by W. himself.

Here’s the official text of the party’s resolution:

Resolution #00001

A Resolution to Denounce the $850 Billion Congressional Bailout Package

Introduced: October 8, 2008

Amended: October 9, 2008, October 11, 2008, and October 12, 2008

Passed by the BTNC on October 13, 2008

Sponsor: Boston Tea Party Vice Chairman Todd Andrew Barnett

Sponsors: BTNC At-Large Representative Elle Larkin, BTNC Secretary Michelle Luetge, and BTNC At-Large Representative Kent McManigal

 

Whereas, the United States Congress, consisting of the U.S. House of Representatives and the United States Senate, passed an $850 billion congressional bailout package by a vote of 263-171, and

Whereas, the bailout will tack on an additional $112 billion to the current deficit over a period of five years because the legislation contains no provision to dramatically cut spending and tax levels, and

Whereas, the pork-barrel laced bill is laden with a gamut of tax breaks and subsidies to numerous tax-funded welfare recipients, including, but not limited to the following:

·         Renewable energy credit

·         Tax and energy credits for a variety of boondoggles such as small wind property, geothermal heating pump systems, biodiesel and renewable diesel, increases in and special rules for the coal excise tax, etc.

·         Extensions of the alternative extension tax, new market credits, deductions for state and local sales taxes, etc.

·         Mental health parity

·         Indian employment credit

And

·         Puerto Rican and Virgin Island rum producers, and

Whereas, the ballooned bailout package passed by both Houses of the Congress and signed into law by President George W. Bush has an estimated 442 pages, and the original bailout bill, which failed by a vote of 205-228, had an estimated 110 pages,

Whereas, the United States Senate voted in favor of the $850 billion bailout package by a vote of 74-26 in the interests of its lobbyists and special interest groups and against the wishes of the American people,

Whereas, the people of the United States of America contacted their 434 elected representatives and 100 elected senators and urged them to vote against this unconstitutional measure,

Whereas, government rules, regulations, and edicts such as the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 have made it possible for low-income and minority credit risky homeowners to take out mortgages to make mal-investments on their home purchases, mortgage firms to lower their underwriting standards and issue risky loans furthering the moral hazard of the credit, real estate, banking, and mortgage markets,

Whereas, the revisions to the CRA in the 1980s that were authored and passed by Congress and signed into law by President George H.W. Bush as part of the Financial Institutions Reform Recovery and Enforcement Act (FIRREA) were made in response to the actions by Senator John McCain (R-AZ), former Senator John Glenn (D-OH), former Senator Alan Cranston (D-CA), former Senator Don Riegle (D-MI), and former Senator Dennis DeConcini (D-AZ) as part of the Keating Five scandal,

Whereas, the revisions to the CRA in response to the above-mentioned Keating five politicians were signed into law by then-President George H.W. Bush to allegedly increase public oversight of the process of issuing CRA ratings to banks, require the federal agencies to issue those CRA ratings publicly and written performance evaluations using facts and data to support the agencies’ conclusions, and mandate a four-tiered CRA examination rating system with performance levels of “Outstanding,” “Satisfactory,” “Needs to Improve,” and “Substantial Noncompliance,” and

Whereas, the revisions to the CRA in the 1990s that were authored and passed by Congress and signed into law by President William Jefferson Clinton as part of the Gramm-Leach-Billey Act of 1999 were made to repeal part of the Glass-Steagall Act as an alleged form of partial deregulation of the banking industry by prohibiting banks from expanding to insurance and securities unless they adhered to the provisions of the CRA,

Whereas, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 puts onerous requirements on CEOs and CFOs to be responsible for any errors, even honest mistakes, in their public company’s books, and has driven company formation and public offerings offshore, and

Whereas, Sarbanes-Oxley also has added hugely to the burden for opening new banks and innovating in an industry which still uses 1969 telex technology to send bank wires,

Whereas, the bloated unconstitutional bill violates the letter of the Constitution because spending bills must be passed in the House first and the Senate second before it heads to the President’s desk in the Oval Office, and

Whereas, the bailout has failed to rescue the entire financial services industry from financial doom, furthering the plummeting of the Dow Jones, the NASDAQ, and the entire stock market, then

Be it resolved that the Boston Tea National Committee denounces, opposes, and condemns the $850 billion bailout package, as it deepens the financial crisis on Wall Street and Main Street and fleeces the American taxpayers of their hard-earned money to bailout companies, a practice that can be easily called economic fascism (or corporate socialism), and

Calls upon the federal government to dramatically deregulate the entire mortgage and financial services industries and abolish agencies such as the Securities and Exchange Commission, repeal laws such as the CRA and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, and the abolition of government-backed institutions such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the Federal Reserve Board and its regional banks, and

Calls for the liquidation of assets of the Federal Reserve, its Board of Governors, its Governors, and its banks upon the write-offs of its liabilities and closing and elimination of its branches, and

Calls for the investigation and prosecution of Democratic and Republican congressmen who were significantly complicit in their actions supporting the government-propped and government-backed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac enterprises, the bailout package, and the subsidies to organizations like them and the fraudulent activities linked to and associated with them, and

Calls for the reduction or elimination of income, withholding, and all other taxes on productivity and consumption and the burden on entrepreneurs,

Calls for an introduction of a way to compete with the Federal Reserve in the interim and the repeal of legal tender laws, which prohibit a competitive free market currency system,

Calls for all bills for raising revenue to originate in the House of Representatives, as the bailout bill that originated in the Senate calls for raising revenue and has changed the current tax code and regulations, and thus is unconstitutional,

Encourages the incremental move from the state capitalistic system comprising of a mixed (fascistic) economy to a laissez-faire (free market) capitalism, and

Reinforces the need for federal and state accountability on the corrupt, fraudulent, and rotten actions of the regulators, bureaucrats, and corporatists aligned with the banking, financial, and mortgage sectors, and thus

The Boston Tea National Committee repudiates the fascistic and socialist direction of the United States, the legislative actions of the Congress, and the executive actions and directives by the President of the United States, especially with respect to its support for the bailout and its support for subsidizing, coddling, protecting, and backing Wall Street, Main Street, and the financial services industry.

 

If you have any comments, feedback, please email me. I’d love to hear it.

 

Might not want to throw out that tinfoil hat just yet …

MSNBC reports:

The U.S. Army is developing a technology known as synthetic telepathy that would allow someone to create email or voice mail and send it by thought alone. The concept is based on reading electrical activity in the brain using an electroencephalograph, or EEG.

Of course, this has been staple science fiction stuff for a long time, and it would be silly to expect it to never move into actual R&D. I have to admit that I’ve long looked forward to a brain-implantable, mentally-controllable computer myself (and desperately hoping that Micro$haft won’t be the OS leader — “Blue Visual Field of Death,” anyone?).

To get the down side, add “remotely” ahead of “reading” in the quote above. Think Van Eck phreaking, organic style. And once the channel is open, who knows but what it might not run two ways?

When (if?) this pans out, the very least we can expect is a new machine in the airport security line — TSA will naturally be interested in who’s thinking “don’t look in my shoes don’t look in my shoes oh Jebus did I leave the detonator on the bedside table back at the hotel?”

Depending on the limits of equipment — reception, sensitivity, etc. — the possibilities for political and industrial espionage are of obvious concern as well. Will we soon see presidents and CEOs wearing metal-mesh hairnets everywhere they go? Will presidential candidates run ads featuring their opponents’ innermost thoughts?

And then of course there’s what we don’t know: How far along is this, really? If they’re showing us this much that they’re developing, what aren’t they showing us that they already have?

Photo by Liam P. Millay
Cross-posted from KN@PPSTER

Texas U.S. Senate candidate, Yvonne Schick, channels Mary Ruwart in televised debate

Texas Libertarian U.S. Senate Candidate, Yvonne Schick

If you like Mary Ruwart, then you’ll love Texas U.S. Senate candidate Yvonne Schick’s recent performance in a televised debate against the Republican and Democrat.  I say that, because at times, in Schick’s performance, it seemed like she was possessed by Mary Ruwart and Ruwart was actually doing the talking.

People like Thomas Knapp who are familiar with my writing understand I’m not a word expert so “channeling” and “possessed” might not be the right words, but people like Thomas Knapp just might help me clarify what I mean to say below in the comments section.

Rumor has it Ruwart helped Schick prepare for the debate. To be clear, Schick isn’t quite the radical Ruwart is, but I think you’ll see and hear Ruwart’s influence in style and substance if you watch the videos.

The feedback from Texas Libertarians has been overwhelmingly ecstatic.  Not only is it great to have a Libertarian Party candidate included in a debate that was televised in most of the big cities in Texas (if not all of them), but it was great to have a Libertarian candidate give clear, concise libertarian responses that separated her from her opponents.

Schick reports a surge in support for her campaign after the Republican incumbent, John Cornyn, voted for the cazillion dollar bailout and after this debate.  Plus, Schick unwaveringly opposed the drug war while the Democratic challenger, Rick Noriega, supported it. Schick’s campaign has been promoted heavily recently on Ron Paul’s Campaign for Liberty meetup groups in Texas.

Videos of the debate are available online in four parts:
http://streaming.houstonpbs.org/the_connection/TheGreatDebateSeries/SenateDebatePt1.wmv
http://streaming.houstonpbs.org/the_connection/TheGreatDebateSeries/SenateDebatePt2.wmv
http://streaming.houstonpbs.org/the_connection/TheGreatDebateSeries/SenateDebatePt3.wmv

Definitely watch Part IV which contains witty comments regarding Bob Barr and Ron Paul:
http://streaming.houstonpbs.org/the_connection/TheGreatDebateSeries/SenateDebatePt4.wmv

Mainstream press reactions are posted on the Libertarian Party of Texas’ Texas-sized list of recent news media coverage:
http://lptexas.org/news.shtml

I am so proud of Yvonne Schick and her performance in the debate!

