Discuss almost whatever you want in the comments here, other than stuff that would get you and/or IPR in legal trouble, or stuff that has already been quarantined in “special” threads.
This can include news items IPR should be covering, as well as just about anything else.
However, please keep the discussion of the latest Oregon Libertarian cluster!@#$ on the May Open Thread, or, for those of you who can do so, start a new thread for it already.
🙂
Personal update: I still don’t have enough time to participate here regularly, unfortunately. 415-690-6352 if you need to get a hold of me (Paulie), or [email protected] and/or comments on this thread (both if possible) for news tips to IPR. I’ll read all comments addressed to me by name… unless you keep posting comments that don’t warrant my attention with my name in them, in which case I will no longer read comments from the person(s) that do(es) so. Unfortunately, I will not be able to participate in discussions/debates, here or anywhere else, for the foreseeable future. I’ll keep forwarding anything I receive that I think belongs on IPR to other IPR writers, but will not be posting articles myself, with rare exceptions like this one.
For those of you who have my personal email, in any situation where you can call me rather than emailing me or otherwise contacting me online, please use the phone, not the computer. Thanks!
-p
[US] Government sues Apollo 14 astronaut over lunar camera
Terry Baynes | Reuters – 2 hours ago
NEW YORK ——– The U.S. government has sued a former NASA astronaut to recover a camera used to explore the moon’s surface during the 1971 Apollo 14 mission after seeing it slated for sale in a New York auction.
The item was labeled “Movie Camera from the Lunar Surface” and billed as one of two cameras from the Apollo 14’s lunar module Antares.
…………. “directly from the collection” of pilot Edgar Mitchell and had a pre-sale estimate of $60,000 to $80,000,
He has made headlines in the past for his stated belief in the existence of extraterrestrial life.
“All equipment and property used during NASA operations remains the property of NASA unless explicitly released or transferred to another party,” the government suit said, adding NASA had no record of the camera being given to Mitchell.
[Lake: more ‘proof’ that NASA is sooooooooooo poorly run and a cover concept for Inept Government ………..]
Let it be known that the Rev. Alberto Medvedev is probably an associate of know cultist and child molester Alan Keyes. He has probably had gay relations with Wayne Allyn Root, the biggest fag of them all. Jesus Christ condemns his use of the kit kat bar in promoting that satanic practice of PLAS.
As his holiness Captain Beefheart has said, “People use funny toilet paper because it means they’re rich if it’s perfumed. I think perfumed toilet paper causes rectal cancer. You can almost judge how screwed up somebody is by the kind of toilet paper they use.”
I pray he stops violating Wayne Allyn Roots asshole, even when Mr. Roots asks him to. It’s unhealthy and has been linked to breast cancer in multiple studies. Praise Jesus!
The Church of Xenu United is a splinter group of the famed Church of Scientology. They say we are heretics for praising Lord Xenu, but we recognize that his message of population control has been misconstrued by the modern Church, who fail to recognize that he was only doing what was best for the people when he sent our thetanian ancestors into the volcano. Our church current has about twenty members, all of whom love PLAS and Kit Kat bars.
June 27, 2011
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
CONTACT:
Rev Alberto Medvedev
Church of Xenu
(973) 304-0808
[email protected]
http://
Rev Alberto Medvedev Demands Kit-Kat Bars Become the Official Candy of PLAS
(Tinton Falls, NJ, 7/01/11) The Rev Alberto Medvedev officially called upon the Libertarian Party to now only adopt a PLAS strategy to win the 2012 presidential election, he also demanded that the Kit Kat bar, a popular chocolately confection, be made the official candy representing that strategy.
“Kit Kat bars are a great deal like PLAS,” Rev. Medvedev told a press conference earlier this morning. “They combine two different kind of treats which would otherwise be viewed as being completely opposite of each other.”
When the press asked Rev. Medvedev, a former activist in the US Labor Party, to elaborate he responded:
“Think about it; the chocolate and the graham parts are both considered to be yummy on their own. But once you combine the two, lovers of both treats enjoy the finished product. The same tactic could work within the Libertarian Party! The Progressive would be like the chocolate, and the graham cracker would be the Libertarian.”
When asked whether Robert Milnes, a contender for the Libertarian nomination would be better represented as either the chocolate or the crunchy graham cracker, Reverend Medvedev declined to comment.
“I would have to discuss that matter the next time I meet with the Libertarian National Committee.”
Medvedev also noted that Michelle Bachmann’s campaign recently called seeking his endorsement.
“I told them I am sorry, but my allegience lies with Bob Milnes and PLAS.”
The press asked Reverend Medvedev if he would be willing to run for president in 2016, to which he responded: “I won’t have to, because President Milnes will be entering his second term as the first PLAS President!”
Reverend Medvedev is the founder and Chairman Emeritus of the Church of Xenu United, which operates out of Asbury Park, NJ. Reverend Deacon Joseph Beaver is the current chairman.
####
@83, Progressive Libertarian Alliance Strategy.
Go to my website or PLAS thread for more info.
I’m in South America for a few weeks visiting my brother so I won’t be posting anything about the Green Party, or any other party, for at least that time. Just letting you know.
What is PLAS? What does PLAS (acronym) stand for?
WHEN TOO MUCH IS NEVER ENUF!
Donald Lake,
It’s the middle of the afternoon, and we just rocketed past our 1,000-contributor goal.
That’s amazing, and it’s going to give us a big boost on our public fund raising report.
But with the reporting deadline still hours away, I think we can get to 1,250 before we close the books.
Because we’ve set a goal of getting contributions from 1,250 people, a contribution of a few dollars helps just as much as a maximum donation.
You don’t have to make a big donation in order to make a big difference.
Please become one of the 1,250 contributors before tonight’s midnight deadline by contributing $5 now.
The contributions that helped us reach our original goal have come from people of all walks of life throughout Missouri
With one final effort, we’ll reach our new goal before midnight.
Thank you for your help.
Sincerely, [professional politician and fund raiser US Senator] Claire McCaskill
Contribute [Lake: to the problem, not the non Dem, non GOP solution ……….]
@ 78… Thank you Mr. Robinson! That lengthy epistle and a laptop computer… the cure for constipation!
# 25 Don Lake, FYI, not necessarily a unilateral endorsement // Jun 29, 2011:
[a] To the Divine Mister P, “thank you”
[b] as I was told in computer class in 1967, er, ah, um 2000, that there is no need to ‘unsubscribe’ * ——- merely ‘spam’
[c] You do not appreciated Milnes, Phillies, Lake, W. A. R. , ____________ ?????????? Just ignore the posting —- duh!
* gives them information they can use against you
@76 in all fairness to Milnes, who has been a loyal contributor to this site from early on, the PLAS site should be moved up each month like this site or a new one created. It is buried so far back he can get no one to take the time to converse with him about it. I would prefer if it was moved forward instead of a new one created each month as most of us already know the “plan” and there is no need to repeat the formula each month!
“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum.” – Noam Chomsky
“Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar.” – Julius Caesar
Dept. Of Agriculture – Helen Whalen-Cohen -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tI1d_6jcVdw&feature=player_embedded
What Happens in D.C. Should Stay in D.C. VOTE LIBERTARIAN! – http://www.lpstuff.com/shop/index.php?_a=viewProd&productId=828
Big Government Is A Big Mistake – http://www.lpstuff.com/shop/index.php?_a=viewProd&productId=640
TweedleDummer Mouse Pad – http://www.lpstuff.com/shop/index.php?_a=viewProd&productId=827
Abolish all ballot access laws for candidates.
Minimally Restrictive Secret Ballot Access
or Ballot Extremism in Pursuit of Moderation is No Virtue
D. Frank Robinson
Copyright 2010
(v 2.3)
Summary
Today states’ ballot access laws specify many restrictive conditions on the citizen in order to be nominated or qualified to appear on the ballot as a candidate for public office. These barriers are allegedly necessary to administer elections by secret ballot. How is it possible for ballot laws adopted individually by the states to effectively amend the individual citizenship rights guaranteed by state constitutions and the U.S. Constitution? The state laws applying the secret ballot, however, are not uniform in their treatment of citizens seeking election to either federal or state offices.
Petitioning for ballot access imposes an arbitrary veto vote by the partisan legislative few on the choices allowed for a vote of the entire political body. The vote of the many is authoritative only when minimally restrictive uniform standards for candidate access to the ballot apply. Minority veto by petition subverts the equality of authority of all. Therefor, all ballot access petition laws are illegitimate, unconstitutional, and contradict individualist popular sovereignty doctrine upon which the legitimacy claims of all levels of American government rest.
The conclusion this paper reaches is: Secret ballot election laws, as presently applied, are a subrosa amendment of the U.S. Constitution by each of the individual states. Hence, there is no constitutionally valid uniform number of signed permissions from other citizens for one to seek election to public office in any state. None, except ZERO!
The notion of a republic by popular consent
The idea of a constitutional republic is easy to grasp. A group of people agree among themselves to allow a few among them, within defined substantive and procedural limits, to enforce expressly defined restraints upon everyone’s individual freedom of action. In return all the individuals in the group retain or reserve all other freedom of action to themselves. In short, everything which is not expressly regulated or prohibited to the people by their own mutual consent is immune to legal control. This, in a nutshell, embodies the doctrine known as popular sovereignty as it was widely held at the time of the ratification of the U.S. Constitution.
If, by the operations of government on the people over time, logical inconsistencies or logical omissions are discovered, which permit intolerable actions by officials, then procedures of amendment may be used to resolve the inconsistency. If amendments are not forthcoming or ratified, e.g., the British Parliament refused to amend its practices, then people must denounce, renounce and resist that persisting illogical regime and cure the constitutional defect for themselves by secession and the institution of new arrangements for mutual benefit. The secession ought to be as peaceful as possible. This was attempted by the colonists of Great Britain in North America, but violent resistance was needed to achieve it.
The end of armed hostilities with Great Britain established the political fact of sovereignty of those people in America. Subsequently they set about to negotiate among themselves such constitutional arrangements as them deemed tolerable for themselves at that time. The great majority of those people would never have contemplated that their sovereign powers, once attained, could or should be relinquished completely and perpetually.
Constitutional conventions are expressions of the popular sovereignty of ‘We, the living’ at that time. A constitutional convention contemplates a peaceful secession of the people from one scheme of government to another.
The first criteria of moral legitimacy for a constitutional document, if it is to have any moral legitimacy at all, is internal logical consistency in the document itself. It must be comprehensible. The second criteria is general or majority consent.
The democratic vote, the ballot, is central to republican constitutionalism.
Where is the right to vote and the right to candidacy in the U.S. Constitution?
The rights are in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. All unalienable individual human rights retained by the people as individuals are in the Tenth. Voting, or speaking assent or dissent, is the fundamental right exercised to ratify state constitutions. It is a right which was exercised by the people by voting in conventions to ratify the U.S. Constitution in each of the states.
A citizen elected to government loses certain rights temporarily. The elected and their appointed underlings must not act officially except to exercise their functions as enumerated in the constitution by due process. If a conflict arises between their legitimate private rights as citizens and their official functions, their private rights must yield. This concept, quaint as it may seem today, distinguishes officials in a republic from those in a monarchy or autocracy.
The election of citizens to office in the national U.S. government is conducted through elections administered by the states. In administering those elections of national government officials, however, the states may not add qualifications for voters or candidates which are not expressly enumerated in the U.S. Constitution for those national elections.
The Courts have acknowledged that a citizen does not have to be ‘registered’ to vote by a state to qualify as a candidate for office. States do not have to ‘register’ voters to administer elections. Except for the administration of the pre-printed secret ballot, states would not need to ‘register’ candidates to appear on the ballot. Write-in candidates do not need to be ‘registered’ in advance with the state although some states impose that as a qualification to have the voters’ choices counted for the candidates. Oddly, or insanely, the U.S. Supreme Court has been unable to sustain the right of the citizen to vote by write-in AND have their ballot counted! The administrative convenience of election officials somehow supersedes the superior and antecedent right of the sovereign citizen.
A citizen elected, or appointed to conduct an election, loses certain rights temporarily. Government service is actually a form of temporary, voluntary, servitude. Service, servitude, hint. Hint.
The idea of popular sovereignty applies with maximum rigor at the nexus of private rights and government authority – voting, candidacy, the ballot, elections. A document cannot become a constitution without a vote signifying consent by somebody. Ideally, a plebiscite, or vote of all the adult people, is necessary. However, the U.S. already had a national government under the Articles of Confederation of the United States when the new constitution was proposed. It was apparently assumed that a vote of even most of the adult people of the states was impractical, or unnecessary, or would establish a precedent the framers deemed impolitic. Instead, the votes of delegates (surrogates)in conventions of the states was deemed sufficient authority to assume mutual consent.
