Steve G.

Archive for October, 2008|Monthly archive page

Them door hangin’ bumper stickin’ yard signin’ Libertexians

In Libertarian on October 31, 2008 at 11:55 pm

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

Advertisements

Todd Andrew Barnett Produces New Boston Tea Party Ad

In Libertarian on October 31, 2008 at 5:47 pm

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

In Libertarian on October 30, 2008 at 5:31 pm

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”

In Libertarian on October 30, 2008 at 3:14 pm

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…

In Libertarian on October 29, 2008 at 10:20 pm

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

In Libertarian, Libertarian Party-US, Media, Politics on October 29, 2008 at 9:06 pm

Robert Milnes gets an early start on 2012

In Libertarian on October 29, 2008 at 12:46 pm

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 http://www.robertmilnes4president2008.com also http://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’

In Libertarian, Libertarian Party-US, Media, Politics on October 28, 2008 at 8:45 am

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

In Activism, Libertarian, Libertarian Party-US, Libertarian Politics, Media, Politics on October 27, 2008 at 8:43 pm

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

In Boston Tea Party, Health, Politics, Presidential Candidates on October 27, 2008 at 8:34 pm

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

In Libertarian, Libertarian Party-US, Politics on October 27, 2008 at 2:47 pm

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

In Libertarian on October 27, 2008 at 12:11 pm

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

In Libertarian on October 25, 2008 at 8:06 pm

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

In Libertarian, Politics on October 25, 2008 at 6:07 am

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

In Boston Tea Party, Children, Libertarian, Politics on October 25, 2008 at 12:52 am

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

In Libertarian, Politics on October 25, 2008 at 12:21 am

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

In Activism, Boston Tea Party, Candidate Endorsement, Libertarian, Politics, Thomas L. Knapp on October 24, 2008 at 8:39 pm

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%?

In Libertarian on October 22, 2008 at 1:51 am

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

In Libertarian Convention, Libertarian Party-US, Libertarian Politics 2008, Politics on October 21, 2008 at 11:21 am

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
http://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

In Economics, Music on October 18, 2008 at 11:19 pm

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

Hat Tip: Iowa Liberty