Most reasonably normal people plus abnormal people with a decent amount of self-confidence and sense of humor will find any sarcastic comments of mine above to be humorous.  Uptight-wads might feel I’m being offensive, but that’s because they’re abnormal uptight-wads and relish being offended so I’m doing the uptight-wads a favor, too, I guess. Keep in mind, this is a blog. Ratings matter.

–Wes Benedict

Newstopia explains the Reserve Bank

How Could I Live Without Filing Taxes?

Republican Liberty Caucus Chairman Bill Westmiller and Libertarian congressional candidate Neil Kiernan Stephenson on Liberty Cap Talk Live Tonight

Republican Liberty Caucus chairman Bill Westmiller and Libertarian congressional candidate Neil Kiernan Stephenson of Michigan’s 10th district will be on Liberty Cap Talk Live at 6 p.m. EST/3 p.m. PST tonight. Topics include the aftermath of the $85 billion bailout that Congress passed last week and last Tuesday’s 2nd Obama-McCain debate. Also discussed will be the Maryland State police placing peace activists on their terrorist watch lists.

Darryl W. Perry, the write-in candidate for U.S. Senate, will be on as a third panelist at 7 p.m. but will be on the show for a half hour. In the second half of the second hour, Jim Landrith and I will talk about the news and an important subject I need to bring up on the air.

Please tune in tonight!

Redpath speaks at Virginia Commonwealth University

Libertarian National Committee Chairman Bill Redpath, the LP candidate for U.S. Senate in Virginia, spoke Wednesday evening at Virginia Commonwealth University. A video of his appearance starts below; subsequent segments may be found here.

US Supreme Court agrees that incompetence, not hurricane, caused Barr’s late Louisiana filing

From TheTownTalk.com:

BATON ROUGE — The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld Secretary of State Jay Dardenne’s decision to not allow the Libertarian Party candidate on the presidential ballot in Louisiana because the party failed to meet the required deadline.

The court denied a request for a stay filed by the Libertarian Party, thereby upholding Dardenne’s decision that the party had not filed its qualifying papers in a timely manner.

Under Supreme Court rules, the case was presented to Justice Antonin Scalia who referred the case to the entire court. The Court denied the application in a one-sentence decision.

“Obviously we’re pleased that we will not have to reprint the presidential ballots, which already have been mailed to military and overseas voters.” Dardenne said. “Reprinting would have resulted in confusion, increased expense to the taxpayers, a setback in the absentee-by-mail voting process and, potentially delayed election results.”

Testimony at the hearing before U.S. District Judge James Brady in Baton Rouge established that a party representative forgot to submit an affidavit before the deadline for getting names on the ballot..

“This omission, not Hurricane Gustav, was the reason that the papers were not filed by the deadline,” Dardenne said.

A sample ballot for the Nov. 4 presidential election can be found on the secretary of state’s Elections Division Web site at www.GeauxVote.com.

Munger/McCrory debate online

The second Munger/McCrory(R) debate is now online here. Wednesday, Oct. 8, Dr. Munger debated Pat McCrory on UNC-TV. This was the second debate to be televised statewide.

After the debate, emails for Mike started rolling in, including this comment from Annie Brown:

I am registered unaffiliated, with Democratic leanings. After tonight’s debate there is no doubt I will be voting for Dr. Munger and will be encouraging others to do so.

Libertarian 2012 presidential nomination poll

Who is your early choice for the 2012 Libertarian presidential nomination?
( polls)

Right? Left? How about ‘libertarian’?

A recent Public Policy Polling analysis looks at how Libertarian campaigns in North Carolina (particularly those for Senate and Governor) buck the ‘conventional wisdom’ that Libertarians ‘take’ votes from the right or from Republicans. The report notes:

-60% of voters who support [L] Michael Munger for Governor support Barack Obama for President with 19% going for Bob Barr and just 14% for John McCain. A plurality also support [D] Kay Hagan (40%), with 36% going to [L] Christopher Cole and 19% to [R] Elizabeth Dole. So in this case his supporters are pretty clearly taking support from Bev Perdue. …

-Among those supporting [L] Christopher Cole for Senate it is basically a dead heat between John McCain and Barack Obama. 39% of them go for McCain, 34% of them go for Obama, and 19% support Bob Barr. …

-Bob Barr’s supporters are also going Libertarian for US Senate- 41% support [L] Cole, 28% support [D] Hagan, and 25% support [R] Dole. For Governor it’s almost a three way tie, with 36% going for [R] McCrory, 33% for Munger, and 27% for [D] Perdue. …

Anecdotally, I’ve also had occasion to note a lot of support from the ‘progressive left’ (and from Republicans as well!) while reviewing a bunch of comments received by the Munger volunteer coordinator. Democrat Bev Perdue is not popular among the far-left crowd. In fact, she’s really not popular among the middle-left or the right-left crowd as far as I can tell. She’s just slightly less unpopular (perhaps) than the Republican in the race.

Some of the comments the Munger campaign has recieved (I have added the emphasis):

“I’m a tried and true Democrat who is disillusioned with Bev Perdue and think Munger has the right message.”

“I, a progressive Democrat, will be voting for you. Your stances on the issues most closely resemble my values.”

“I’m glad you are running and providing us with an intelligent, progressive alternative.”

“I just listened to Dr. Munger on the radio in complete and happy amazement. I have always identified myself as a liberal Democrat; however, I’m tired of listening to Perdue give the same pat and rehearsed answers I have heard forever. THEN I heard Dr Munger’s well-considered revolutionary answers. I am won over.”

“I have been a registered Republican since moving to the area but you have my vote. I look forward to hearing more of your views.”

Mike spoke last night at a Green Party forum focused on North Carolina’s hideous ballot access laws (and other issues), and I noted this morning that a GP activist posted this to a Green list:

As we witnessed last night with Mike Munger, the Libertarian gubernatorial candidate, we will have more in common with Libertarian values than we do with either the Dems or Repubs, this election cycle. Mr. Munger would support a tax bailout for mortgage holders and NOT for lenders. He also supports a very constitutional interpretation of individual liberties and responsibilities. This election cycle I will vote Lib to support them in ballot access and because of his thoughtful application of policy during these times.

This is interesting for a couple of reasons. One, it’s just great that Mike can reach out to Greens and enlist them, even in a temporary effort – remember, Mike worked for the Reagan adminstration. Two, people hear pretty much what they want to hear (postive or negative) – Mike did not actually “support a tax bailout for mortgage holders” – what he said was “No bailout.” But he also said “[I]f we were going to spend the money, than we should at least spend it on real folks, and not financial elites”. You see what the progressive activist made of that. I think this must be a near-universal tendency. We make up our minds who we like and then we reshape their message to what we want to hear, to at least some extent. This is an important lessons for folks running campaigns, I think.

Not all – or perhaps even most – of these folks will abandon their political roots to join the Libertarian Party or relabel themselves as ‘libertarian’. But some will. They are, in my opinion, more likely than not to come from the ‘left’ than the ‘right’ – but some of that perception is based on my own experience (I was a Democrat, which might surprise some folks). But whether they come from the left or the right, some (small, perhaps, but significant) percentage of people who vote Libertarian this November will be politically changed by this election. The votes of everyone are important for short-term reasons (ballot access, issue advocacy, etc), but the politically changed people are the real gold of the campaign in my opinion. Those folks are the activists we need to be developing, teaching, and encouraging; they will be the next generation of Libertarian Party activists. And those of us who experienced a similar excitement and change at hearing the libertarian message years ago need to be the ones delivering that education, support, and encouragement.

Allen Buckley campaign “down and dirty” radio ads focus on incumbent Saxby Chambliss

Send this porker packing, if you hated the farm/welfare bill you can’t like this hog. 

 

    

US Senator Saxby Chambliss is by far one of the worst Republican Senators in the history of the Republic. He has never met a lobbyist he did not like, and has voted in “lock-step” with the current administration. Bloated defense & farm bills and a total disrespect for the Constitution is what this crotchety old Republican is all about.    

OUR ATTACK ADS ARE WORKING !!! ( and funny )

 
Because independents, fiscally conservative republicans, and Ron Paul types can’t stand this guy !

Progress: Libertarian U.S. Senate Candidate Allen Buckley initially polled 3%. Later, he polled 4%. A later poll (an independent poll) had him at 8%.

Help us run more ads on AM talk radio in Republican Areas !

Listen to the ads and judge for yourself.  We are down and dirty now…… but we vow to sink even further into the gutter if that’s what it takes to oust a porker!

Go ahead and google… “Imperial Sugar Plant Explosion”… now ask yourself, “who collects from big sugar?” 

You see where we our headed, help us change history, listen to the ads.

We need your support to air “the dirtiest for last”

 To contribute, please click the Donate button above,

or click and follow the text links below.

-

Contribute to Allen Buckley for U.S. Senate Campaign

 

Links not working?

Copy the following text to your browser’s Address Bar:

http://www.buckleyforsenate.com/contributions.asp

 

 

Thank you for your support. 

Buckley for Senate
P.O. Box 7641
Atlanta, GA 30357 

Website: http://www.buckleyforsenate.com

Forums: http://cms.buckleyforsenate.com

Email: buckley@buckleyforsenate.com

 

Paid for by Buckley for Senate

 

 

LP starts radio campaign

Our First Radio Ad

posted by Andrew Davis on Oct 06, 2008

Dear Libertarian Supporter,

Last week, we asked you for ideas on radio ads for the Libertarian Party during the 2008 presidential election. 

We had a massive response with really terrific ideas. 

Please check out the final cut of a radio ad that will be playing across the country this month.

Because of the success that we expect, with so many Americans angry with Republicans and Democrats, we want to expand our campaign with more ads.

We are already committed to 2000 spots per week over the next 29 days—but hope to do many, many more with your help.

Please help us sponsor ads at $1 per spot.  Each dollar will purchase approximately one radio spot, so we’re asking everybody to help sponsor at least 50 spots!