Fourteen states held ratifying conventions. Seventeen hundred and fifty-three delegates voted in these conventions. The aggregate vote was 1173 for and 580 against ratification and no state refused to ratify. However, the vote was very close in two states. In New York the vote was 30 to 27; and, in Rhode Island it was 34 to 32. Three state conventions were unanimous: Delaware, New Jersey and Georgia. The right to vote, to consent or deny consent, was established acceptable social practice before the Constitution came into effect. If the right to vote had not already existed, there would have been recourse to voting to adopt the Constitution.
To what extent did the ratifying people allow limits on their right to vote and receive votes under the Constitution?
Since the framers of the U.S. Constitution did not propose a uniform national election law for the new government, the establishment of election rules was reserved almost entirely to the states, or to the people of the states under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. According to Article I, Section 4, of the United States Constitution, the authority to regulate the time, place, and manner of federal elections is up to each State, unless Congress legislates otherwise. Because the Constitution expressly delegated the U.S. Congress the option to regulate the election of federal officers, all the individual rights of the Bill of Rights extend to elections regarding the time, place and manner of state regulation.
Does the manner of elections extend to the (dis)qualification of candidates?
At the beginning of the United States the personal elements of qualification for an office, i.e., citizenship, age, sex, residency, and in some cases property or servitude, were sufficient qualifications or disqualifications for nomination and receive votes for all offices.
The framers clearly defined exclusively the qualifications for President, Vice-President, US Senators and US Representatives. The Constitution of the United States does not authorize disqualifications on the right of a US citizen to seek political office other than citizenship, age and residency. The U.S. Constitution further outlawed a specific type of disqualifying condition – religion. “…no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” (Article VI.) Courts have held that the states may not add or subtract from Constitutional qualifications. To make an alteration in candidate qualifications would amount to a unilateral amendment of the US Constitution by a state. For example, when the manner of election for US Senators was changed it required ratification by the states of the 17th Amendment. Any change in the qualifications of candidates would also require Constitutional Amendment.
These constitutional qualifications for eligibility to receive votes define the super set of the sub set of those after elected who are qualified to continue to serve contingent on their behavior during their term. The U.S. Constitution expressly provides that once elected, the respective legislative bodies, the House and the Senate, are the sole judges of their members to continue in office. Jointly, the legislative bodies determine the qualifications of the Executive to continue in office by the procedure of impeachment.
Neither legislatures nor Courts can set aside the peoples’ decision in an election by the states so long as the states’ procedures do not violate the U.S. Constitution. If those institutions could do so then those individuals would be the citizen sovereigns and the rest of us would be serfs. ‘Elections’ would be mere opinion polling.
The more restrictive electoral choices the nearer the process approaches mere sampling for ‘advice’ without consent.
The U.S. Constitutional provisions applicable to candidacy beyond the citizenship, age and residency qualifications for candidate access to the ballot implicate ALL the Bill of Rights Amendments. The courts logically examine the First Amendment first to secure individual rights in elections procedures. In these judicial judgments courts have shown contradictory reasoning in understanding the First Amendment’s application to individual candidates and citizen groups know as political parties. The courts have not yet examined the individual popular sovereignty implications of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments applicable to elections.
How elections have evolved under the Constitution?
Private associations or political parties emerged to promote the election of candidates in the 19th century. Political parties began as affiliations of more or less like-minded candidates with their supporters to oppose the election of other candidates. These associations or parties adopted ‘brand names’ and printed ballot papers with candidate names, party labels and symbols to aid, sometimes illiterate emigrant, voters to easily identify their choices. Access to the ballot (candidate nomination) remained entirely unregulated, or only informally regulated, during much of the 19th century. The political nomination process was entirely a reserved right implicit under the Tenth Amendment.
State governments gradually adopted the Australian or secret ballot in the 1890s which prescribed that ballots were to be printed and distributed exclusively by the state government. Consequently an official administrative nomination procedure for candidates in advance of the election was established for their names to be printed on the ballots. With the advent of the secret ballot the states began to, in effect, issue ‘licenses’ and ‘trademarks’ for distinctive party labels (names and symbols) to candidates. The importance of these party labels served as a pretext to restrict candidate nomination and ballot access. What began as purely private names and logos were transformed into additional qualifications to appear on ballots. By giving up the expense of printing and distributing ballots the people qua candidates ceded control of ballot content to incumbent partisan legislators. This was advantageous for incumbent partisans, but hazardous to robust political competition. The people’s reserved rights of nomination became abridged for partisan advantage.
This writer contends that all these added state qualifications are beyond those expressly authorized by the federal and state constitutions. No U.S. Constitutional amendment authorizing the states to add qualifications or disqualifications for candidates in order to administer elections by secret ballot has been ratified.
So by what other constitutional provision or principle can we determine “How Many Parties Ought to be on the Ballot?” Ballot access law expert Richard Winger deftly demolishes most arguments for state restrictions and a defense of those restrictions offered by federal judge Richard Posner in the paper cited.
Yet in his 2006 Election Law Journal article Mr. Winger still contended that “Ballot access laws can certainly be too lenient.” As Winger points out judges, other than Posner, have been reticent to discuss constitutional principles which would guide the states in carrying out their concurrent jurisdiction with the Congress to regulate elections. If candidates access to the ballot can be too lenient, how does that leniency differ from peoples access to ballot to vote?
I believe the reason for such judicial reticence is that any possible grounds for such restraints would be flimsy at best. If universal suffrage for all citizens above the age of 18 is a constitutionally recognized right, where can one find grounds for a denying a universal constitutionally recognized right of candidacy?
If the courts have repeatedly defended the qualification of candidates as exclusively a constitutional right and immune to abridgment by state law, then is not that immunity applicable uniformly across all the states?
Lacking any clearly articulated constitutional basis to justify restraining citizen access to the ballot as a candidate, as well as a voter, the courts have ducked the issue of uniformity or equal protection. Why?
The most likely reason is that open ballot access for candidates undermines the two-party duopoly. Two-party domination has been carefully and cleverly fabricated behind the pretensions of administering the secret ballot for a century. Judges are also bi-partisans by deeply instilled training and personal associations. They are as impartial as precedent; and accreted precedent allows them to overlook fundamental issues. It takes real courage for a judge to look beneath the surface and confront the deeper agenda embedded in the laws.
The rationales for limiting the number of candidates is just as constitutionally specious as limiting the number of voters with qualifications that are unequal and arbitrary. Candidate exclusion distorts citizen intent.
There is no constitutionally valid uniform magic number of the signed permissions from other citizens for a citizen to seek election to public office. None, except ZERO!
Taking the range petitioning requirements for candidates in the various states, it is clear that all the petitioning regulations are mere arbitrary fabrications beyond reason or necessity for administering the secret ballot. The petitioning laws are constantly being re-legislated in the states to improvise new devices to bar challengers to the duopoly incumbency.
When the courts impose ‘red light’ limits on the number of signatures that may be extorted from candidates, the duopolists respond by attempting to restrict who may circulate petitions to the smallest possible pool of citizens who can be intimidated, harassed and retaliated against. It’s political segregation – plain, blatant and viciously prejudiced. The political segregationist seem to confront ambivalent if not sympathetic judges. So long as the Courts equivocate, the incumbent entrenchment devices will proliferate.
What is the legitimate procedure for a citizen to listed on a secret ballot?
A non-discriminatory state administrative procedure to appear on the ballot could be as simple as, some weeks or a few months prior to an election, requesting the citizen to self-nominate by appearing and executing an affidavit stating one’s name, age, residence, citizenship, the office one seeks and, optionally, an affiliation label shared with other candidates as political partisans. This procedure would constitute a minimally restrictive administrative procedure for secret ballot election of candidates to public office. This procedure, or something very similar to it, was actually the practice in the State of Oklahoma from 1907 statehood until 1913. It complied with both the State and U.S. Constitutions. It worked then. It would work today. It would work in every state.
Of course disputes would arise over who ‘owns’ a partisan label. And the duopolists are only too eager to arbitrate and oppress with intricacy.
What gives a partisan label its cachet? Nothing really, but the declarations of the candidates employing the label. Unless a candidate(s) publishes a written set of propositions or promises for which the label is symbol, then nothing but common linguistic usage defines a word-symbol used as a partisan label. Perhaps, no party labels or symbols should be printed on ballots at all. The fact of widespread illiteracy in English among immigrants a century ago is now a problematic justification.
If ballot on demand printing technology were deployed at polling places a separate sheet with partisan labels and symbols that aligned with the ballot could be provided as a temporary aid to voters by request. The same technology would apply to languages and Braille.
Before enactment of the secret ballot laws candidates more or less shaped or even dictated those party platforms. Much effort was expended to publicize these declarations. Today, candidate image has supplanted ideology. Ideology has not been eliminated but it has been diluted into calculated sloganeering, sound bites and manipulative images. Since the advent of the secret ballot the significance of party platforms, labels and symbols has seriously diminished. Today some partisan candidates even avoid using their party labels in their campaign materials, they welcome being perceived as a generic candidate who seems to be ‘independent’ or nonpartisan.
But for reasons other than simple administrative efficiency then, ballot access (nominating procedures) qualifications became increasingly more complex and more stringent later in the 20th century in Oklahoma and other states. Direct taxes on nomination took the form of filing fees. Indirect taxation (extortion) on nomination took the form of requiring expenditures to print and circulate petitions to gather significant numbers of signatures from carefully defined groups of citizens. These complexities added further potential expense in the form of litigation costs to defend the sufficiency and validity of the petitions. It may seem ironic that Oklahoma which in 1907 had a minimally restrictive procedure for ballot access has had arguably the maximally restrictive procedure since 1974. Coincidentally perhaps the chief author that Oklahoma election codification bill in 1974 rose from State Representative to Governor to U.S. Senator and now serves the President of the University of Oklahoma – an exemplary example of bi-partisan service to duopoly entrenchment.
The function of state administration of the secret ballot is to secure a result that is free and fair to all potential voters and all potential candidates. It is not constitutional to subvert the principles of popular sovereignty embodied in the Bill of Rights under the guise of administrative ‘compelling interest’ in minutiae. ‘Fair and free’ means open to all citizens within the minimal express constitutional restraints – citizenship, age, residency.
In the 21st century U.S. citizens seeking public office have an array of state restrictions beyond those specified in the U.S. and state constitutions. No amendment to U.S. Constitution, nor in most cases amendments to state constitutions, has been ratified to legitimize these additional qualifications. Some writers, like the author, contend that a citizen’s right to candidacy is a reserved right of the people under not only the First Amendment but also the 9th and 10th Amendments of the Bill of Rights provisions of the U.S. Constitution. The rights expressly stated in First Amendment are an exemplary subset of rights implied by the super set of rights reserved to the people, or the states, by the Tenth Amendment.
Why do these voting restrictions continue in the 21st century?
Ballot access qualifications beyond those in the U.S. and state constitutions are set by the state legislators who are incumbent members of the parties that have dominated the legislatures for over century. To rule out the possibility that alternative candidates can prevent a clear (majority) victory by either of the dominant parties, the legislators imposed additional non-administrative qualifications for ballot access to practically excluded any third party candidates and substantially suppress non-partisan candidates in many states. These restrictions establish significant inequalities between major dominant and minor parties. As evidence for this consider:
“Our results indicate that ballot access requirements as used in most U.S. states can be highly effective in reducing the degree of electoral competition faced by major party candidates. This finding, in turn, suggests…it is plausible to assume that stakes of powerful players in the political arena are directly affected by the design of certain institutions. Hence, the empirical evidence presented in this study strongly suggests to understand political institutions as being subject to strategic choice of influential actors such as governments and legislatures.” – Drometer, Marcus und Rincke, Johannes: The impact of ballot access restrictions on electoral competition: Evidence from a natural experiment; Munich Discussion Paper No. 2008-7, Department of Economics, University of Munich
Since, as Drometer and Rincke state, “political institutions are chosen by individuals and are not randomly assigned to countries and societies”, one may reasonably concluded that the choice of electoral rules is the outcome of the strategic choices of political elites to maintain dominance. The alteration of those rules is employed to prevent immediate political consequences arising from serious social unrest.
“Recent empirical work shows that these requirements have strong deterrent effects on third party and independent candidates: Ansolabehere and Gerber (1996) and that higher filing fees increase the frequency of uncontested races and decrease the frequency of retirements in congressional elections. In the same vein, Stratmann (2005) demonstrates that filing fees deter third party candidates in state level Lower House elections.”
“…our results reveal that an important institution governing the degree of electoral competition and minority representation in the U.S., namely petition requirements for third-party and independent candidates, is endogenously determined. In fact, the evidence reported here suggests that state policy makers have been actively engaged in re-designing ballot access regulations. The impact of electoral competition on the design of ballot access rules is strong, and the direction is as expected: the more minor-party and independent candidates appear on the ballot, the more restrictive are, on average, the requirements to get ballot access. Based on the evidence reported here, it appears that the major parties have consistently used their power to frame political institutions in a way that protects their position as incumbents in a setting of duopolistic political competition.”
When people have few complaints with governing elites no significant barriers to the ballot are needed. Significant challengers simply do not arise. When people are seriously dissatisfied challengers do arise. Elites respond by raising barriers to the ballot. After the crisis passes the barriers remain high unless elites make a strategic calculation to reduce them when they are challenged in the courts. In some instances courts trim back legislative zealotry. But because the concept of ‘compelling’ state (partisan incumbent) interest remains unchecked, entrenched elites repair their barricades with new improvised regulations.
Candidate barriers to ballot access do not seem well understood by voters. Although more citizens seem aware that they are being systematically manipulated. Candidate barriers are a strategic tool used by elites to dilute and deflect popular influence on public policy through elections. Why would dominant parties explain to the people how they are being manipulated by election laws to keep those parties entrenched in dominance?
It remains unclear the extent that public dissent to elite policy preferences, historically expressed through the ballot, but now deflected by candidate access restrictions, has channeled popular grievances into professional lobbying, ‘non-partisan’ advocacy groups, the politicization of religious organizations, and other dissipative activities. Such dissipative channelization from the ballot may have also augmented the drive for more government political regulation of non-electoral private political rights. Under unconstitutional regulation accountability to citizens is trivialized or lost. Consequently such undemocratic and anti-republican barriers are directly implicated in a decline in citizens belief in the legitimacy of political institutions.
The dissipation or deflection of citizen frustration with incumbent targets on the ballot may be leading to a generalized loss of institutional legitimacy. Citizens conclude that elections don’t really matter. Bad elections lead to arrogant legislators which leads to bad laws. Bad laws leads to loss of institutional credibility. Loss of institutional credibility leads to political disintegration. Ultimately revolutions are endogenously determined by ruling elites. They bring them on themselves even when populations are slow to resort to rebellion. It took many years to spark the secession of the American colonies from Great Britain.
Some voters and candidates have attempted to resist the process of disintegration as the elites insulated themselves from the people. They have appealed to the legislatures and to the courts to recover the exercise of their inherent and reserved rights from establishment oligarchy and their entrenched partisans in government. Over-reaching elites destabilize republics.
Candidates and their parties have much more actively challenged restrictions on the citizens right to access the ballot since the 1968 Williams v Rhodes decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. For example, the Libertarian Party has been in the forefront challenging ballot access restraints in the state and federal courts since its founding in 1971.
In February 2010 Richard Winger published a table in Ballot Access News showing cases won by independent and alternative parties since 1968. The alternative parties prevailed in 286 cases. The Libertarian Party won 54 cases, Socialist Workers 28, Green Party 15, New Alliance 12, Communist 11, Peoples Party (and affiliates) 8, Constitution Party 7, American Party/American Independence Party 7, Citizens Party 6. Other parties won five or few of their suits. The Winger Table shows the decade in which the most cases were won was the 1980s with 83, the 1970s with 66, 2000s with 49, 1990s with 45, and in the 1960s only 13 cases were won. “The fact the 1970s and 1980s had the most wins does not mean that ballot access wins since then have been harder to win. Instead, it is a reflection that many bad ballot access laws were eliminated by the courts in the 1970s and the 1980s, so there aren’t as many targets remaining as [there] were thirty years ago.”
By the backed-off standards set by the courts since 1968 this is true. Nonetheless, the courts have steadfastly upheld the doctrine that legislatures have a ‘compelling interest’ in keeping candidates off the ballot with administrative qualifications so long as those barriers are not “invidious”. The courts have never held that the individual citizen’s right to vote entails a free choice of candidates from which to choose. The courts do not find a right to candidacy mentioned in the U.S. Constitution because of an apparently sectarian prejudice against the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Instead the courts deem candidacy is a “privilege” bestowed by the “in parties” of state legislatures analogous to a de facto temporary title of nobility. Of course titles of nobility temporary or not are expressly banned by the U.S. Constitution.
The popular sovereignty view that candidates are simply citizens exercising a right inherently and implicitly reserved to them under the Constitution seems anathema to jurists. Instead judges have sought to temper the partisan arrogance and insecurity of state legislators with ambiguous concepts of ‘compelling interest’ (green light) on the one hand and ‘invidious’ discrimination (red light) on the other hand.
In Williams v Rhodes (1968) the U.S. Supreme Court implicitly adopted a confused anti-popular sovereignty doctrine of political parties. The Court accepted Ohio construing individual private citizens in voluntary associations as if they are pseudo-corporations – public utilities – created for regulation by the state. As pseudo-corporate utilities they are conceived as a necessary monopoly for manufacturing candidates like chicken eggs for public consumption on election day. Candidates are then excreted into public office. This is deemed ‘stability’. The stability of caged animals.
Independent competition against a public utility party means, from the corporate utility point of view, that the independent production of candidates must be unfit to exercise the “privilege” of political participation. The incumbent dominated parties label citizen candidates a nuisance or frivolity which incumbents must carefully monitor, harass and encumber as much as they can with plausible deniability of anti-constitutional intent.
This writer submits the doctrine of public utility partisan politics is contrary to the ideology of popular sovereignty expressed in the U.S. Constitution at the time of its ratification. The citizens of that time chose candidates from among themselves without state regulation of any kind. Each individual was sovereign to use standards of suitability he saw fit to either be a candidate or defer to another person as a candidate. Political officials did not disqualify candidates on non-constitutional grounds. Election was only the formal procedure at which a binding choice was made. The individual was free to change his mind and shift his intention for whom to ballot at any time until he actually cast his ballot. The citizen was able to self-nominate even just before ballots were cast. Elections were accepted as definitive and there were no political parties at all. There were just individual citizens voting for individual citizens.
American political parties are at least three different entities. First, the transitory but authoritative, party of voters. Only those people who vote on election day effectively constitute what we customarily call a ‘political party’. And more precisely, a person seeking election to public office is an effective “official” candidate only at the point of decision by the voters on election day. Before an election the person seeking office is just another citizen exercising free speech prominently.
I derive this proposition as an implication of public choice theory described by James N. Buchanan as I understand him.
Voters do not actually become constituent members of a “party” in a primary sense of the term ‘party’ until they cast an irrevocable vote for a specific candidate. This is the sole and unique act which reveals “partisanship” in any sense which is decisive to the government. It is sometimes said that partisan voters ‘cross-over’ and vote for the candidate of another party in an election. This not accurate. A vote formally establishes one’s partisan affiliation not what one characterizes oneself as informally at all other times. A few people are admitted (elected) to the government as officials because many people actually and formally voted for them. American political partisans in the primary sense have become increasingly ‘agnostic’ partisans since WW II. Americans still vote, but they are voting more reluctantly and under a not-so-subtle form of duress. The ballot conveys little or no sense of citizen empowerment or responsibility.
Everything that people do as a ‘political’ association is ‘unofficial’ activity in it that has no necessary nor direct connection to each person’s individual act of decision on election day when one votes. Popular sovereignty within a republic is revealed by the people who vote when they vote. All political parties, when their candidates appear on the ballot, in this sense are popular sovereignty parties – when able to vote freely for candidates freely offered.
Those who are not allowed to vote or seek office have been stripped of a right inherent in republican citizenship. Nevertheless, these persons still have sovereignty. They simply have no functional opportunity for representation within the republic. In the past this disempowerment has provoked serious social unrest elsewhere.
By way of illustration, suppose that everyone anticipates that an election will be held on November 2012. People act with that expectation. Campaigns are waged, money is raised and spent, people form intentions to vote for one candidate or another. The only thing remaining is the actual voting – the cost of decision will be imposed and the consequences of decision revealed when those votes are honestly counted. All the people who wish to do so seek office and vote and then go back to do the business of actually making a society function once the votes have been cast.
After, and as a consequence of, people voting for candidates with a common label a few people associate on a more permanent basis – informally or more formally a party organization – to influence voters in the future. This a political party in a secondary sense. They can function prospectively even though none of their candidates were elected.
Finally there are, if elected, persons holding government authority who act more or less in concert to sustain their influence and control of the government. This a political party in a tertiary sense. Partisans with potential and active coercive power of the government. These public officials are the people for whom constitutions were designed to restrain.
This is how parties, in all three senses, emerged in the earliest days of the United States.
As the government began to function under the Constitution individuals who had been elected began to make decisions with the force of law to which many other citizens objected. The first unpopular act was the Bank of the United States. The Alien and Sedition Acts further aroused opposition among the people and the second American political party, the Democratic-Republican Party, arose around a candidate, Thomas Jefferson, in opposition to the centralizing incumbents know as Federalists.
The logical necessity of individualist popular sovereignty.
To demonstrate the logical necessity of popular sovereignty within the electoral procedures consistent with the U.S. Constitution, let us consider an election without any predetermined candidates.
Without a candidate the voter has no one to vote for – except oneself – but writing-in oneself is self-nomination. Self-nomination simultaneous with casting a vote. A primal instance of the exercise of popular sovereignty. Write-in voting is often prohibited today; and, where permitted, often nullified because write-in nomination-votes are not counted. Perhaps ignoring write-in nomination-votes stems from a rooted incumbent partisan prejudice that citizens must not be encouraged to think of voting and candidacy with self-nomination by write-in as logically inseparable. The write-in nomination-vote directly implicates republican popular sovereignty.
The implication of the write-in is that a candidate is a sovereign voting citizen making a nomination independent of any other voting citizen. This implication challenges the doctrine of the collective corporatist. What if everyone were to cast a write-in ballot for themselves? There would be no winner, no plurality, no majority. No mythical corporate party with an authoritative “majority mandate of heaven – vox populi” to rule. The effect of such an election of self-nominated candidates would be tantamount to a recall of sovereignty back to the people as individuals. Secession! Anarchy! The jig is up!
Have no fear. The actual probability of a unanimous nullification election by self-nominating voters with each voter voting for himself is about as mathematically probable as those nearly unanimous elections of one person or party in dictatorships. The latter is clearly a sham, the former is simply very remote probability. But it would verify the theoretical validity of the concept of individual popular sovereignty.
Free, fair and open candidacy elections serve a purpose beyond selecting office-holders. Elections evidence some iota of continuing general assent to the constitutional regime of popular sovereignty. In many countries people boycott elections when they regard the basis of government as illegitimate. Suppressing candidates is a government abetting its own de-legitimation. Actually it is the parties in power in government demonstrating their illegitimacy to govern. It demonstrates minority tyranny.
Popular sovereignty must be periodically manifested to serve as a basis for vindicating the claim of government by consent.
The inherent popular sovereignty doctrine embodied in the U.S. and state constitutions is often construed by its detractors as analogous to a singular miracle. “One and done” so to speak. It’s a kick-off that can never be repeated. If it were repeatable, the State would not seem to a perpetual game. The players must never be driven from the field by the spectators. If at all possible the cheerleaders must drown out the boos of the audience.
The opinion of many contemporary democratic theorists is that one initial ‘ratifying’ vote is all that is needed to create an immortal indivisible state. These theorists hold that popular individual sovereignty, if it ever existed at all, is totally and immaculately extinguished by a singular original ratifying act. An act that indentures not just those individuals who do it – just once. It also, once done, binds their posterity in perpetuity. Thereafter all future votes are not re-ratifying consent, they are just subsidiary decisions about particulars like who gets to fill the seats of power.
This doctrine was not always dominant – not even as recently as a century ago. If it were, then how does one explain, for example, the provision of the 1907 Oklahoma Constitution requiring the people to re-visit the issue of creating a constitution at least once very twenty years? Is that not an act of popular sovereignty? Those who drafted and adopted that constitution must have been infested with popular sovereignty doctrine as a condition that cannot transcend the passage of generations. Those living today are considered as sovereign as the those living in past times.
The application of the doctrine of popular sovereignty receives particular emphasis in American history, notes historian Christian G. Fritz’s American Sovereigns: The People and America’s Constitutional Tradition Before the Civil War, a study of the early history of American constitutionalism.