Your $50 will go towards helping spread the message of liberty through our national ad campaign.  If you feel you can donate more, please consider donations of $100, $1,000 or whatever you can afford!

You gracious donations will help all Libertarians running for office, and help make 2008 the best year in the Libertarian Party’s history!

Thank you again for all that you do for liberty in this country. 

Live Free,

Andrew Davis
Director of Communications
Libertarian Party

PS – If you are receiving this email, and have not yet become a member of the Party and wish to do so, please click here to sign up to become a member of the only political party dedicated completely to cutting taxes and maximizing liberty.  If you need to renew, please do so by clicking here. 

PSS – If you have not yet contributed, please consider a donation right now of $25, $50, $100 or $1000 to the Libertarian Party.  Your contribution will be used to grow the Party and expand the message of liberty.  From ads to outreach, every dollar goes leading the liberty movement in its fight to restore the Constitution and maximize freedom.

Fourteen-candidate online presidential poll

Who will you vote for in the presidential election?
( polls)

LPNH lawsuit finally served

You can download the lawsuit for your own records here in PDF format: lpnh-lawsuit

Note that it was dated September 4th, over a month ago.  It is unknown why service of process was delayed for so long.

George Phillies: In defense of Angela Keaton, Part 3

The following was written by George Phillies, and is reproduced with permission.

In a prior post, I reminded readers that the Libertarian National Committee had voted to ask Angela Keaton to resign. They then considered a motion to expel Keaton from the LNC. It is inescapable that Keaton will soon need a coherent defense against the forthcoming motion of expulsion. In this and following messages, I offer such a defense. [With thanks to Elfninosmom for some text that I am borrowing.]

In the prior post, I proposed that Keaton’s acts were far less serious than the acts of Bob Barr, who while on the LNC had through his PAC supported Republican Federal candidates. However, the LNC did not subject Barr to any penalty. When Barr was not penalized for far more serious acts, it is transparently unjust to penalize Keaton.

Of course, for this defense to be valid, there is one key question:

Did Barr’s PAC actually support real Republicans?

Search the Bob Barr Leadership Fund filings for the current Congressional cycle. A list of Republicans running for Congress as incumbents and supported by Barr’s PAC includes the names Gingrey, Ros-Lehtinen, Flake, Hayes, Hensarling, Kingston, Pryce, Rehberg, Jones, and Shays. Barr’s PAC also supported incumbent Republican Senators, including Chambliss, Specter, Coleman, Craig, Graham, Hagel, Sessions, Smith, and Sununu.

Yes, that is the same Sununu who is running against my good friend Libertarian Ken Blevens for U.S. Senate in New Hampshire.

Every one of these Republicans was elected from a state with an organized Libertarian Party. A loyal Libertarian would want every one of those Republicans to face a Libertarian Party opponent. A loyal
Libertarian would never have dreamed of supporting Republicans, all of whom would hopefully have Libertarian opponents.

In fact, while Bob Barr sat on the LNC, Barr through his PAC supported every Republican I named above, yet faced no penalty from the LNC for his acts.

One might try to argue that some of these Republicans turned out not to have Libertarian opponents. If they had no Libertarian opponents, you might try to argue that support for the Republican made no difference, because the support did not cause a Libertarian to lose.

In 2007, you couldn’t predict which Republicans would not have Libertarian opponents.

Besides, when you donate to a candidate, your money counts twice. It counts once for that candidate. It counts again for the candidate’s party. When Bob Barr through his PAC donated to Republican candidates, he was strengthening his Republican Party, at the expense of our Libertarian Party.

The LNC did not respond to Barr’s actions by imposing any penalty, so therefore it would be unjust for the LNC to impose a more serious penalty on Keaton when her deed was less severe.

Finally, you might seek to argue that those Republican Congressmen were libertarians in disguise, flying a false flag to enhance their chances of election. Such a claim is devoid of merit.

Nine of those ten Congressman opposed leaving Iraq. Nine of ten supported military kangaroo courts. Eight of the ten voted to give Federal Courts jurisdiction over the Terry Schiavo case, voted to support warrantless wiretaps on your telephone, and voted to pervert the Constitution to install a ban on burning the flag. Torture is supported by a majority of these Congressmen.

These Congressmen were in no sense Libertarians. See Appendix B for more detail.

Every Senator I list as being supported by the Barr PAC voted to allow warrantless wiretaps and monitors of virtually every form of communication in America. Every Senator listed voted to reauthorize the Patriot Act. Every Senator listed voted for a Constitutional Amendment to ban flag burning. Eight of the nine voted to fund the war. Seven of nine voted against an antiwar withdrawal motion. Six of nine voted to advance a constitutional amendment blocking gay marriage.

These Senators were in no sense Libertarians. See Appendix C for more detail.

However, the LNC did not take punitive action in Barr’s case, so therefore it would be unjust for the LNC to take punitive action in Keaton’s less serious case.

APPENDIX A. Here, name by name, are the Congressmen Barr supported and a table showing their individual votes on some critical issues

Flake 1 2 3 4
Gingrey 1 2 3 4 5 6
Hayes 2 3 4 5 6
Hensarling 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jones 5 6
Kingston 1 2 3 4 5 6
Pryce 1 2 3 5 6
Rehberg 1 2 3 4 5 6
Ros-Lehtinen 1 2 3 5 6
Shays 1 2 3

(1) Vote 836: S 1927: The bill gives U.S. spy agencies expanded power to eavesdrop on foreign suspects without a court order. Civil liberties and privacy advocates argue the bill jeopardizes the Fourth Amendment privacy rights and allows for the warrantless monitoring of virtually any form of communication originating in the United States.

(2) 7/12/07 Vote 624: H R 2956: This bill would require the president to begin reducing the number of U.S. troops serving in Iraq 120 days after its enactment and would require most troops to be withdrawn by April 1, 2008.

(3) 9/29/06 Vote 508: S 3930: Military Commissions Act

(4) 12/14/05 Vote 630: H R 2863: Supported a ban on cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of detainees held by U.S. forces

(5) 6/22/05 Vote 296: H J RES 10: This vote approved the proposal of a Constitutional amendment to ban the desecration of the American flag.

(6) 3/21/05 Vote 90: S 686: Gave federal courts jurisdiction in the Terri Schiavo dispute.

APPENDIX B: Here are Senators the Barr PAC supported with a table showing individual votes.

Chambliss 1 2 3 4 5 6
Coleman 1 3 4 5 6
Craig 1 2 3 4 5 6
Graham 1 2 3 4 5 6
Hagel 1 2 4 6
Sessions 1 2 3 4 5 6
Smith 1 2 4 5 6
Specter 1 2 3 4 6
Sununu 1 2 3 4 6

(1) Vote 309: S 1927: This amendment to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 passed 60-28 on August 3. Civil liberties and privacy advocates argue the bill jeopardizes the Fourth Amendment privacy rights and allows for the warrantless monitoring of virtually any form of communication originating in the United States.

(2) 5/24/07 Vote 181: On the Motion: Fund the war. This $120 billion dollar package was passed in the Senate by an 80-14 vote on May 24.

(3) 3/29/07 Vote 126: H R 1591: This $122 billion war spending bill calls for combat troops to begin withdrawing from Iraq this summer.

(4) 6/27/06 Vote 189: S J RES 12: This vote would have given Senate approval to a proposed constitutional amendment that would give Congress the authority to ban “desecration of the American flag”.

(5) 6/7/06 Vote 163: On the Cloture Motion: A Senate cloture vote on the gay marriage amendment failed, effectively killing the amendment.

(6) 3/2/06 Vote 29: H R 3199: Reauthorized a slightly modified version of the 2001 USA Patriot Act.

Negative ads

It’s silly season again.

There are so many negative ads that…

This one was in the related videos. Not sure why. It’s catchy though…

Barr TV ad

Here is the one the campaign produced:

Proposed alternative Bob Barr campaign commercial from Marc Gallagher at Liberty Maven

Sarah Palin on Ron Paul 2/5/08: ‘He’s cool!’

The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth…

…may God have mercy on their souls.

Scotty Boman: 20 Years of libertarian activism

via IPR

Michigan Libertarian for U.S. Senate Scotty Boman has produced a YouTube video touting his two decades worth of libertarian activism. Included in the video are clips of Mr. Boman from TV shows stretching back to the 80’s, old letters to the editor and editorials, and more recent campaign activity.

Libertarian Vice Presidential candidate Wayne Root reacts to Biden-Palin debate

Posted on
Wayne’s blog. Root says he and Republican VP candidate Sarah Palin have very similar style, but that he is the only one one with the substance to match it.

After watching the Vice Presidential debate tonight, I have several opinions to share. I have a rather unique perspective- I’m the “other guy” not in the debate. I am the Libertarian Party Vice Presidential nominee. Now I know why I wasn’t invited- the two parties are so much alike, having me on that stage would have exposed them as the fakes they are. There is so little difference between the 2 major political parties, it was painful to watch as they tried hard to look different. But I digress. First let me analyze the winners and losers. Then I’ll get to the good, bad and ugly.

As far as winners- the clear-cut winner was Governor Sarah Palin. First, because expectations were so set so low. She did a very credible job- one that far surpassed what was expected of her. Second, because the biased liberal media once again has proven its own worst enemy. The media tried so hard to create the impression of Palin as being unqualified and “out of her league,” that they made her the big underdog. Palin more than rose to the occasion. What the media fails to understand is that America loves an underdog. The more the media belittles Palin, the more America (especially middle America) will rise to her defense. Third, the intellectual elite of this country thinks far too much of themselves. The pompous, arrogant “Beltway Insiders” crowd thinks that no moose-hunting, hockey mom and beauty queen contestant from the University of Idaho can ever debate them on a national stage. To the contrary, middle America loves to see one of their own do battle (and win) versus an elite D.C. establishment-insider like Senator Joe Biden. Most Americans- if given a choice- will always root for a Sarah Palin over a member of the millionaire boys club.