In describing how Americans attempted to apply this doctrine prior to the territorial struggle over slavery that led to the Civil War, political scientist Donald S. Lutz noted the variety of American applications:
To speak of popular sovereignty is to place ultimate authority in the people. There are a variety of ways in which sovereignty may be expressed. It may be immediate in the sense that the people make the law themselves, or mediated through representatives who are subject to election and recall; it may be ultimate in the sense that the people have a negative or veto over legislation, or it may be something much less dramatic. In short, popular sovereignty covers a multitude of institutional possibilities. In each case, however, popular sovereignty assumes the existence of some form of popular consent, and it is for this reason that every definition of republican government implies a theory of consent.
The American Revolution marked a departure in the concept of popular sovereignty as it had been discussed and employed in the European historical context. With their Revolution, Americans substituted the sovereignty in the person of King George III, with a collective sovereign—composed of the people. Thenceforth, American revolutionaries by and large agreed and were committed to the principle that governments were legitimate only if they rested on popular sovereignty – that is, the sovereignty of the people. This idea—often linked with the notion of the consent of the governed—was not invented by the American revolutionaries. Rather, the consent of the governed and the idea of the people as a sovereign had clear 17th and 18th century intellectual roots in English history. [Footnotes omitted]
Today governments at all levels in the U.S. continue to flaunt the constitutional provisions for candidate qualifications. What are the redresses open to the citizens? Most options are obvious and the obvious ones have proven mostly useless. Petitioning or lobbying the legislators yields meager relief. Petitioning the courts yields occasional relief but it is tightly constrained by dogmatic precedents. Constitutional amendment by initiative is theoretically possible in a few states, but still not immune to supreme judicial interpretation. The ultimate sanction of the citizenry is secession. One may conclude as did the American colonists that any regime which demands obedience without the actual, regular consent of the people in free, fair and open elections of their representatives is tyrannical.
The last refuge of proponents of the status quo is that, in a nation as large as the United States elections are such massive and complex logistical exercises which are so fraught with the possibility of error and voter befuddlement, practical expediency (read entrenched self-interest) must over-ride legal theory and historical precedent.
The first argument for expediency (read entrenchment) trumping principle is that ballot space is such a scare commodity that it must be rationed to exclude some candidates in order to administer a secret ballot election. Of course, no one would argue for a ballot the length of Atlas Shrugged. But it is technically possible to accommodate very long lists of candidates.
Another argument for expediency (read entrenchment) is that very long lists of candidates with votes scattered all across the ballot for dozens or more candidates for each office would cause interminable election disputes and delays.
The primary argument put forward by States for restricting ballot access in the general election has been the premise that setting ballot access criteria too low would result in numerous candidates on the ballot. This is deemed adverse to the interest of …the voters (read entrenched office holders). Voters lacking sufficient information or intelligence to evaluate these numerous candidates would be confused into splitting their votes even though they would appear as similar-minded voters if only they had fewer choices. With plurality voting, allowing more than two candidates on the ballot (read entrenchment) splits the vote of the assumed synthetic majority of ‘like-minded’ voters and throws the race to a candidate a majority dislikes. This argument would also apply to partisan primary elections with multiple candidates. But partisan primary voters are deemed to somehow have sufficient information and intelligence to avoid splitting their votes so that the assumed synthetic majority of like-minded partisan voters do not throw the race to a candidate a majority of those partisans dislike. Another miracle! So, is one supposed to infer from this argument that primary voters are better informed and/or smarter than general election voters even when they are the same voters? Many primary elections have six, eight, ten or more candidates on the ballot. Apparently voter focus is almost utterly diffused by voting in a primary which leaves them so befuddled they cannot vote intelligently in the general election. I suppose only those who skip primary elections conserve their meager ability to evaluate multiple candidates in a general election. If this were really so, then the judgment of Independent voters who eschew partisan primaries would be exemplary. Voting studies do not support this contention, so maybe it is just more sophistry to support entrenchment of two parties and the occasional independent candidate.
Another argument for expediency (read entrenchment) is that all but two, or at most three or so, candidates must be excluded so that “moderates” are favored over “immoderate” candidates. Apparently “immoderate” voters must not be allowed a free choice. Strict ballot access petitioning laws are supposed to make it difficult for “immoderate” candidates to get on the ballot. It is assumed that few moderate people would want to sign the petitions of “immoderate” candidates and those “immoderate” voters willing sign would be difficult to locate. Apparently sovereign choice is something only the “moderate” deserve; and furthermore, they have the “moderate” right to veto access to ballot by “immoderates” without ever affirmatively refusing to sign a petition. The paternalistic duopoly in the legislature has affirmatively refused for the “moderates” in advance. Moderates on the other hand need no permission from “immoderates” and their candidates.
Moderationists argue that allowing only two candidates on the ballot insures that at least the worst one of two candidates is never elected. This is a tautology. It is true no matter how badly the voters regard both candidates. Those who may boycott such an election must be ‘extremists’ who demand less abysmal candidates. Not all people qualified to vote but who abstain are apolitical or apathetic ‘non-sovereigns’. The moderate candidate elected by the median voter may well be a mediocrity. The performance of legislatures dominated by just two parties suggest moderate mediocrity reigns unchallenged.
Many other objections to open candidate access rely on the procedures of mandatory primary partisan elections.
• If a third party could get enough votes to win an election, then voters who would support the nominee could infiltrate one of the two parties by registering as members, and force a win in that party’s primary. However, pulling this off would take considerable coordination on the part of the supporting voters, especially if half of them preferred to infiltrate the other major party or remain independent. It would also depend on the rules of the major party for how people may become candidates in their primary, and which registered members may vote in the primary.
• What is to prevent the more numerous two dominant parties from infiltrating the smaller third party to knock off its ‘winning’ general election candidate in a primary? If a third party is so numerous that it has voters to spare to infiltrate one or both of the other parties, then it is likely to win the general election regardless. How can anyone know the better third party candidate will win in the general election before the primary elections?
• There is a one person one vote mandate. If voters could vote in a primary for one candidate, and then sign a petition for another candidate, this would violate that mandate. Some voters might sign a petition for the candidate they want, and then vote in the primary for the candidate who would be easier to beat. Since primary votes are anonymous, party officials cannot remove that voter’s vote after it is caste, the only remedy is to strike the voter’s signature on the petition. As for signatures not counting if a voter later votes in a primary, that could be reformed since the political party would know in advance about the signatures if they are filed in time.
• This last objection to open candidate access ignores that information may come to the primary voter before or after the election which the voter thinks justifies changing their choice. Allowing a party to strike a voter’s signature from a petition signed before a primary election after the primary nullifies the sovereignty of the voter to act on all available information. It would, in effect, dumb down the pool of voters. Striking a voter’s signature from a petition certainly constitutes ‘raiding’.
• Sore loser laws, where a candidate who loses in a primary may not then run as an independent candidate in that same election, stem from contract laws. Similar minded candidates run in the same primary with the contract that the losers will drop out of the race and support the winner so that they do not split the votes of similar minded voters and cause the other party’s nominee to win with 40% of the vote. The need for primaries is primarily because of plurality voting, whose rules state that the candidate receiving the most votes wins, even if not a majority.
Sore loser laws based on contract theory must establish the property right basis for alienating a candidate’s right of self-nomination. This is a murky doctrine in election theory suggesting parties are public utilities and primary elections screen out ‘defective’ candidate products before the ultimate ‘consumer-voter’ can make their own evaluation in a general election.
A more plausible hypothesis is that sore loser laws are an element of a de facto state licensing system of conducting elections for private associations to maintain monopoly privileges for those associations by punishing members for violation of their internal rules on the associations’ or its leadership’s behalf. This is further evidence in support of this writer’s thesis that the dominant American political parties are entrenched as quasi-corporate public utilities to suppress competition from the citizens for representation in the government.
Two examples of political licensing: the ugly and the uglier.
Consider the qualifications set by the State of Oregon to obtain and maintain a license to appear on the ballot as a segregated ‘minor’ political party:
To establish a minor political party, an affiliation of voters must file a petition containing the signatures of a number of active registered voters equal to at least 1.5% of the total number of votes cast in the electoral district for Governor at the most recent election at which a Governor was elected to a term of four years. In 2010, the number of valid signatures needed to form a statewide minor party is 20,693.
It is virtually universal for states to demand a petition signed by a number of voters based on a percentage of the most recent vote total for the highest state-wide office (Governor). This is the case even for candidates of a minor party who only want to appear on the ballot for a lesser office like State House Representative. The vote totals for a Governor are almost always higher than the vote totals for the election for State Representative in that electoral district. Oregon is less restrictive than many states in requiring 1.5% of the total votes. Furthermore, the majority of states require that minor parties get a statewide ‘license’ even though as a new party they may have only a few candidates seeking office at any level.
The completed petition must be filed no later than 2 years following the date the prospective petition is filed. Once a completed petition is filed with the required signatures of electors to establish a minor political party, the minor political party may nominate candidates for any partisan office within the electoral district in which the party is established.
All political parties must be formed with the Secretary of State, even if only formed to nominate candidates for a county or legislative district.
Oregon is also less restrictive than most states in making the petitioning period two years. Generally the petitioning period in other states is one year. In the past it was much shorter in many states.
* A minor political party can maintain its status in either of the following two ways by:
achieving a party registration of a number of electors equal to at least .5% of the total number of registered electors in this state (at any time from the date of the next primary election and ending on the 90th day before the next general election)
• or
• receiving at the general election, for any one of its candidates for public office in the electoral district, at least 1% of the total votes cast in the electoral district for all candidates for any single partisan state office to be voted upon in the state at large and achieving a party registration of a number of electors equal to at least .1% of the total votes cast in the state or electoral district for all candidates for Governor at the most recent election at which a candidate for Governor was elected to a full term (e.g. for statewide minor parties, .001 x 1,379,475 = 1,380 voters based on votes cast in the 2006 General Election)
It is also universal to require minor parties to meet some minimum vote total to maintain its ‘license’ to appear on the ballot in a future election without having the petition again. It clear that these laws are intended to hasten the natural death of a political party which would occur when at least two candidates do not want affiliate with its label. The minimums set by Oregon are also among the least restrictive among the states. However the restrictions still resemble the barriers to entry that states impose to maintain public utility monopolies and abrogate popular sovereignty.
The State of Oklahoma is far more restrictive (uglier) than Oregon for example. Oklahoma law as of February of 2010 stated:
§261107.Recognized political parties.
Recognized political parties shall include parties whose candidates’ names appeared on the General Election ballot in 1974, and those parties which shall be formed according to law.
Laws 1974, c. 153, § 1107, operative Jan. 1, 1975.
§26-1-108.Formation of new political parties.
A group of persons may form a recognized political party at any time except during the period between June 1 and November 15 of any even numbered year if the following procedure is observed:
1.Notice of intent to form a recognized political party must be filed in writing with the Secretary of the State Election Board at any time except during the period between March 1 and November 15 of any even numbered year.
2.After such notice is filed, petitions seeking recognition of a political party, in a form to be prescribed by the Secretary of the State Election Board, shall be filed with such Secretary, bearing the signatures of registered voters equal to at least five percent (5%) of the total votes cast in the last General Election either for Governor or for electors for President and Vice President.Each page of such petitions must contain the names of registered voters from a single county.Petitions may be circulated a maximum of one (1) year after notice is filed, provided that petitions shall be filed with such Secretary no later than May 1 of an even numbered year.Such petitions shall not be circulated between May 1 and November 15 of any even numbered year.
3.Within thirty (30) days after receipt of such petitions, the State Election Board shall determine the sufficiency of such petitions.If such Board determines there are a sufficient number of valid signatures of registered voters, the party becomes recognized under the laws of the State of Oklahoma with all rights and obligations accruing thereto.
Added by Laws 1974, c. 153, § 1-108, operative Jan. 1, 1975.Amended by Laws 1985, c. 269, § 1; Laws 2003, c. 485, § 1; Laws 2004, c. 53, § 6, emerg. eff. April 1, 2004.
§26-1-109.Party ceases to be recognized.
A.Any recognized political party whose nominee for Governor or nominees for electors for President and Vice President fail to receive at least ten percent (10%) of the total votes cast for said offices in any General Election shall cease to be a recognized political party.Said party may regain recognition only by following the procedure prescribed for formation of new political parties.The State Election Board shall proclaim the fact of a party’s failure to receive a sufficient number of votes and shall order that said party cease to be recognized.
B.Any recognized political party that ceases to be recognized under provisions of this section shall be designated as a political organization.Such political organization designation shall terminate four (4) years from the date that the political party ceases to be recognized or when the political organization regains recognition as a political party, whichever is earlier.
Added by Laws 1974, c. 153, § 1-109, operative Jan. 1, 1975.Amended by Laws 1999, c. 88, § 1, emerg. eff. April 13, 1999.
§26-1-110.Changes in party affiliation.
A.The Secretary of the State Election Board shall, within sixty (60) days after such proclamation by the State Election Board, change to Independent the party affiliation in the Oklahoma Election Management System of each registered voter of a political party which ceases to be a recognized political party.
B.The Secretary of the State Election Board shall change to Independent the party affiliation in the Oklahoma Election Management System of each registered voter of a political organization which ceases to be a political organization.
Added by Laws 1974, c. 153, § 1-110, operative Jan. 1, 1975.Amended by Laws 1990, c. 331, § 1, eff. July 1, 1990; Laws 1999, c. 88, § 2, emerg. eff. April 13, 1999; Laws 2000, c. 358, § 2, eff. July 1, 2000.
Clearly the costs of obtaining a ballot license for new partisan candidates are much higher in Oklahoma (five percent means about 73,000 signatures) than Oregon (about 21,000 signatures). In addition, the risk having that license taken away is much greater because the candidate for Governor or Presidential Electors must poll at least 10% of the votes in Oklahoma compared with only 1% in Oregon. The Oklahoma rule would apply even if a party elected two or three or ten members in the state legislature or some statewide elective office. In addition, when a party loses its ballot license all the voters registered with that party will lose their registered affiliation with that party as well even if that voter is also holding elective state office.
As of March 2010 the Oklahoma Legislature had before it a bill, HB 1072, to reduce the cost of obtaining a license to run for office from the five percent petition to a three percent petition of the last gubernatorial election only. Even returning to the previous (pre-1974) tariff of 5,000 signatures asked for by a coalition of the Constitutional, Green and Libertarian parties was apparently as objectionable to the Republicans now in control as it was to the Democrats who enacted the law in 1973. No change in the provision for automatic revocation of the license to seek office for failing to get ten percent of the vote is contemplated by HB 1072.
Clearly citizens seeking office affiliated with a party whose candidates failed to get “enough” votes in the past must be “taxed” for the lack of their predecessors lack of success by having their “license to run” terminated.
Recall that advocates of ballot licensing restrictions have argued that it channels voters to elect moderate legislators. If that were the case, then by comparing Oregon ballot law with Oklahoma ballot we would expect to see a legislature in Oklahoma more moderate than in Oregon. Evidence to support this contention seems scant. Control of the Oklahoma Legislature has switched from Democratic Party to Republican Party control since 1974 and yet no moderation is evident in election law.
To the contrary, the severity of ballot access barriers in Oklahoma suggest a less moderate but no less entrenched body of legislators than Oregon. The severity of the restrictions in Oklahoma suggest that the intent of legislators goes beyond effective duopoly partisan entrenchment. Less onerous barriers in other states are sufficient to accomplish that objective. Indeed Oklahoma legislators and judges give the appearance of conducting a political pogrom against alternative parties and candidates. They appear biased to the extent that they appear to want to stamp out citizen dissent from the duopoly as political heresy.
The history of the escalation in 1974 from a five thousand petition signature barrier which had stood for fifty years to a barrier of over seventy thousand today and which remains long after the 1968 presidential election in Oklahoma when Gov. George Wallace’s American Party won twenty percent of the vote indicates something more at work than cold political calculation. The 1968 event was a traumatic shock to the allegedly moderate Oklahoma political elite. Thirty-six years later the candidate of 1968 is dead, the American Party is virtually defunct, and contemporary alternative parties active in Oklahoma – Libertarian, Green and Constitutional – have no connection with the voters who appear to have insulted the entrenched political establishment of 1968. In fact, no one in the Oklahoma legislature today is an incumbent from the 1968 -1974 legislature. But the ballot barriers are aggressively defended by current political elites. Severe barriers to the ballot in Oklahoma have become an article of zealous political faith in both entrenched parties.
But just whose party is being served?
Political parties in the primary sense are ephemeral private citizen groups because elections are episodic. In the primary sense parties have no political authority until individuals congregate to reveal the parties at the polls by actual balloting. Then the parties vanish when the voters decisions have been revealed. Nevertheless, the government asserts the necessity to regulate these individuals on the assumption that individuals belong to parties that actually exist before and after election day in the same sense that the parties existed on election day. Only in the tertiary sense of partisans elected to public office does a party have continuing authority after the election. And history has shown that those third-degree partisans (the party in government) can and will abuse their authority to advance and entrench themselves – even if they abuse the rights of the citizens who likely voted for them in the past.
In a system of minimally restrictive candidate ballot access ALL parties would be ‘knocked-off’ the ballot after each election. This would not change voters affiliations. It would not destroy party organizations. It would not keep elected partisan public officials from pursuing their goals. However, no parties would get preferentially ‘seeded’ on the ballot indefinitely. After all, when the ballots have been cast the party of voters in the primary sense discussed above becomes dormant. The activities of the secondary and tertiary parties are irrelevant to having a reserved label on the ballot. Equal access for all does not obstruct the legitimate activity of any party in any of the three senses of the term.
No voluntary fusion to ‘gang up’ on the entrenched parties
State election laws frequently include provisions which may be used in combination to exclude candidates by setting them to be in violation of one provision if they comply with another provision. A recent exam
@76 That’s because the Conference was last week.
http:LPMass/.org
1) Link @ 75 does not work
2) why is PLAS being discussed outside PLAS thread? and what is the point of IPR having any rules if no one enforces them?
for CIA Director.
I quote his interview: “But Petraeus instead pivoted to the TV-ready “ticking time bomb” scenario, and said torture might be justified if you have a “special situation” where an “individual in your hands who you know has placed a nuclear device under the Empire State Building. It goes off in 30 minutes, he has the codes to turn it off.” Then he urged legislators to consider crafting such an exception into the law.”
Of course the tortured will give you the code, you cretin!
The code that detonates the bomb immediately.
Where do we get people this stupid in high office?
Also, in my opinion the people who sat in his last four or five promotion boards, and signed off on passing him, should be immediately removed from any position of responsibility. And if they are too well connected to be sent on their way, they could at least be attached to something relatively harmless, like the Wyoming Seacoast Defense Command.
Robert Milnes, I, the Rev. Alberto Medvedev, will endorse your ticket for president right now! When are you going to start campaigning?
As you may have heard in the news, I recently publicly asked the Israelis not to shoot any Americans on the Freedom Tortilla. Because my statements have made me a bit of a media darling this week (we all get our fifteen minutes of fame, right?! Except the cheese, he always stands alone!) I think if I publicly endorse the Milnes ticket you will get a lot of street cred.
June 27, 2011
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
CONTACT:
Rev Alberto Medvedev
Church of Xenu
(973) 304-0808
[email protected]
http://
Rev Alberto Medvedev Demands America Vote Milnes
(Tinton Falls, NJ, 6/27/11) The Rev Alberto Medvedev officially called upon Americans to vote for Bob Milnes. He also supports the Green Party because he thinks they are a top-notch bunch of folks.
“I am sure Milnes will be a snazzy president,” said Rev Alberto Medvedev. “The Libertarians are a top-notch bunch of folks!”
Rev Alberto Medvedev has been an influential figure in American politics for three decades. He was a member of the LaRouche “US LABOR PARTY” before considering a run for the presidential nomination of the “Natural Law Party.”
“I think I would have won if I had run with the Natural Law folks,” said Rev Alberto Medvedev. “I have mastered yogic flying.”
Rev Alberto Medvedev wants everyone to remember that he is 100% in support of the Bob Milnes campaign, but also supports the Green Party because he thinks they are a top-notch bunch of folks.
# # #
George, I’m curious about the consequences of this.
Because I would be interested in a possible Milnes/Kwiatkowski & Karen is running in a Republican primary for U.S. Rep in VA.
It seems that Mr. Abramson, who appeared at the New Hampshire event and spoke at the end, thus by vote of the New Hampshirites present earning himself a first-place delegate vote from New Hampshire at the next National Convention, neglected to mention to the assembled multitude that he is a registered Republican running in the Republican primary for State Rep in a New Hampshire special election.
Add the Los Angeles Green Party facebook page, the fastest growing facebook page in the country.(You don’t have to be a Green to join)
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_209400249078012&id=231255480225822¬if_t=group_activity
[California 2012] U.S. SENATOR:
Dianne Feinstein (D)* – (Campaign Site)
Keith Holbrook (R) – Chemical Plant Technician
Tim Kalemkarian (R) – Frequent Candidate
Michael Stollaire (R) – Businessman, Tea Party Activist & ’10 US Rep. Candidate
************ Don Grundmann (AIP) – Chiropractor, Conservative Activist & Frequent Candidate
—————– Whoa, whoa, even MORE unethical dishonesty: (to the best of my belief and knowledge) Doctor Grundmann (is attempting to petition / qualify the California Constitution Party on the state ballot, while a member of the California Constitution Party, NOT as a member of the California American Independent Party! ———– and has not held a state wide office in AIP in some time!)
Public Request, Doctor G, please cease and desist ———- please run for future offices on other than the California AIP label, you deceitful toad.
……….. and a public thanks to Ron Gunzburger of Fort Lauderdale [FLorida] and for listing (finally) AIP and CP separately under ‘California ‘ ………..
We are working on changing the audio. I actually have software (Camtasia) that claims it will do this, but I do not have files of those videos. Several other people were recording; they are at Porcfest and will not be seen before next week.
@67 the audio is too low for my pc, maybe someone else has better !
The first of the videos of the New Hampshire event — Mary Ruwart — is now up on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/user/LibPartyMA
For these, thanks are owed to Bob Clark.
George Phillies
http://www.kintera.org/faf/donorReg/donorPledge.asp?ievent=463821&lis=1&kntae463821=38FF89091EF2418D8B5E62EB2750587F&supId=330157263
everyone , my little cousin lost her battle with cancer but Team Kenzie is still gonna run the 5K this year and raise money for Candlelightersnv …the money doesnt go to research but goes directly to help children and their families affected by cancer , every team member is responsible for their own fundraising and goal , mine is $500 for now ,any little bit will help , please donate
if the link above doesnt work , go to my FB page and navigate , if that doesnt work go to candlelightersnv.org , go t0 %k race , Teams , then team Kenzie , then my name Debra Dedmon , that way the donation goes to help me reach my goal even tho in the end it all goes the same place. I have a competition going with family soooo………dont let me down guys , even $1 helps , LOVE YOU ALL –LG
The people in the field did their job. The system worked until it got to him. End of story.
Because there isn’t much hope of his resigning, we should hope the [Catholic] church (in the true Peter’s principle fashion) promotes the bishop out of the Saint Joseph – Kansas City] diocese.
Rome might be a good place for him, where he can join the bureaucracy.
[Bishop] Finn’s biggest failing is the way he underestimates the intelligence of his flock.
This [Abusive Priests] commission is just another example. We may be his sheep, but many of us refuse to have the wool pulled over our eyes.