Palin lacks the U.S. Senate pedigree, law degree, or the D.C. Beltway credentials of Biden, but she has Reaganesque-like charm, charisma and middle American values. She also has something that even a brash New Yorker like me appreciates- CHUTZPAH. Sarah, in an “aw shucks” kind of way, is more confident of a speaker and debater than any 5-term United States Senator. Like Reagan, she knows how to connect to her audience- soccer moms and NASCAR dads (or as she calls them “Joe Six Pack”).

More than any other politician in the country, I understand why McCain took the gamble of a lifetime to choose Sarah Palin. She is a female me! We’re both unusual non-traditional politicians. I speak often of being a small businessman, home-school dad, S.O.B. (son of a butcher) and citizen politician, from a far Western frontier state like Nevada- where we love guns and hate taxes. Sarah talks of being a small-town hockey mom who hunts, fishes and shoots moose, from a far West frontier state like Alaska- where they love guns and hate taxes. We both come from humble blue-collar beginnings- my dad was a butcher, my mom a homemaker. Her dad was a teacher, her mom a homemaker. We both speak often about our beliefs in smaller government and more power to the people. We are both family-oriented with long-lasting marriages and large families- Sarah has 5 children, including a new baby; my wife Debra and I have been blessed with 4 children, including a new baby. We’re both young, enthusiastic, and passionate spokespersons for our political causes. We both get our supporters pumped up with enthusiasm. We are both proud of our lack of connections to Washington D.C. and fancy-pants lawyers or lobbyists.

And we both have a signature line that ties into who we are and where we’re from- Sarah talks of the difference between hockey moms and pit bulls- lipstick. I talk of the big difference between my hometown Las Vegas and Washington D.C.- in Vegas the drunks gamble with their own money!

McCain sensed in the “Palin style” what I’ve understood for a long time: America is looking for a hero, an ANTI-POLITICIAN. Someone who is not a lawyer; not an elitist; not an intellectual; who understands middle America and small town values; who will govern with common sense; who wants to give the power back to the people- NOT the lobbyists and corporate interests. So I say BRAVO to Governor Palin for a job well done. You “get it” in a way so few politicians do (or ever have).

But that is where my compliments end. And that is also where our similarities end. You see Sarah is much like me when it comes to “style.” But when it comes to substance and reality, not so much (as Sarah would say). You see I’m the real thing. I’m a Barry Goldwater-loving, anti-government, anti-tax rebel who despises politicians, lawyers, lobbyists, government spending, earmarks, waste and corporate welfare.

Read my lips: I will NEVER in my lifetime support a tax increase- taxes are already far too high. I pledge to lower taxes, and oppose any attempt at a tax increase. How’s that for putting a bold promise in writing? Etch it in stone- I will NEVER support a tax increase. When it comes to spending, I join great fiscal conservatives like Barry Goldwater and Dr. Ron Paul in playing the role of “Dr. NO”- I pledge to oppose any and every spending increase that is not authorized by the constitution. Government spending is already far too high. I will only vote (and fight) to lower government spending.

Governor Palin is not an anti-politician. She’s been a politician for 13 years now. She is not against tax increases- she has in fact supported tax increases. She is not against earmarks- as Governor of Alaska she has requested more earmarks (per capita) than most any other Governor in America. She is not against government spending- while she did cut some spending out of the budget, she also signed the biggest budget in Alaska history into law. She was not against the Bridge to Nowhere- she was actually for it, before she was against it. After it was killed by public opinion, she actually kept the federal money allotted for the infamous bridge. And unlike me (a home-school dad)- she certainly is no fighter for parental freedom and school choice. To the contrary, she has publicly denounced vouchers in speeches in front of Alaska teachers unions. So it appears Sarah’s “citizen politician” image is just that- an image portrayed by a skilled actress.

The Vice Presidential debate was most shocking to me for what it exposed- a 2 party system that I call big and bigger, dumb and dumber. There was no smaller government candidate on that stage in St. Louis. There were only 2 big government supporters arguing over how big to make it. The party of Goldwater is long gone. Palin and her running mate McCain support the $700 billion bailout that socializes the U.S. banking system- just like Obama and Biden. Palin used every opportunity at the V.P. debate to denounce “greedy Wall Street” just like Biden and Obama (instead of strongly stating the truth- that it was corrupt and incompetent government that caused our economic and credit crisis). Palin supports more government regulation over Wall Street- just like Biden and Obama. Palin supports carbon caps- just like Obama and Biden. Palin agreed that mankind has caused some degree of global warming- just like Biden and Obama. Palin thinks the federal government should spend more money on failing public schools- just like Biden and Obama. No mention by Palin of failing public schools; greedy teachers unions; the need for choice and competition; or Democratic politicians being bought and paid for by teachers union contributions. Note that Goldwater supported an end to all federal meddling and spending on education. Reagan promised to terminate the entire Department of Education (although he never did). Palin proudly promised to spend more on education. Palin never mentioned one program or cabinet department she would cut. Not one. I have no doubt that Goldwater and Reagan were rolling over in their graves after this performance.

And when it comes to taxes, Palin simply says she wants to lower taxes, while the Democrats want to raise them. But she never clearly stated a detailed case for dramatically lower taxation or spending. She had no answer at all when Biden pointed out that McCain has supported tax increases hundreds of times. Is this what it has come to? Both sides arguing over who has supported tax increases the most? Is a conservative now the candidate who has supported tax increases only 120 times, instead of 400 times by the liberal Democrat?

And when it comes to war, Palin obviously supports ever-expanding military budgets (and taxation) to support more intervention and wars all over the world. There was not a mention by either candidate of cutting foreign aid, military bases or waste in the pentagon budget. Perhaps major contributions by defense contractors got in the way of that possible policy difference?

In the end, this debate proved the differences between the two major political parties to be small. Both Biden and Palin stand for bigger government- the only debate is over how big. With Biden (and Obama) it’s always just a little bigger. Palin was chosen by McCain to win back conservative and Libertarian votes. She is an actress playing a part: the part of Wayne Allyn Root- a fiscally conservative, anti-tax, Libertarian small businessperson and citizen politician from a Western state, that wants to restore common sense and give power back to the people.

Every 4 years Republicans pull the same charade- then they get elected and go back to bribing corporate interests and spending like drunken sailors (no offense intended towards drunken sailors). Democrats don’t even bother to hide what they stand for- higher taxes, bigger spending, bigger government, more power to teachers unions. Republicans just hide their true intensions much better. They run for election as small government Libertarians, then get elected and expand government to record levels. I call it “the November surprise”- they talk like Libertarians, then govern like liberals. Only now- after all the decades of promises broken- it should no longer come as a surprise. Having me on that stage would have exposed the 2-party system for the sham that it is. I now understand why I wasn’t invited to spoil the party. But boy would it have been fun!

Wayne Root is the Libertarian Vice Presidential nominee on the Libertarian Presidential ticket of Bob Barr/Wayne Root. His web site is: www.ROOTforAmerica.com.

New video from ThirdPartyTicket.com asks that Nader, Barr, Baldwin and McKinney be included in the debates

Trevor Lyman’s http://thirdpartyticket.com has released this new video. ThirdPartyTicket now has over 30,00 visitors and 7638 pledges out of 10,000 needed to stage a more inclusive Presidential debate in New York City. They are trying to collect the remaining pledges by October 8. Lyman previously staged “money” bombs which collected $6 million and $4 million for Ron Paul per day. He is asking that viewers share this video with their friends.

Libertarians file Connecticut ballot access lawsuit

Posted at Ballot Access News

On October 1, the Connecticut Libertarian Party filed a federal lawsuit to get Bob Barr on the ballot. Libertarian Party of Connecticut v Bysiewicz, 3:08cv-1513. The case is assigned to Judge Janet Hall, a Clinton appointee.

The state believes that the Libertarian presidential petition was 280 signatures short, but Libertarian volunteers have found 209 signatures that were erroneously invalidated. The volunteers haven’t finished re-checking all of the rejected signatures. The lawsuit evidence will include evidence of the revalidation work performed so far. The party also believes that while the petition sheets were in the custody of elections officials, 116 petition sheets were lost.

A discussion of some of the factors leading to the LP falling short in Connecticut follows in the comments at Ballot Access News.

Congress passes giant bipartisan screwjob of plebeians, 263-171 in the House and 75-25 in the Senate

CNN reports

The measure passed by 92 votes, 263 to 171, with the plan picking up support on both sides of the aisle after going down to defeat in the House on Monday.

President Bush said he would sign the bill Friday.

“These steps represent decisive action to ease the credit crunch that is now threatening our economy,” Bush said of the provisions of the bill.

“The legislation is a critical step toward stabilizing our financial markets and ensuring an uninterrupted flow of credit to households and businesses,” Ben Bernanke, chairman of the Federal Reserve, said in a statement.

From a facebook alert:

1) The American Government spends trillions of our tax dollars bailing companies out. When the CEO makes millions a year, there is no reason they need tax dollars to help them out.

And from the bailout proposal:
2) Section 5: Rights; Management; Sale of Mortgage-Related Assets.
(c) Sale of Mortgage-Related Assets.–The Secretary may, at any time, upon terms and conditions and at prices determined by the Secretary, sell, or enter into securities loans, repurchase transactions or other financial transactions in regard to, any mortgage-related asset purchased under this Act.

3) Section 8: Review.
Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.

4) Section 10: Increase in Statutory Limit on the Public Debt.
Subsection (b) of section 3101 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking out the dollar limitation contained in such subsection and inserting in lieu thereof $11,315,000,000,000.

5) Section 8 prohibits the constitutional right to petition the government. This legislation will be in violation of the US Constitution and many State Constitutions.

‘Fair and Balanced’ (Fascist) Financial Media Attacks Heroic Jim Rogers

Truth is treason in the Empire of Lies:

LEAP Press Release: Three in four Americans believe War On Drugs is a failure

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: October 2, 2008

CONTACT: Tom Angell: (202) 557-4979 or media@leap.cc

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Three out of four U.S. voters see the war on drugs as a failure, according to a Zogby poll released today. More than one in three voters believe that the single best way to fight drug traffickers and drug abuse would be “legalizing some drugs” or “ending the war on drugs.” That’s more than those who think “stopping drugs at the U.S. border” or eradicating drugs in their countries of origin would be more effective. It is also more than those who think that reducing the demand for drugs in America is the best tactic.

The poll results come as no surprise to Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, a group of police, judges, prosecutors, corrections officials and FBI and DEA agents who fought on the front lines of the war on drugs and who believe that ending prohibition is the only way to begin solving drug abuse and drug market violence problems. “Voters are ready for reform of our nation’s failed drug prohibition policies,” said Jack Cole, a former New Jersey State Police undercover narcotics officer and LEAP’s executive director. “But when will lawmakers get the message?”

“With the 75th anniversary of the repeal of alcohol prohibition coming up in December, now seems like a perfect time to put gangsters, terrorists, and cartels out of business through legalized regulation, just like we did in 1933,” Cole continued.

Cole and other LEAP members from across the United States are available for print and broadcast interviews. Please contact Tom Angell at media@leap.cc.

Complete data on the Zogby poll’s drug questions can be found on pp. 43-49 of this PDF: http://www.zogby.com/news/X-IAD.pdf

Law Enforcement Against Prohibition’s mission is to reduce the multitude of unintended harmful consequences resulting from fighting the war on drugs and to lessen the incidence of death, disease, crime, and addiction by ultimately ending drug prohibition. See www.CopsSayLegalizeDrugs.com for more. 

Obama Kids: Sing for Change (Pyongyang Remix)

Phillies: Barr did Worse than Keaton so Leave Her Alone

George Phillies makes the case that the accusations against Angela Keaton are mere trifles compared to Bob Barr’s alleged failure to declare his conflict of interest while serving on the LNC.

My defense is simple: Relative to the acts of other members of the LNC and their staff over the past two years, Keaton’s acts are the merest of peccadilloes.  Other members of the LNC and their staff were not disciplined for far more serious acts.  To discipline Keaton when those other persons went scot-free would clearly be unjust.

Dr Phillies claims that Congressman Barr never disclosed to the LNC the fact that he was raising funds for and contributing to conservative Republican candidates via his Bob Barr Leadership Fund, some of whom were running against Libertarians.

While a sitting member of the LNC, Bob Barr — through his Bob Barr Leadership fund — raised over a million dollars to support conservatives for their 2008 election campaigns. When you raise money from others, for a particular purpose, you have a duty to those others to spend their money on that purpose.

Barr’s duty to support electing conservative Republicans conflicted with the Libertarian Party’s interest in seeing every Republican defeated. Instead, Barr’s PAC actually supported Republicans.

Barr failed to disclose that he was actively disloyal to the party, namely he was trying to defeat our prospective candidates by supporting Republicans.

Furthermore, Barr’s PAC paid his son to carry out duties for the PAC. Barr thus had an economic interest that was contrary to the Party’s interests, namely, his family would thrive financially when the PAC did well by causing Libertarian Party candidates to lose, and, conversely, his family would do less well financially when his PAC’s candidates were defeated by Libertarian Party candidates.

Read the entire article at: TheDailyLiberty.com: In Defense of Angela Keaton, Part 2

VP debate liveblog

I will be liveblogging tonight’s vice presidential debate at http://pjoelection.blogspot.com/. While it’s obviously a major party event, I’ll try to keep up with Boston Tea Party vice presidential nominee Tom Knapp’s updates from outside as well.

Cato’s Niskanen on the ‘case for a different Libertarian Party’

Cato Institute Chairman William Niskanen, a fine gentleman who had the (much larger) office three doors down from mine during my brief time at Cato, and who chaired the Council of Economic Advisers under President Reagan, makes “A Case For A Different Libertarian Party” in the latest Cato Policy Report.

Niskanen argues, “The effectiveness of the Libertarian Party and almost all other third parties in U.S. history in promoting their policy positions has usually been counterproductive, because running a third-party candidate reduces the vote for the less undesirable of the major party candidates. A disciplined group that is prepared to endorse one or the other major party candidate in a close election, however, can have a substantial effect on the issue positions of both major party candidates.”

Any thoughts?

Help me get it

As Wes Benedict can attest, I am an idiot.  I have been trying to get my head around this bailout plan, which I oppose, but since the media narrative from the start has been that it will eventually pass in some form, even if they just keep voting over and over and over until Congress gives in from exhaustion, I have not seen one question adequately considered:

What would actually happen if the government did nothing?

Obviously readers here are libertarians, but a lot of you are well versed in economics, so I thought I’d take this question to you.  What would happen, good and bad, if the banks were simply allowed to fail?

Bob Barr on privacy

Posted at Bob Barr blog

Bob goes into how our liberties have been put at stake by the Bush Administration and Congress, under both Republicans and Democrats. He blasts the recent FISA law and say, “When government grows so large that it knows virtually everything a person is doing, then you have no freedom.”

Libertarian Vice Presidential candidate Wayne Root: Just Say No to trillion dollar bailout

Posted at Root For America

I’ve stated for months now on hundreds of talk radio shows across the USA that Republicans and Democrats have morphed into the same party- I call them big and bigger, dumb and dumber. McCain and Obama offer the same ideas- just with a slightly different right or left tilt. They both stand for corporate interests. You think only Republicans stand for Wall Street? Check the facts. Obama has gotten millions of dollars in contributions from corporate welfare queens like Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, AIG, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. You think Obama stands for change? When Obama is done with America, all we’ll have left is change.

The reality is that Obama TALKS about change. Just like McCain talks about being a fiscal conservative who believes in smaller government and lower taxes. It’s all just the usual talk at election time. I call it the “November political con game.”

Read the rest

Scotty Boman, Michigan Libertarian for U.S. Senate puts out new video

H/T IPR

In case you missed them the first time…

Here are the most read posts at LFV thus far, and how many people have read them:

Top Posts for all days ending 2008-10-02 (Summarized)