Ken Hansen, Smithville [Missouri]
Posted by Letters Editor on June 23, 2011 at 11:10 PM | CDT
Read more: http://blogs.kansascity.com/unfettered_letters/2011/06/sheep-not-buffaloed.html#ixzz1QDcHgxZ7
“In March, 1915, the J.P. Morgan interests, the steel, shipbuilding, and powder interest, and their subsidiary organizations, got together 12 men high up in the newspaper world and employed them to select the most influential newspapers in the United States and sufficient number of them to control generally the policy of the daily press….They found it was only necessary to purchase the control of 25 of the greatest papers. An agreement was reached; the policy of the papers was bought, to be paid for by the month; an editor was furnished for each paper to properly supervise and edit information regarding the questions of preparedness, militarism, financial policies, and other things of national and international nature considered vital to the interests of the purchasers.” – Congressman Oscar Callaway
“who controls and censors the media?”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyEjyWtmRNI&feature=related
“We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected the promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world-government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the National auto-determination practiced in past centuries.” – David Rockefeller
“For more than a century, ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.” – David Rockefeller
“The CIA owns everyone of any significance in the major media.” – William Colby – Former CIA Director
“There is no such thing, at this date of the world’s history, in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar weekly salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone. The business of the journalists is to destroy the truth; to lie outright; to pervert; to vilify; to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting an independent press? We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities, and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes.” – John Swinton, former New York Times Chief of Staff
“Whoever controls the media, controls your mind.” – Jim Morrison
No one can be truly powerful unless he has access to the command of major institutions, for it is over these institutional means of power that the truly powerful are, in the first instance, truly powerful . . . – C. Wright Mills
“Perhaps the most obvious political effect of controlled news is the advantage it gives powerful people in getting their issues on the political agenda and defining those issues in ways likely to influence their resolution.” – W. Lance Bennett
“A newspaper has three things to do. One is to amuse, another is to entertain and the rest is to mislead.” – Ernest Bevin – British Foreign Minister
“The American people should be made aware of the trend toward monopolization of the great public information vehicles and the concentration of more and more power over public opinion in fewer and fewer hands.” – Spiro Agnew
“By the skillful and sustained use of propaganda, one can make a people see even heaven as hell or an extremely wretched life as paradise.” – Adolph Hitler
“The drive of the Rockefellers and their allies is to create a one-world government combining supercapitalism and Communism under the same tent, all under their control…. Do I mean conspiracy? Yes I do. I am convinced there is such a plot, international in scope, generations old in planning, and incredibly evil in intent.” – Congressman Larry P. McDonald, killed in the Korean Airlines 747 that was shot down by the Soviets
“There are thousands hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root.” – Henry David Thoreau
EVENT: FREEDOMWATCH ON FOX TV
First Sundays, 2011
12:00 pm – 1:00 pm eastern
(This event repeats every month on the first Sunday.)
Location: http://freedomwatchonfox.com/
Notes:
PLEASE POST
Libertarian-oriented show with guests such as Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell, LP leaders, and more…see site for times or watch online anytime.
@60 NF why in hades would you want to “take over” the Prohibition Party? In 235 years of the US it is the only Amendment to ever be repealed. Prohibition DOESN’T work and should be ended on all forms of recreational “substances” !
\/ \/ \/
I believe that every individual is naturally entitled to do as he pleases with himself and the fruits of his labor, so far as it in no way interferes with any other men’s rights. – Abraham Lincoln
“Libertarians Are The Party People” – http://www.lpstuff.com/shop/index.php?_a=viewProd&productId=470
I grew hemp – George Washington – http://www.lpstuff.com/shop/index.php?_a=viewProd&productId=530
RE-Legalize It > http://www.lpstuff.com/shop/index.php?_a=viewCat&catId=109
—
@49 Bilderberg Group graduate Rick Perry was the 1988 TX Campaign Chairman for Al Gore. Karl Rove recruited him to the Rs and the rest is history! Think anyone (in their right mind) wants another Karl Rove candidate “overseeing” the American economy ?! One problem the Rs have now is the RINOs who defected from the Ds and never left behind their belief in gov’t to do “good” for the masses…
The MEDIA IS THE ENEMY
Find out why maverick, independent grass-roots media voices such as American Free Press have declared all-out war on the elite-controlled Big Media Monopoly in America and around the globe . . .
In the old Soviet Union, the government controlled the media. Not a word of substance could be published without prior approval from the Bolshevik commissars. Today, in the United States, the situation is starkly similar. But most Americans don’t even know it.
In the United States today, it is a select handful of super-rich families and tightly-knit financial interests—a plutocratic elite—who own the Big Media and who control the government through their ownership of that media. . . .
Every single one of the major media outlets is controlled by this powerful interlocking combine.
ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, Time, Newsweek, U.S. News & World Report, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, The Chicago Tribune—even such “regional” giants as The New Orleans Times-Picayune, The Miami Herald, The San Diego Herald-Tribune. . . . The list goes on and on.
And these media powerhouses control dozens—actually thousands—of other daily and weekly newspapers, magazines, and radio and television outlets across America (and around the globe).
PLUS: Did you know that every single supermarket tabloid is owned by just one, super-rich Wall Street banker?
To consolidate their influence, the Masters of the Media and their international corporate allies reward obedient journalists with membership in the Council on Foreign Relations or the Trilateral Com mission where they rub shoulders with others in the international policy-making networks. A handful get promoted to the higher ranks of the secret Bilderberg Group.
The so-called “mainstream” media is very much a “closed shop” and only those willing to do the bidding of the global power elite need apply. Tom Brokaw, Dan Rather and Peter Jennings and other puppets are just the public faces that the American people see.
Behind the scenes are the shadowy owners and corporate power brokers who dictate what you will (or will not) see in your daily newspaper or on the evening news.
The average American has no idea that super-rich predators with names like Rockefeller, Rothschild, Bronfman, Newhouse, Murdoch and Redstone are making vast profits and achieving immense power through their stranglehold on
the American media (and, increasingly, on media around the globe.)
* These shadowy media controllers decide which politicians are “in” and which politicians are “out.” (They made Bill Clinton overnight. They also broke Richard Nixon overnight.)
* The Masters of the Media decide which issues can—or cannot—be debated. (Imagine a public de bate over the Federal Reserve system on Ted Coppell’s Nightline. It will never happen!)
* The Masters of the Media promote the perverse, anti-Christian Cultural Communist ideology that permeates publishing and broadcasting today.
* The Masters of the Media decide which are the “good wars” and which are the “bad wars.”
* The Masters of the Media decide who is the “hero” and who is the “villain.”
If the Big Media decides you will be the patsy, then the patsy you will be.
It’s that simple. Ask Lee Harvey Oswald or James Earl Ray or Gordon Kahl or Randy Weaver or the victims of Waco.
As we said: THE MEDIA IS THE ENEMY.
And that’s why American Free Press is right here on Capitol Hill taking up the challenge against this enemy. We’re in the forefront of the battle to reclaim America.
But American Free Press couldn’t exist without the support of its readers. That’s what makes this populist newspaper unique.
We have lots of enthusiastic readers—good patriots all across America—but we don’t have the massive resources or the endless financial backing of the Media Monopoly.
In 1989, there were 11 major media giants emerging as the most powerful names in the global Media Monopoly. Today there are nine major corporations dominating the global media (although two of the nine are actually controlled by one family).
And that’s why American Free Press exists: to counter the ever-tightening Media Monopoly both here in the United States—and around the globe.
Subscribe today and find out the news that you need to know. One year of weekly issues of American Free Press is $59—weekly issues delivered right to your doorstep. Two years of weekly issues of American Free Press are just $99. If you’d like a trial subscription or if you’d like to send a gift to a friend, try our 16-week trial subscription to AFP for just $17.76. Our on-line version, AFP OnLine, is just $15. Every week you get an electronic version of the newspaper in PDF format you can open right on your computer. Full color and about one megabyte, each issue can be opened in Adobe Acrobat®. You can order online by clicking here. http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/afp_subscribe.html
To subscribe to AFP call toll free at 1-888-699-NEWS (6397) and charge a subscription (or any of the many other informative products offered by AFP and First Amendment Books) to Visa or MasterCard.
OUR GUARANTEE: If you are ever dissatisfied with your subscription to American Free Press, just drop us a note to the above address and we will gladly refund the unused portion of your subscription.
“There are thousands hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root.” – Henry David Thoreau
“The real menace of our republic is this invisible government which like a giant octopus sprawls its slimy length over city, state and nation. Like the octopus of real life, it operates under cover of a self created screen. It seizes in its long and powerful tentacles our executive officers, our legislative bodies, our schools, our courts, our newspapers, and every agency created for the public protection. At the head of this octopus are the Rockefeller Standard Oil interests and a small group of powerful banking houses generally referred to as international bankers. The little coterie of powerful international bankers virtually run the United States government for their own selfish purposes. They practically control both political parties, write political platforms, make catspaws of party leaders, use the leading men of private organizations, and resort to every device to place in nomination for high public office only such candidates as will be amenable to the dictates of corrupt big business. These international bankers and Rockefeller Standard Oil interests control the majority of newspapers and magazines in this country.” – John F. Hylan, New York City Mayor 1922
@56.
Yes, changelinks is still around. Read the most recent issue, but they are hitting massive hardtimes with donations falling short. I wouldn’t be surprised if they go under.
# 59 Neil Klaus // Jun 23, 2011:
“………… be interesting to read what Steven Gordon talked about ……….” ——- Huh? Why?
Thanks for the link, Neil. 25 delegates… wow! I guess it wouldn’t be too tough to take over that party if one was interested. With ballot status in 2 or 3 states I guess there isn’t much point.
It would be interesting to read what Steven Gordon talked about.
http://www.cullmantimes.com/local/x603690793/Prohibition-Party-meets-in-Cullman
Is anyone going to post a story about the recent Prohibition Party National Nominating Convention? There is a story posted over at Ballot Access News with some 33 posts so I think it is a reasonably popular topic right now. I am hoping for a more in depth article.
LA area tabloid ‘Change Link’ still going ????????
———————————————–
*musical tune* MON – NEY, MONEY, MONEY, MONEY ………….
Contribute $5 today, before the end-of-quarter deadline, to help Claire have a strong financial report.
Claire will be a top target for the Republican Party in 2012 — in fact, just yesterday Karl Rove’s attack group began a $50,000 radio ad blitz going after her.
Claire needs to fight back now, but I also know she’ll face a lot more negative, personal attacks down the road.
That’s why it’s so important that you and I help Claire meet her 1,000-contributor goal right now, before the June 30th deadline.
Even if you can’t contribute much, what’s important is the number of people that get involved.
Make a contribution of just $5 today, before the end-of-quarter deadline, to help Claire reach her 1,000-donor goal.
Thanks for your help, Barbara Eagleton [Tom’s Widow ………..]
SAN FERNANDO VALLEY GREEN PARTY –
The Green Party machine in the San Fernando Valley began its campaign to win in 2012, and we would like everyone to participate to help elect Eugene Hernandez for state assembly and Michael Powellson for Congress.
Join our volunteer group and become part of history as we stand up against corporate interests and take back our state capital. Go Green machine 2012!
Melty: “Ron Paul’s been calling himself mainstream lately, which [sic] has become a fair enough statement. He didn’t “go mainstream”. The mainstream went to him, so to speak.”
I’m a Paul fan, but I’m not sure by what definition he’s considered “mainstream.”
Jill @ 52,
I don’t think there’s any “loss of suspense” problem with Root. He’s been running for the 2012 nomination since 2008.
Sometimes he admits it when he thinks only certain people are listening, then denies it when others notice. That’s not a suspense problem, it’s just one piece of his larger congenital dishonesty problem.
TK@51: ” The temptation for someone who’s perceived as a likely front-runner is to drop hints, build suspense and wait as long as possible before actually jumping in, so that the field gets winnowed out a little and the opponents maybe step on their on cranks.
There’s a point, though, at which the suspense turns to boredom and the field/opponents start pulling away instead of falling out.”
I would say this would apply to Wayne Allyn Root, as well as Rick Perry.
Bob @ 86,
Perry’s playing the same dangerous game that Fred Thompson played in 2008.
The temptation for someone who’s perceived as a likely front-runner is to drop hints, build suspense and wait as long as possible before actually jumping in, so that the field gets winnowed out a little and the opponents maybe step on their on cranks.
There’s a point, though, at which the suspense turns to boredom and the field/opponents start pulling away instead of falling out. Perry is getting close to that “shit or get off the pot” point, IMO.
Robert Capozzi // Jun 20, 2011:
“Any LPO news?”
[Lake: Libertarian Party of Ohio ????????????? Here on Libertarian Political Report ????????? Where ‘Open Thread’ means ‘Libertarian Dog Pile’ ???????????]
as for the Rs, it will be very interesting if Perry gets in. I suspect he’d take the wind out of the sails of the right wingers, leaving Romney, Huntsman, Pawlenty, Paul and hopefully Johnson. I base this only on one viewing of a recent Perry speech, but he seems to have the qualities the Rs seem to thirst for. For the LM, I’d definitely like to see Johnson stay in, as he takes the edge off Paul, making L ideas more sellable.
Ron Paul’s been calling himself mainstream lately, which he has become a fair enough statement. He didn’t “go mainstream”. The mainstream went to him, so to speak. He’s altered the political landscape. The other candidates emulate Paul to an extent that wouldn’t have seemed possible four years ago.
Common sense has been commonly referred to with pejoratives such as “isolationist”, “extreme”, “fringe”, but lately some Republicans’re coming to their senses. Common sense is no longer uncommon. This has the greedier powers that be, well-invested in both ruling parties, squirming.