"Girls Gone Wild" founder victimized by	3,804
I'm a whore and a glory hole slut	3,378
Medical marijuana vending machines	3,317
Civil forfeiture robs elderly couple of	2,615
Loretta Nall Sends Troy King Appropriate	1,362
LFV Exclusive: LNC filing ballot access	1,309
Young teen's sexual shenanigans puts two	1,078
Sweetass video.	964
Dhiyaa Al-Musawi Interview on Memri-TV	871
CALL TO ARMS: LNC trying to censure Ang	809
About LFV and its Contributors	786
Vote This Ass-Clown Out!	779
Ron Paul: 'I'm supporting Chuck Baldwin'	779
Bob Barr: An Enemy of Libertarians	772
Haugh demands ballot petitions be burned	730
Bob Barr tells America what "Libertarian	706
Bob Barr's extremely un-libertarian view	679
Who are all the LP candidates?	679
Michelle Shinghal is in the hizzy	627
Voices from LFV Mailbag: Austrian Econom	622
Gary Fincher's Letter to LP Judicial Com	607
Liveblogging LP Convention: C-Span Cover	596
Troy King reported to be dating Troy Uni	571
Dirty cop convicted in no-knock warrant	555
Burridge Gets Big Bloody Red Nose, Start	544
Bob Barr: Statist, abortionist, homophob	542
Ending a long-term relationship.	539
Nolan Chart chooses Jesse Ventura as Ron	536
Ninth Circuit finds pre-employment drug	531
Has culture of timidity paralyzed the LN	499
Andrew Davis responds to accusations re	493
State of the Union Preview	488
Sullentrup threatens Angela Keaton	487
Bob Barr and the Big Fascist Lie	473
A message from Angela Keaton	445
$6,000 Challenge: Bald is Ruwartiful!	435
Angela Keaton has no faith in competency	433
My Lai Massacre remembered by survivors	433
FBI posts fake hyperlinks to entrap woul	418
Taxes of Evil	418
Barr campaign admits to lying in fundrai	415
Party Like It's 1773	411
Transgender male meets discrimination du	409
Why Multiple Freedom Parties Is Dumb	407
Post-nomination thoughts and tidbits	400
Motion for Removal of Bob Barr as LP pre	397
DEA and Blackwater raid and destroy medi	386
Liveblog: LP Convention on C-Span: Presi	379
LNC Election Results	377
LNC Recollections Indicate Keaton Comple	376
Murray Sabrin – Worthy of support?	373
Kubby in the News	359
Angela Keaton liveblog from LNC meeting	355
Steve Kubby: "States' Rights" is an Ant	346
FreeLibertarianStickers.com offering Bar	343
LNC = Lawless Narcissism Chamber	338
How is Bob Barr spending campaign donati	334
Why is Shane Cory still being paid by th	334
Root/Kubby could have been 'unity ticket	332
So, what happened at the LP of Massachus	331
Governor of Connecticut Gets Owned	328
Did the Gravel campaign fail to compensa	327
Another blow to the 'Paul Congress' – Te	327
Why I'm Voting Barr-Root, And Why You Sh	321
Antiwar songs: "Rooster" by Alice In Cha	318
Cop calls 911, thinks he's dying from po	317
A brief history of the Boston Tea Party,	317
Candidate Endorsement: Susan Hogarth for	316
New TPW owner revokes libertarian contri	314
Statement from Don Rasmussen re Bob Barr	313
LP Acting ED Robert Kraus responds to cr	306
Bob Barr bringing in ringers to manipula	300
Cory scapegoats Angela Keaton to get out	297
Angela Keaton threatened for doing her j	294
Guest Contributor George Phillies: Bob B	294
Russ Verney says Bush showed "incredible	291
The LPHQ NeoConspiracy	289
The unreported near-slaughter at last we	288
Legal or not, medical marijuana patients	288
Record vote total for LP in 2008: Here's	287
One percent of US adult population in pr	287
LP Media Director leaves DC for … Atla	285
A Conversation With Mike Gravel	285
LP refuses LFV press credentials for con	285
Update on "LFV denied convention press c	283
Barr's website says he invited Ron Paul	280
G.E. (no longer) live in Denver: Posthum	277
What is the government's proper function	277
Wes Benedict applies for National LP Exe	274
New Hampshire formally places Phillies o	270
Sometimes I just have to shake my head i	270
Palin's minister drives out witchcraft,	270
Why Bob Barr really offered to replace W	269
G.E. in Denver III: Gravel vs. Starchild	266
Lew Rockwell on Jimmy Carter	266
Government admits that the living dead a	265
Bill Redpath asks Angela Keaton to resig	265
Old Buck feared Ed Brown would murder El	265
Soldier who threw puppy off cliff discha	263
LNC Falls Short of Own Policies on Trans	262
Dear Libertarian, help us with our conve	261
GE: Ruwart To Seek LNC Spot	261
George Phillies on accusations about his	260
Voices from the anti-Barr petition	253
Libertarians for Art, Entertainment and	253
Christine Smith: 'The LP is dead, I'm ou	252
Rep Ted Poe of TX gives Congress hell ab	246
George Phillies on Global Warming	246
LNC Smackdown!	246
Campaign For Liberty, or Campaign For Ic	245
Decriminalization of marijuana continues	245
Bob Barr recants position on Wiccans in	242
Is the Libertarian Party a real politica	241
Angry voters recall Mayor for fitness ph	240
If you get an unexpected package in the	239
IRS Gone Wild: Joe Francis claims allege	238
New Hampshire lawsuit filed, seeks to re	237
Phillies responds to revelation about Ba	235
Dr. Mary Ruwart announces presidential c	234
Barr spends over 36K of donations on NAS	234
Bob Barr to sue church, while lying abou	233
A Mistake But Not a Sellout	231
The Austrian/Monetarist split as a proxy	227
"Liberty For America" offering membershi	226
Bob Barr's "emotional distress"	224
Robert Milnes: Open Letter To Progressiv	221
Man who gave Christine Smith her "Outsta	221
Cindy McCain: Drug Dealer	220
Ed & Elaine Brown supporters on tria	220
The incredible arrogance of John Edwards	220
Barr, Barr-Root, Boor-Ratt, Borat!	219
Better Websites for LP Candidates	218
What positions does Bob Barr support?	218
George Phillies' statement to Massachuse	217
'12 Angry Candidates	217
Allen Hacker To Be Professor At Gene Cha	217
Barr/Root Have My Support	214
Chief Wana Dubie running for Missouri Go	214
Haugh's controversial email re Kevin Bar	211
Update on demand to burn petitions	211
Six plank suggestions for the Boston Tea	209
LP membership dues = taxation without re	207
LPNH lawsuit	206
Deathblogging the Libertarian Party Nati	206
Washington Blade Covers Kent Snyder's De	204
Robert Milnes: "Independent progressive/	203
Update: Shane Cory continuing compensati	200
Boston Tea Party comments on Libertarian	200
Keaton Agonistes	199
Angela Keaton responds; says LP members	198
Michelle Shinghal rocks the national tel	196
Flavors of libertarianism	195
Another viewpoint on FLDS case	194
80,107 signatures, two hotties, and mism	193
Still think people 'don't care' about th	192
Taxes of Evil 2	191
BTP fraud exposed	191
Angela Keaton: "LNC 2010: Your Hawaiian	190
Jacqueline Passey: Endorsements	190
Famed prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi wants	190
Reminder: LFV Live! with special guest A	189
Bob Barr loses Texas lawsuit to knock Mc	188
Stuber email: It would take a miracle fo	188
Remember Our Enemy	187
Health Care: Alternatives to Socialism a	186
Immortal Technique – Bin Laden	185
Will Gravel get to speak at Denver?	185
Safety Alert from National Propane Gas A	185
Barr (finally) publishes issue pages on	184
The Barr dilemma: What's a radical to do	184
Steve Kubby: "Tyranny of the Pinheads"	183
George Phillies: Barr promoting Liberta	182
Cops Gone Wild: Corrupt Sheriff threaten	182
G.E. live from Denver: Part 1	182
Speaking of yellow ribbons	181
TitaniumGirl gives birth to world's smal	181
College presidents: 'Lower drinking age	179
Photoblog of historic same-sex marriage	179
IRS sucks life out of space too	179
More on Badnarik	178
Because We're The Government….And You'	177
Another LNC Conflict of Interest Goes Al	177
Shane Corey goes to work for Viguerie	176
A note to all those dedicated paid LP pe	176
LP seeking applicants for 2010 Bylaws Co	173
Angela Keaton to appear on Liberty Cap T	173
Barrett asks for removal of LP Political	173
CSpan Convention Coverage Schedule	173
Angela Keaton: Day 2 LNC meeting liveblo	173
LNC Bylaws Committee Appointments	172
Ron Paul Press Conference: Where's Bob?	171
Landham: back on the LP ballot line?	171
Candidate Endorsement: Chris Bennett fo	171
With Liberty & Justice For All… wi	170
Fuck Da Eagles or FCC?	169
LP founder David Nolan: "The Barr Campai	169
Should libertarians support Chuck Baldwi	169
Chip-in for Kent Snyder	169
Tom Knapp Attacks The Fair Tax	167
The Starr Resolution	167
Petition to renounce and remove Barr/Roo	166
Libertarians for Obama	166
LP validity rate in Connecticut only 54%	166
Humble request of Barr/Root backers	166
Robert Milnes: "The Libertarian Party Is	165
Dems don’t know about my spoiler e	164
A review of Ron Paul's The Revolution: A	163
Barr vs. Paul On The Issues: Barr Comes	162
Controversial overdose rescue kit saves	162
Another Candidate For Sean Haugh To "Pro	162
An LFV Exclusive!	161
The Importance of Strategy	160
CALL TO ARMS: LNC at it again, voting o	159
Dubai-ya Officially Declares Martial Law	159
Yeah, Allen Hacker is fucking fruitloops	158
A few Denver pics	157
Breaking News: LNC NH lawsuit to be file	155
Worst candidate actually on the ballot t	155
Police brutality in Philadelphia last ni	155
Anonymous hacks into Republican VP Sarah	154
LFV Live!: Final LP Convention wrap-up	153
ElfNinosMom for Vice President?	153
The Barr is closed, the W.A.R. is over	152
George Phillies Blasts Debt Takeover	152
LPMass to sue for candidate substitution	151
Gary Fincher's second letter to Judicial	150
Christine Smith openly insults male LP o	150
Ongoing Interview with Juliet Annerino,	150
Video: Bob Barr discusses GOP lawsuit to	150
LibertyMix: 2 Years Has Passed & Sti	150
I will vote for Bob Barr in the electora	149
Barr disqualified for West Virginia ball	149
LP News and other questions	148
G.E. live from Denver: Part 2 – Libertar	148
From Freedom To Fascism	147
Eugenics being promoted to prevent child	146
Was "drug warrior" in Blackwater t-shirt	146
Becky Isais' substantiation of Gravel co	146
Another (intentionally open-ended) topic	146
The Anti-Federalist Epiphany	146
Angry ex-boyfriend, or casualty of war?	146
I hereby endorse the SHIT outta Ron Paul	144
Global Cooling by Steve Kubby	144
Bob Barr's attempted thuggery thwarted b	143
Loretta Nall on Hating Wal-Mart	143
LNC Alternate, Scott Lieberman, do the m	143
Top issues	143
A brief history of the Boston Tea Party,	142
"Manning's Fierce Prayer for Bristol Pal	142
Bob Barr gets Libertarian Party some pub	142
The State of the Union: Libertarian Resp	141
EW's List of Memorable Antiwar Films	141
Restore04: Every Child Gets A Pony	140
Texas Libertarian Debates Fair Tax Natio	140
Former narc to market video titled "Neve	140
When Hillary Attacks	139
FreeLibertarianStickers.com demands $700	139
Just For Fun	139
Victims of the Bob Barr/Ron Paul Immigra	138
Bob Barr disgraces the Libertarian Party	136
Henry Rollins Had a Proposal for Ann Cou	136
Dave Grohl's "Red, White, and Barbeque"	135
"Crusty right winger" Barr has "little f	135
Attempting To Kick A Bad Habit	134
Too brilliant not to share.	134
Brown supporters' trial ended today	134
A $200 per gram tax on cocaine proposed	134
Why Libertarians should avoid the 'conse	133
Rep Barney Frank (D-Mass) wants marijuan	133
Voices from LFV comments: Arthur Torrey'	132
The Fed's massive redistribution of weal	131
Saturday business sessions	131
Foreclosures of the Rich and Famous	131
Barrett asks for Haugh resignation, Part	130
Candidate Endorsement: Mary Ruwart will	130
Barr Slams Freddie/Fannie Bailout	129
LPMass to consider severing all relation	128
New Ron Paul conspiracy theory	128
Price Gouging Hypocrites In Congress Deb	128
Newest Barr brochure, distributed by LPH	127
Why The Libertarian Party Is Still Bette	127
Last chance to submit agenda items for S	127
Another new face!	127
Barr crashes liberal blogger convention,	126
Voices from Comments: Tom Knapp explains	126
Netroots Nation blogger asks Barr about	126
Sickos: What's a free-market solution?	124
Boston Tea Party's Charles Jay on Fox Ne	124
Somalia vs. Ethiopia (Aliens vs. Predato	124
George Phillies concession speech with n	124
Todd Andrew Barnett condemns LP Senate c	124
Talk Amongst Yourselves	124
Project Vote Smart	123
60 Seconds For Bob: How to defraud call	123
IMPORTANT! Iran War Resolution May Be P	123
Barr on HuffPo: "I was wrong about the W	122
LP criticizes Biden for being 'too liber	122
WAR completes another revolution around	122
Where does Bob Barr stand on DOMA?	121
West Virginia Libertarian petition repor	121
Obama: Socialism Will Conquer Terrorism	121
Last (but not least!) Free Voice contrib	121
John Finan: the struggle goes on	119
LP Conn lists Phillies as their presiden	119
Jeffersonian Democrats: Let's bring them	118
Can I Ask One Question?	118
Phillies wants off Massachusetts ballot	118
Bob Barr's Second Amendment Record	118
Details for December LNC meeting	117
Government Gone Wild: Extortion Edition	117
Phillies speaks out against potential Ba	117
Texas Prison Camp Future American Gulag?	116
BTP Presidential nominee Charles Jay out	116
Immigration and the 2008 LP Presidential	115
Angela Keaton: "The Bitch Is Back"	115
Texas Libertarians resist seduction by L	114
George Phillies: "We Can Politely Disagr	114
Robert's Rules And a Plea to Angela	114
Kubby 2008 update	113
LFV Exclusive…….	113
Candidates Gone Wild: Presidential Wackj	112
Vast Majority of Americans Think Bush an	112
"60 Seconds For Bob": Why is Barr sudde	112
Liveblog: LP Convention on C-Span: Chair	112
Angela Keaton's report from Rally for th	112
Paris Hilton video parody	111
Angela Keaton continues to give 'em hell	111
Steve Newton warns libertarians about "F	111
Distorted lens: views of libertarianism	111
Toastmaster critiques Root convention sp	111
'Peter Orvetti is an Idiot,' Part One of	110
Man foregoes snake oil, sells snake vodk	108
Angela Keaton calls BS on LNC re search	106
Candidate Endorsement: Thomas Knapp for	105
Liberty Cap Talk Live: Angela Keaton int	104
Steve Kubby's MLK day message	104
Wayne Allen Root for President?	103
LP Platform Proposals for 2008	103
Steve Kubby on front page of Auburn Dail	103
State of the Empire	102
Rasmussen Poll Data	102
Glenn Beck's horrifying hospital experie	102
Kubby Update 2007.01.19	102
Libertarian Party of Louisiana chair exp	101
85-year-old woman grabs gun, forces burg	101
Disturbing medical marijuana case involv	101
2081: Egalitarian Dystopia	101
Friday LP Business Meetings	100
Steve Newton's "Forty bucks for four Lib	100
Susan Hogarth on Barr and Ballot Access	100
How will Bob Barr spend your money?	99
Gravel announces Libertarian presidentia	99
Here's your chance to SHOW the Barr camp	99
Better dead than red?	99
Tee Time!	99
George Phillies: Massachusetts President	97
Florida Lawmakers Want To Ban "Balls"	97
'Underground Libertarian Party'	97
SOB Campaigns In Missouri	97
I bet the drug warriors are proud of the	97
Outreach, or Outhouse?	96
ACLU agrees to represent LPMass	96
Barr Has Bipartisan Appeal…	96
Susan Hogarth: "An Inch Too Far: Barr on	95
Bob Barr's Stop the Bill of Rights Black	95
Restore04: Private WMD	95
Jason Gatties supports the removal of Bo	95
PTSD-ridden Army medic in famous photo d	94
Reason eats some Cannolis	94
Comcast experimenting with Big Brother t	94
LNC Meeting September 6-7	94
Barack Obama: Bush's State-Religion Inte	93
Another high profile case involving a te	93
Technically legal signs for libraries	93
Bob Barr on the Fed: Not encouraging	93
Arthur Torrey's Call To Action	92
LP Drama!	92
Libertarian Debate on Google	92
Fuck Giuliani. Fuck Fox News.	92
Bouf the philosophical stoner libertaria	91
Unintended Financial Consequences	90
"Classically Liberal" argues that Barr p	90
The great dilemma: Health insurance or B	90
Marginalizing murder	90
Restore04: Bill of Rights	90
Mike Munger in (at least one) debate in	90
Libertarian Party featured in The Econom	89
First State Chairman of the Libertarian	88
Jim Casarjian-Perry: Restore '04!	88
LPMass Resolution: Leave LSLA, encourage	88
Tell Congress: Just Say No to Donkey Pun	87
Anti-Barr graphics at convention	87
$46 Underwear Fighting $65 Million Domai	85
California is ridiculous	85
Tucker Carlson to announce last-minute L	85