As for Gary Johnson getting excluded from that debate, I gave the organizers’ criteria a quick look, and it seemed pretty obvious to me what they did. They cherry-picked the polls they wanted to look at and not look at, because they wanted Santorum in, and Johnson out, of their debate. The two poll very similarily, one to three percent range. If approached without bias, it would be both Johnson and Santorum or neither. They did not want a Paul-like figure up there with Paul, like in the first debate (media reports of that debate pretended Johnson didn’t exist, and they’ve been trying to pretend that debate never happened ever since). They want Paul to sound as if he’s all alone and way different, thereby “fringe” and “extreme”, which he is no longer, so they can’t have Johnson up there. This’s well-seen.
@31 The Bill listed was VETOED by the FAR-LEFT President stating it was a danger to “safe” air travel.
All Political beliefs welcome, come join if you can!
A lively political debate daily !
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/usma_/
Welcome to the Immigration Office of the United States of MicroAmerica!: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/usma_immigration/
Any LPO news?
Alec Baldwin’s daughter will be present and guests are allowed to yell and swear at her! *sarcasm*
…………………………….
Donald Lake BWoodruff ; [email protected]
From: Robert Weissman, President
Subject: Alec Baldwin & Bill Moyers – Public Citizen’s 40th Anniversary Gala
To: [email protected]
Date: Saturday, June 18, 2011, 1:07 PM
Donald Lake, Citizens For A Better Veterans Home
You won’t want to miss celebrating Public Citizen’s 40th anniversary with Emmy Award-winning actor Alec Baldwin and Peabody Award-winning journalist Bill Moyers.
We’ll also toast our founders — Ralph Nader, Joan Claybrook, Alan Morrison and Dr. Sidney Wolfe — as we commemorate all that Public Citizen has accomplished through its first 40 years.
I look forward to seeing you at our 40th anniversary gala in Washington, D.C., on October 20!
© 2011 Public Citizen • 1600 20th Street, NW / Washington, D.C. 20009 • http://www.citizen.org
Concerned Chuck and Hetro Harry // Jun 19, 2011 at 11:27 pm ………..
[a] Green Party types and the murdered innocents in international waters on the Gaza Relief Floatia of late
[b] with mailing address I can give you copy of USS Liberty murders via “America’s Most Shameful Secret’ on http://www.LewRockwell. com/orig/margolis12
[c] http://www.reformpartyactiongroup.org
[d] third party / independents hall of shame, ‘Alaska Constitution Party’; Reform / Deform Party John Blare, John Dennis Coffey, John Bambey, Valli Sharpe Giesler; and Libs Bruce Cohen and W. A. R.
Oops! Should have spelled Clemons correct. Damn!
Just a note to say thanks to Clarence Clemmons who passed away this weekend. The music was sweet. Let’s hope that there is a joyful in Heaven and the Big Man is blowing the horn. Great Music and a Great Man. Thank You!
http://hamptonroads.com/2011/06/clarence-clemons-big-man-every-definition
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5e4-20tqC4A
My roommate and I are deeply concerned about the direction this country is headed in. We plan on writing a book pointing on the truth for all Americans (who are not Israeli spies) to see. We hope this book will be done in the next year but until then, because the need is so urgent, we will be updating the world through comments on blogs and other websites. Here are just a few points from our forthcoming book:
1) Alan Keyes has had direction contact with the devil and is either the anti-Christ himself or a good friend of the anti-Christ. Either way his association with the pedophile-ridden idol-worshiping Catholic “church” has turned his daughter into a lesbian.
2) The Catholic Church using it’s money to promote causes such as NAMBLA and the Socialist Labor Party in order to advance it’s main objective witch is tax-paper subsidized pedophilia and mass-produced idols to Mary, the queen of the homosexuals.
3) The man the Israelis claimed was Adolf Eichmann and executed in 1960 was no such person. He was an Argentinan watchmaker and sometimes Mormon missionary who happened upon documents linking the Catholic Church and the Nazi Party in their joint efforts to destroy Black Muslim groups like the Nation of Islam. Now being the chief anti-Muslim advocates the Jews had to protect their former oppressors war crimes in order to prevent world opinion becoming aware of the great Nazi-Catholic crimes committed against the Muslim people.
4) Male prostate stimulation is not homosexual and is, in fact, promoted in biblical texts via the system of correspondence created by prophet Emanuel Swendenborg.
5) Don Glen Vliet, widely know as Captain Beefheart promoted the word of Jesus Christ and his prophets Emmanuel Swendenborg and Mary Baker Eddy. His album “Trout Mask Replica” is the greatest musical representation of the Bible and the secret prophecies in it concerning 9/11.
“The Independent Review is excellent.”
–Gary S. Becker, Nobel Laureate in Economic Sciences
We are pleased to announce the publication of the Summer 2011 issue of The Independent Review, edited by the noted economist and historian Robert Higgs.
Below you will find a summary of the contents and links to selected articles, book reviews, subscription information, and submission guidelines.
The Independent Review strives to give readers superb scholarship and exemplary prose. A peer-reviewed journal, The Independent Review is abstracted and indexed in the Thomson-ISI database’s Social Sciences Citation Index, Current Contents/Social & Behavioral Sciences, and many other scholarly abstracts and indexes.
If you’ve not done so before, please take advantage of our Special Internet Offer of a trial subscription with TWO complimentary issues. (You can also contact us at 510-632-1366 x118 or [email protected].) And if your favorite library does not carry The Independent Review, simply print the Library Subscription Recommendation Form, fill it out, and submit it to your librarian.
Please feel free to contact me with any questions.
Sincerely,
Carl P. Close
Assistant Editor, The Independent Review
The Independent Institute
100 Swan Way
Oakland, CA 94621-1428
(510) 632-1366 ext. 117 Phone
(510) 568-6040 Fax
[email protected]
Zzzzzz… what’s that you say, Ogle? I don’t think Bob wants anything to do with you. He does have standards you know.
PUBLIC CITIZEN:
Donald Lake, Citizens For A Better Veterans Home:
Despite overwhelming public demand to end oil industry subsidies, Big Oil held onto its $4 billion in federal handouts.
But there is some good news in last month’s Senate vote that we can use in our ongoing work for sustainable energy policies.
We gained 6 votes since the last attempt to stop gratuitous government giveaways to the oil industry.
In February, the Senate voted 54-44 to kill an amendment that would have ended certain tax breaks for Big Oil.
Increased constituent pressure helped Public Citizen and its partners move 3 Democrats, 2 Republicans and 1 Independent to the sensible side of the debate about corporate welfare.
We now definitively know who stands with the American people and who stands with the oil industry.
Senators who voted against repealing oil subsidies have received an average of $370,664 each in campaign contributions from the employees and political action committees of oil and gas companies.
Senators who voted for repeal received just $72,145, on average, from the industry
Yup
shouldn’t the comment at 25 be on the US Parliament thread? https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2010/12/us-parliament-open-thread/
June 14, 2011: [Sarah] Palin feasts on media
Sarah Palin says she doesn’t owe the mainstream media anything. She couldn’t be more wrong.
She owes the mainstream media everything. They chase her around the country and give her airtime on TV and print …………
Read more: http://blogs.kansascity.com/unfettered_letters/#ixzz1POue37Os
Blog has been removed
Sorry, the blog at libertarianblue.blogspot.com has been removed. This address is not available for new blogs.
Did you expect to see your blog here? See: ‘I can’t find my blog on the Web, where is it?’
UPDATE IPR PERHAPS ?????????
The above header should read as listed here. Accidently hit ENTER while attempting to Edit. Hope some (or ALL) of you will join us !
United States of MicroAmerica needs Senators. You know you can do a better job than those goofballs in DC! Join up and show us.
MicroAmerica is a fun and interesting simulation of political and current events of America. You can simulate the role of Government and Congressional leaders, members of the Cabinet, or Supreme Court Justices. You can run a campaign and become President.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/usma_/
WARNING – The current POTUSMA is a real live Liberal just like Obama. The debate is lively and interesting and you actually vote on bills. Hope you will consider joining us.
Once you clear security you can then join one of our party caucuses:
American Conservative Party
Constitutionalist Party
Democratic Party
Libertarian Party
Personal Choice Party
Republican Party
Here is an example of a Bill we passed this past weekend. No more groping your junk at the airport in MICROAMERICA !
Short Title: American Traveler Dignity Act
Original submission date to Senate Secretary
Submission date sent to committee
03/13/2011 Committee Amendment: Murray Amendment Vote: 4 Yeas & 2 Nays
03/19/2011 Disposition by Committee: Passed Vote: 3 Yeas & 1 Nay
03/19/2011 Date sent to Senate
05/25/2011 Date put on Senate Floor
06/07/2011 Date of any Senate Action: Shockley Amendment (Changed 2010 to 2011) Passed by UC
06/13/2011 Final Disposition by Senate: Passed Vote: 14 Yeas, 5 Nays, 3 Presents
Majority Report: y/n _____ Minority report y/n ______
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES OF MICROAMERICA
December 23, 2010
Mr. Groover (for himself, and) Mr. Nutter, Ms. Mack, Mr. Larsen, and Mr. Caverly
A BILL
To ensure that certain Federal employees cannot hide behind immunity.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `American Traveler Dignity Act of 2011′.
SEC. 2. NO IMMUNITY FOR CERTAIN AIRPORT SCREENING METHODS.
No law of the United States shall be construed to confer any immunity for a Federal employee or agency or any individual or entity that receives Federal funds,who subjects an individual to any physical contact (including contact with any clothing the individual is wearing), x-rays, or millimeter waves, or aids in the creation of or views a representation of any part of a individual’s body covered by clothing as a condition for such individual to be in an airport or to fly in an aircraft. The preceding sentence shall apply even if the individual or the individual’s parent, guardian, or any other individual gives consent.
SECTION 3.
Nothing in this legislation shall prevent Security Agents from accessing no-fly lists or from using demographic information of sex, nationality, language, demeanor, or dress related to past terrorist incidents, to focus more intense scrutiny, extended interrogation, or a physical search of those passengers fitting terrorist profiles.
SECTION. 3. Effective Date
(1) This Legislation shall become effective immediately upon ratification in accordance with the USMA Constitution
In a message dated 6/13/11 5:16:28 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:
The following usma_senate poll is now closed. Here are the
final results:
POLL QUESTION: Are you in favor of SB 11-002 – American Traveler Dignity Act of 2011? This will be a 72 hour poll and it will be closed on Monday, June 13, 2011 around 8:30 AM, EST.
CHOICES AND RESULTS
– Yea, 14 votes, 63.64%
– Nay, 5 votes, 22.73%
– Present / Abstain, 3 votes, 13.64%
INDIVIDUAL VOTES
– Yea
– caverlyj@…
– charles.demo@…
– blftmf@…
– tjeff@…
– peace…@…
– aerix88@…
– murraba@…
– bixonleo@…
– glenaldrich@…
– auron3161986@…
– LaurelKornfeld@…
– rrnttr@…
– professor_lefty@…
– horsetrader2010@…
– Nay
– nyplowboy1@…
– yahoo@…
– pirate.individualist@…
– bart.larsen@…
– pgofsf@…
– Present / Abstain
– RDMulkey736@…
– sum_guy_17@…
– dfusma@…
Directly dragged and dropped from original site.
http://deesdotes.org/ IS a valid address, he missed a critical space…
todeesdotes.org ? Its not a valid web address
“Green Party Activist”
24th-Mar-2011 05:08 am – Moving this journal
deesings
For those of you following my posts, I am moving my journal todeesdotes.org. All of my Live Journal posts have been posted there!
Fox news needs Romney to get the nomination. Bachmann would get almost worthy ratings.
Fox couldn’t make any stories or shows, because they all rip on Ron Paul. If Ron Paul or Johnson get the nomination, Fox would need to make fun of their very own viewership. Hannity, Oreily, and the lawyer clown woman couldn’t ask for any specials or interviews.
Romney Pawlenty will get the ticket. They offer ratings and stability. Bachmann might be safe, but where are the solutions for all these problems caused by Obama?
A president must be qualified to offer solutions and lead to their application. GOP is coming up short on this requirement.
KaY @19, hey, if the pundits can weed out Ron Paul, counterrevolutionary typhoid Mary, I have no problem with that.
No More for Ron Paul=
NM4RP.
21 gp: LP Florida demands Libertarians adopt homophobic bigotry as its platform position.
me: This appears to be an essay by one person, not a “platform position.” Has LPF adopted a new platform position? Where is the “demand”? “Quit shooting ourselves in the foot” doesn’t seem like a full-blown “demand” to me. What in your mind constitutes “homophobic bigotry” in this essay?