Are you ready to be the voice of liberty for the Libertarian Party?

From an LPHQ email:

Are you ready to be the voice of liberty for the Libertarian Party?

If so, you just may have your chance.

The election is 36 days around the corner, and the LP is gearing up for our first radio ads of the season, and we’re looking for you, the loyal supporter, for ideas.

Please submit your best script, or your own commercial, to contest@lp.org. Entries are to be 25 seconds long, and we’ll put the “Approved By” in it.

For ideas, listen to the Barr campaign’s radio advertisement here.

The deadline for submission is Oct. 3, and the winner will be notified within a week of the contest’s close. The top advertisement will be used in radio ads across the country.

So, put on your “creative caps,” and let us truly hear the “message of liberty!”

Schansberg encourages Hill to stand firm against bail-out

September 29, 2008

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Schansberg encourages Hill to stand firm against bail-out

Dr. Eric Schansberg, an economics professor and the Libertarian candidate for the U.S. Congress in Indiana’s 9th District, responded to the House defeat of the proposed $700 billion bail-out in the financial sector—and praised Rep. Baron Hill for voting against it.

Asked about Hill’s vote, Dr. Schansberg said, “It’s clear that Baron is not categorically opposed to another bail-out. And he’s not a fiscal conservative by any objective measure. So, I don’t know the reasons for his vote today. Maybe it’s the right vote for the wrong reasons. In any case, I’m thankful that he took a stand today for fiscal conservatism. Hopefully, he’ll continue to have a strong enough spine to hold that position.”

On fiscal conservatism in general and the bail-out in particular, Schansberg said: “At some point, we have to rely on markets again. And we can’t afford to borrow money to bail out industries and try to artificially boost the economy. All of our spending and debt threatens to devalue our dollar further and drive our economy into a ditch.”

On potential policy changes, Schansberg applauded Mike Sodrel’s proposal to suspend the capital gains tax and to revisit “mark-to-market” accounting rules: “From what I’ve read, ‘mark-to-market’ accounting rules are the most underrated cause of the current problems. Certainly, the sub-prime mortgage mess and government involvement in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are at the top of that list. But ‘mark-to-market’ combined with aspects of Sarbanes-Oxley seems to be a major contributor.”

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.

Massachusetts Libertarian U.S. Senate Candidate Bob Underwood Blasts Bailout

Sept. 29

Springfield, MA. Libertarian U.S. Senate Candidate Bob Underwood today blasted the Paulson bank bailout. “The one group sure to lose is the American worker. That includes Americans who wish they were working. They’re struggling with their own mortgages, blamed if they’re not competitive on world markets, and now they get a bonus: Not only must they pay for their own housing, they must pick up the tab for someone else’s.

“The Donkey-Elephant dance went to bail out bankers, not to help the average American,” Underwood explained. “Some mortgage companies gave no-document loans, not even asking tax forms as evidence of income. Compare that with the grilling that most of us got when we applied for a mortgage. Under the bailout system, the executives who threw away their investors’ money will keep their mansions. Americans who could never qualify for a mortgage will be taxed to pay for homes for people who did qualify.

“Some people want to blame the person who just wanted a place to live. Borrowers just played their part in a bigger picture. For years bankers bet on inflation. As time went on, mortgage payments were supposed to get easier, because inflation drives up wages. The crisis came when outsourcing made salaries level. Borrowers couldn’t afford their mortgages.

“If you want more of the same, more ripoffs of taxpayers, just keep voting for Democrats and Republicans. For real change, vote Libertarian,” Underwood urged.

–30–

The mortgage crisis is part of a big picture discussed at
www.electbobunderwood.org

For more on why the bailout is a terrible idea, note economist-bloggers
Mike Shedlock http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/

Bonddad
http://bonddad.blogspot.com/index.html

To contact the candidate:

Robert Joseph Underwood
83 Cherrelyn St.
Springfield, MA 01104-2441

rjunderwood2000@yahoo.com

Help stop the trillion dollar ripoff

Via Campaign For Liberty

The following Senators are considered key votes. Please take a moment to call these Senators and urge them to cast their vote against this dangerous legislation. And please, call your two U.S. Senators and urge them to vote no as well.

Elizabeth Dole (NC) -

* D.C.: Phone: (202) 224-6342 Fax: (202) 224-1100
* Raleigh: Phone: (919) 856-4630 Fax: (919) 856-4053

Norm Coleman (MN) -

* D.C.: Phone: (202) 224-5641 Fax: (202) 224-1152
* St. Paul: Phone: (651) 645-0323 Fax: (651) 645-3110

Roger Wicker (MS) -

* D.C.: Phone: (202) 224-6253 Fax: (202) 228-0378
* Jackson: Phone: (601) 965-4644 Fax: (601) 965-4007

Gordon Smith (OR) -

* D.C.: Phone: (202) 224-3753 Fax: (202) 228-3997
* Portland: Phone: (503) 326-3386 Fax: (503) 326-2900

Lyndsey Graham (SC) -

* D.C.: Phone: (202) 224-5972 Fax: (202) 224-3808
* Greenville: Phone: (864) 250-1417 Fax: (864) 250-4322

Ted Stevens (AK) -

* D.C.: Phone: (202) 224-3004 Fax: (202) 224-2354
* Anchorage: Phone: (907) 271-5915 Fax: (907) 258-9305

The rest of ‘em

Trevor Lyman’s ThirdPartyTicket.com more than half way to 10,000 pledge goal for organizing alternative Presidential debates

Trevor Lyman is more than half way towards his goal of raising 10,000 pledges to stage a debate with all the candidates who are on enough state ballots to have a mathematical chance of winning the election. Lyman is previously known for organizing Ron Paul’s money bombs. Currently, ThirdPartyTicket.com lists the number of people who have pledged to help fund the proposed alternative debate as follows:

9/29/08 – 5,782 pledges
9/28/08 – 4,695 pleges
9/27/08 – 702 pledges

Lyman proposes to hold the debate at a yet to be announced location in New York City. It will be broadcast by BreakTheMatrix.com, which is sponsoring the debate along with Free and Equal and Open Debates.

The candidates who are invited are:

Constitution Party Candidate: Chuck Baldwin
Democratic Party Candidate: Barack Obama
Green Party Candidate: Cynthia McKinney

Independent Party Candidate: Ralph Nader
Libertarian Party Candidate: Bob Barr
Republican Party Candidate: John McCain

BreakTheMatrix is also soliciting questions for the proposed debate.

As of this writing 6653 people have pledged to donate.

Libertarian Party of Alabama Chair Stephen Gordon speaks out about gas price gouging laws, gas shortages, and the Wall Street bailout proposal

In a pair of press releases, Libertarian Party of Alabama chair Stephen Gordon addresses the Wall Street bailout proposal that was narrowly defeated yesterday in Congress, as well as the gas shortages currently taking place in Georgia and several Southeastern states.

Gordon blames gas shortages on anti-price gouging laws which several states have passed, pointing out that neighboring states which have not passed such laws have no gasoline shortages.

In the second press release, Gordon points out that Libertarian Party Presidential candidate Bob Barr accurately predicted that more bailout proposals would follow the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bailouts.

Atlanta – For the last couple of weeks, the availability of gasoline has dominated the news in the Southeast. Georgia, which has stricter laws against “price gouging” than Alabama does, is suffering from long gas lines at the few service stations which have a remaining supply of petroleum.

Today’s Montgomery Advertiser calls for additional government intervention into the natural process of supply and demand.

“Some other Southeastern states take a different approach, and it would be wise for Alabama legislators to take a look at these laws,” the paper declared. “Georgia, Mississippi and Tennessee prohibit any price increases that are not related to increased costs. A gas station may pass along to customers the higher costs it incurs for fuel, for example, but may not raise prices beyond that level.”

“As I live in Morgan County but work in Atlanta, I see the impact of government intervention into the retail gasoline market on a daily basis,” said Libertarian Party of Alabama Chairman Stephen Gordon. “I bought gas last night in Calhoun County, Alabama, but by the time I made it to Cobb County, Georgia, there was no gas anywhere to be found.”

“Consumers have no incentive to conserve gasoline when the prices are artificially low,” Gordon continued. “If the cost was higher, they would be driving less or using more efficient vehicles. Additionally, when gas prices become high enough, there is an increased motivation for gas station owners and operators to truck fuel in from greater distances – passing the additional cost on to consumers.”

An Associated Press article also published today anecdotally highlighted this point. “Right now, I’ll pay anything for gas,” construction worker Larry Jenkins said. “I don’t care if it’s $5 or $6 a gallon. I need it.”

“Alabamians should be proud that we beat Georgia on the football field over the weekend,” Gordon said. “We should also be proud that we have better public policy pertaining to price gouging than Georgia. Or would the Montgomery Advertiser prefer that we limit our football scores to no more than one touchdown per quarter?”

As evidenced by recent debate pertaining to federal bailouts, the Libertarian Party is the only political party in America opposed to government intervention in the marketplace.

Birmingham, AL – The U.S House of Representatives failed to pass the $700 billion bailout measure earlier today by margin of 205 to 228. Of the Alabama congressional delegation, Congressman Aderholt was the only person to vote against the bill.

“While I often find myself at odds with Congressman Aderholt, his vote today should be certainly be applauded,” said Libertarian Party of Alabama Chairman Stephen Gordon. “Unlike the two major parties, Libertarians support fiscal responsibility and oppose government intervention into the marketplace. Public opinion polling shows that an overwhelming majority of Americans agree with the libertarian position on this and many other issues.”

Today, the New York Times stated that “a majority of the House voted along with Bob Barr, the Libertarian who said, ‘We need to make Wall Street take the hit for its irresponsible investment decisions.’” Previously, Politico indicated that former Congressman Barr, who is running for President on the Libertarian Party ticket, had earned the bragging rights to say “I told you so” about the general bailout situation.

Barr accurately predicted that once the bailout floodgate is opened for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, it will be difficult to stop the process for other corporate or government entities. On Neil Cavuto’s Fox News program, Barr referred to the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac intervention as “a BOFH. This is a bailout from hell.”

“Barr is consistently and courageously battling on principle for the rights of the common man — unlike most of our state congressional delegation, leaders from both parties on the Hill, as well as McCain and Obama,” said Gordon. “Obama claims to offer change, while he’s picking the pocket of the taxpayer to enrich major corporations. McCain’s claim of being a maverick is disingenuous at best, as his statements on the bailout place him in league with the president and the rest of the senior GOP leadership. The only presidential candidate supporting a constitutional limited role of government is Congressman Barr.”

The Libertarian Party of Alabama urges all Alabama voters to continue to contact their elected representatives and demand that they vote “no” on any current or future bailout proposal.

Stephen Gordon serves as the Chairman of the Libertarian Party of Alabama, Chair of the Libertarian State Leadership Alliance (national organization of LP state chairs) and as the eCampaign Manager for the Bob Barr 2008 Presidential Campaign.

Bob Barr in Reason Magazine counter-debate, Fox News, American Spectator, Politico Gameday and New York Times

Bob Barr blog reports that video of the Reason magazine counter-debate with Libertarian Party presidential nominee Bob Barr is now available.

In other Barr news, the blog has video of the candidate on the Fox program Your World with Neil Cavuto:

Barr had five campaign stops in the Charleston, SC area today, and has been given credit by the American Spectator, Politico Gamedayand the New York Times for helping to stop the Wall Street bailout.

His next campaign swing will be through Illinois and Indiana on Oct. 2-4.

Bob Barr blasts bailout in new campaign video

Posted at Bob Barr blog

Bob (Barr) talks about the bailout plan and wonders why the Feds are just now trying to take on the issue when they’ve know about the problem for years.

Bob says it makes no sense to give them $1 trillion to do create the same problem all over again. He adds that Republican and Democrats are both guilty for the problem and the “bogus solution” they presented.

Bob Barr has two new books coming out

From an email from from Barr campaign manager Russell Verney:

When joining the campaign, I told Bob that I would require a few things for him.

First, I needed a campaign book that was extensive and made clear his libertarian values and how those solutions would put America back on the right track.

That book, Lessons in Liberty, will be available shortly on our web site.

I also asked Bob to put together another, personal book that explained how his beliefs have evolved over the years. I knew that I was asking for quite a bit but Bob delivered despite being consistently on the campaign trail since May.

Today, Bob’s personal book, Patriot Nation, was released and is available at www.thepatriotnation.com

Wayne Root also has a new book coming out, entitled The Conscience of a Libertarian.

Mike Munger on the Issues

Latest Munger campaign email:

We thought we’d share a brief description of Mike’s positions on issues important to North Carolinians. The short statements below were taken from the more detailed Issues Page of Mike’s website. Please share this email with fellow North Carolina voters.

Mike Munger on the Issues

The reason I want to run for Governor of North Carolina as a Libertarian is that I want to restore good government to our great state. My themes, a moratorium on capital punishment, control of municipal aggression against property, a broad-based education vouchers system and ending corporate welfare, are all echoes of this one central theme. I am a liberal, in the way that Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were liberals. I believe in the human spirit more than I believe in government direction and control of human activity. As Governor, I will lead North Carolina towards a rebirth of liberty, tempered by the requirements, and the ethics, of personal responsibility.

Annexation
As Governor, I would work to persuade the General Assembly to pass legislation to curb this assault on freedom and property.

Corporate Welfare
We are being played for saps, and it is time to end this wasteful and corrupting practice. The way to attract new business, and to retain existing factories and jobs, is to create an atmosphere that is good for business. Low taxes, no burdensome regulations, and an educated and productive work force are the things that make an economy prosper.

Death Penalty
Get the state out of the killing business!
As Governor, I would immediately impose a two-year moratorium on executions in our state, and would ask for legislation ending executions completely.

Election Reform
Elections are the means by which the citizens control politicians. We cannot rely on politicians and elected officials to police their own activities. I would favor a relaxation of ballot access and retention rules for ‘third parties’. I would reduce signature requirements for ‘write-in’ challengers. I would also favor relaxing restrictions on campaign contributions, though keeping the disclosure requirements as they now stand.

Eminent Domain
The first piece of legislation I would try to persuade the
General Assembly to pass would be a statute sharply limiting the use of eminent domain to public uses. Second, I would support an amendment to the state Constitution curtailing the use of eminent domain forever.

Marriage
I would support legislation that allows legal civil unions between same sex couples, under the same conditions that this contract is offered to female/male couples. The state cannot tell churches or spiritual groups to award or withhold a sacrament or ritual of marriage. But neither can churches require that the state deny the economic benefits of the civil union contract to citizens.

School Choice
It has become customary to bash public education, and the state of our educational system in general. I want to sound a positive note; there are a lot of good things happening in North Carolina education, and I would want to continue that advance, to guide continued improvement. And the path to continued improvement is to foster choice. School choice would be the central premise of the education policy of a Munger administration.

I would offer each parent in the state of NC 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. But I would make the accreditation process streamlined and simple, fostering 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.

Victimless Crimes
The US incarcerates by far the largest proportion of its population of any country in the world, accounting for nearly one fifth of the world’s prison population.

Our state must strike a better balance, on two fronts. First, we must stop criminalizing so many behaviors that represent addictive personalities or recreational pathologies. I do not advocate the legalization of all, or even most, drugs. But I would favor decriminalizing most drug possession, and most other victimless crimes including prostitution. Second, we must stop spending so much of our money and effort on incarceration, and more on rehabilitation and alternative sentencing.