To be clear, I didn’t have the same reaction to Hinkle’s words as Rhodes did, although I generally prefer the “get out of ‘marriage’ entirely” stance. As a practical matter, I’m OK with same-gender “marriages” as a kind of shorthand.
GP @ 21: Unbefuckinglievable. Our party has been infiltrated by some weird Republican hybrid. Thanks for posting this George, but to start my day reading this rant isn’t a good thing.
Also, the LP FLorida claim about attitudes toward homosexuality by the American people, especially the younger generation, does not agree with any polling data that I have seen recently.
LP Florida demands Libertarians adopt homophobic bigotry as its platform position.
Aside: As a general rule, whenever you find anyone ranting about Judeo-Christian ideas, they are ignorant of the Jewish faith. For example, in the case here the author is rather transparently unaware that the old Testament Jewish belief on marriage — cast aside more than a thousand years ago by European Jews — is that polygamy is appropriate if a man could support, etc. his wives. A modern example of Old Testament marriage was provided by Rudy Giuliani, who kept his wife and his concubine under the same roof. Interesting events in modern times when European Jews founding Israel encountered Eastern Jews who had not cast aside these beliefs are a fine example of the virtues of religious tolerance.
So that there can be no question that I am misrepresenting the LP-Florida position, I quote the full editorial at http://www.libertyflorida.org/?p=710
The Trouble with Libertarians
By Tom Rhodes
Vice-Chair Libertarian Party of Citrus County
Chairman LPF Platform Committee
6/13/2011
Today’s editorial by WND editor has the same title as my blog entry, The Trouble with Libertarians. Economically, philosophically, and morally, libertarian ideas have been proven to be what is best for the vast majority of people, but the implementation of libertarian ideas by Libertarians have made the Libertarian Party unpalatable for the majority of Americans.
There is a paradigm shift in this country happening, it’s not Republican/Democrat or Left/Right, or Conservative/Liberal. The people are realizing that there is now a war between those who love liberty and all it entails and statists who want to control everything. The Libertarian Party should take advantage of this paradigm shift, but as our 40 year history has shown, we once again we shoot ourselves in the foot. We have again furthered our image of Amoral Atheistic Anarchists. This unfortunately accurate combination of descriptors will insure that the American people will only rarely elect Libertarian candidates. Ron Paul, arguably the most successful candidate wearing the libertarian moniker, is not a member of the Libertarian Party. Because he has realized that to win elections and have a positive affect for liberty for all Americans, he had to abandon the LP. Americans will not elect Amoral Atheistic Anarchists.
Last week’s press release by LP Chairman, Mark Hinkle, unnecessarily alienated over half the US population and hypocritically compromised libertarian principles. By saying that, “Permitting couples to marry when they are of the same gender is a step in the direction of equality before the law” he said the LP is willing to compromise its principles, and willing to alienate the majority of the population which hold the more than 5000 year old belief that marriage is between a man and a woman; thus supporting the idea that a small minority can use the force of government to change the very definition accepted for thousands of years, and force not only tolerance but acceptance of their beliefs and silence the majority. This at its core is contrary the Principles of Liberty.
Hinkle was quite right when he said that “the idea that someone’s legal rights should depend on whether they’ve entered a government-approved relationship ought to be repugnant to all of us.” The Christian principle of Equality under the Law, properly adopted by both our founding fathers and the Libertarian Party, should make the idea of providing any special privileges or punishments to anybody repugnant. Saying that expanding the special privileges of some to include a few more only strengthens the idea that unequal treatment under the law is acceptable, and undermines Libertarians calling themselves “The Party of Principle.”
Most Americans firmly believe that all people should be free to do as they wish so long as they don’t infringe upon the rights of others. That means that most Americans tolerate but do not condone, approve, or even accept the amoral behavior of others, only that they accept that with liberty and freedom one must tolerate socially abhorrent behavior if it doesn’t infringe upon the rights of another. Thus to protect the free speech of everybody, we tolerate the racist bigoted hateful speech of both the KKK and Black Panthers. Toleration of such speech does not mean Americans condone it.
The LP could have taken a far more principled stand, and opened the LP up to both the LBGT community, and the majority of Americans who tolerate but don’t condone homosexuality. People are free to voluntarily enter into binding contracts, and the government’s duty is to justly honor and protect those contracts through the judicial system, but in no way should any person be given any special privileges or punishments based upon the voluntary private contracts that they enter. The LP’s sole position on marriage should be that it is not the job of the government to sanction marriage, the government’s purpose is to protect the rights of all people equally. To further that end our judicial system was created to justly administer criminal law and civil contracts.
From a moral or philosophical perspective how can justifying or supporting unequal treatment of singles or couples who choose not to enter legal contracts, over those who choose to be in contractual partnerships, be construed as a libertarian principle? The very idea, that expanding unequal treatment to include another sub-group is acceptable, is hypocritical pandering that makes the LP look no better or different than the Democrats or Republicans, and further hurts the reputation and image of the LP in the eyes of Americans. What Libertarian Principle justifies laws that treat some people different than others?
Today’s WND editorial, will reach more people than all the Libertarian press releases, blogs, and other stories combined. WND has more libertarian commentators than almost any other source, and regularly supports libertarian principles. At WND you can regularly find the writings of Wayne Allen Root, Walter E. Williams, John Stossel, Thomas Sowell, VoxDay, Lew Rockwell, and virtually every other credible libertarian of note. WND reflects the position of most Americans, who support libertarian ideology but reject the Libertarian Party.
Other libertarian organizations quite purposefully do not associate themselves with the LP. The reason they don’t is because they realize that their credibility with the American public is suspect if they do. The biggest ground swell in American politics in the last have century is the TEA Party movement. It’s a true grass roots movement made of many small organizations with no central control or authority. Any attempt by some to claim leadership is quite obviously a lie, as the many grass root TEA Parties throughout the country get very upset at some distant person they didn’t choose and not affiliated to their group claiming to be their leader. The TEA Party clearly embraces the Philosophy of Liberty and more than half the country associated itself with the TEA Party movement. The reason the American people have gravitated to it and not the LP, which should be their natural home, is because of the LP image.
Columnist Dick Morris, wrote in the National Review about libertarianism and the TEA party, “The libertarian strain in the American electorate has long been neglected by the mainstream media. But, through the tea party, it has gained ascendancy on the right. Those who want the government to stay out of both boardrooms and bedrooms have come to dominate the [Republican] party and its nominating process.” He totally ignored the LP, because he believes it is irrelevant.
The Libertarian Party (LP) has remained virtually the same small portion of the electorate for decades. We can open ourselves up to a far larger segment of the population not only small special interest groups like the LBGT community, but also the far larger majority of the US population which still holds to Christian principles. Libertarian ideology is rooted in the same principles that were used to form our constitution. Whether we want to admit it or not those are Judeo-Christian principles. Christ’s example was to tolerate, help, and pray for sinners, he never condoned sinful behavior, but did recognize the free will God gave all men, and never advocated force to gain acceptance. If we continue to alienate over half the population by compromising our principles in order to trash Judeo-Christian beliefs, we will continue to have the same results, and remain a very small group, and virtually powerless except as a foil or joke for political pundits. Libertarian principles and values are main stream but Libertarians aren’t.
To be successful the LP must quit shooting ourselves in the foot. LP Chairman, Mark Hinkle’s last press release did nothing to help the LP, and only confirmed the image most Americans have of the LP, an image the people have consistently said with their vote is not compatible who they want to lead our country. Our party is insane to think that we can continue to embrace our Amoral Atheistic Anarchist image, and have any different acceptance by the American people. The LP is almost powerless because not only do we have to deal with all the inherent inequalities that being a third party entails, we have embraced an image the American people have rejected. The LP must stand by its principles; but to be effective in American politics we must also shed our Amoral Atheistic Anarchist image. I believe we can do both, but our leadership must recognize that we have an image problem and address it.
Wilson: “Does [Johnson] not poll high enough?”
Right.
@16 that’s what they used to exclude.
@17 sounds fair to me.
***Ron Paul gets more face time this year, but same ole inarticulate self. Just not “Presidential” looking or acting enough for the masses.
Anyone who saw the 360 show after the debate saw the “spin” used to “pick” the horse race. They “the pundits” narrow the field before a single vote is cast. You know the masses must be “helped” to decide. Does anyone wonder why ? Ron Paul is given an interview for about 3 minutes, but NOT one of the “pundits” hardly even mention him thereafter and he doesn’t show up on their political experts survey of debate winners, which only had Romney, Bachman and Pawlenty listed with % total equaling only 80. I wonder how the other 20% fell into place ?
Oh well, Paul was able to clarify “you can’t legislate morality” in his post debate interview, he had mangled it in real time. Gary Johnson would be an interesting addition, but NO WAY can two anti-policemen of the world in foreign policy be allowed to speak to the masses in the same forum I guess. MIC can’t allow it, they might just overshadow the overpaid lackey ” pundits’ ” propaganda MIC pays them to spew !!!
One guy had it right late in the debate when his question was about the U.S. being the policeman of the world, but CNN and Senator Santorum shut his genius question down swiftly!
“Real Conservatives Vote Libertarian” – http://www.lpstuff.com/shop/index.php?_a=viewProd&productId=253
Recovering Republican Mouse Pad – http://www.lpstuff.com/shop/index.php?_a=viewProd&productId=829
Remind other drivers that without the second amendment, we wouldn’t have any of them! – http://www.lpstuff.com/shop/index.php?_a=viewProd&productId=187
SAY IT WITH A BUMPER STICKER – http://www.lpstuff.com/shop/index.php?_a=viewCat&catId=4
@15, Actually, they all did well.
Huh? What does that mean?
They are hogging up airtime spewing their reactionary nonsense at our expense-figuratively and literally.
Who cares how they do?
I’d like to see a town hall forum, each candidate answers the same question, first respondent gets 90 seconds, everyone else gets 30. Every candidate answers first twice with the order being reversed after the first “round” of questions.
Then a “lightning round” where each candidate is selected randomly and asked a randomly selected question with 45 seconds to answer – each candidate will be selected 3 times.
@JP
Has anyone ever found out why Johnson was left off the stage?
Does he not poll high enough?
GP @ 14 : I agree. Actually, they all did well. I think it stunk, though, that Michelle Bachmann was included without even declaring her candidacy, but Gary Johnson wasn’t. Having said that, though, Mrs. Bachmann did very well.
The Republicans debated this evening. The ‘debate’ style, different questions for different speakers, did not develop contrast between the characters.
http://reason.com/blog/2011/06/13/john-hospers-rip
John Hospers, RIP
(so called) conservatives ……….
Sample of the Don Grundmann *sarcasm* ‘Sara Palin is Brilliant’ Broadcast responce ………
[Paul] Revere [1775] was held for some time and then released.
Left without a horse, Revere returned to Lexington in time to witness part of the battle on the Lexington Green.
This attempt at rewriting history shows you what many conservatives really think about American history.
It’s too be manipulated and massaged to fit their agenda.
This is a stark reminder of how the conservative right will do anything to win.
To them, it is less about the truth, and all about the victory.
To many of them, they see it all as a game, and if history gets changed on the way, so be it.
They love the symbols of America (the constitution, the flag, the liberty bell and statue of liberty, etc) which they fetishize.
They focus on the symbols because that’s all many of them grasp of American history.
If they knew the real history behind those symbols and stories then they wouldn’t behave like dumb-asses.
To them, the symbols are used as a replacement to the full history behind them.
It’s like the early Christians who were illiterate and thus relied upon the frescoes, stained glass symbols and other illustrations to explain the Bible.
This only gave them a vague and incomplete understanding of their own belief system.
Sadly, however, this isn’t the first time they have done this kind of thing.
Randolph Bourne Institute (publisher of Antiwar.com)
Randolph Bourne, a notable American journalist, social critic, and political activist of the early 20th century, courageously opposed U.S. intervention in World War I.
The Randolph Bourne Institute (RBI) seeks to honor Bourne’s memory by promoting a non interventionist foreign policy for the United States as the best way of fostering a peaceful, more prosperous world.
A nonprofit, tax-exempt, educational organization founded in 2001, the RBI centers its efforts around four major projects: a Web site, Antiwar.com; a fellows program for writers and researchers; a speakers program; and a student intern and campus outreach program.
Every RBI project is designed for maximum inclusiveness, in the hope of enabling people from all points on the political spectrum ? libertarian, left, right, and center ? to join together on the vital issue of opposing war.
The Antiwar.com Web site, launched in December 1995, is the Institute’s main project and the preeminent non interventionist site on the Internet.
[Lake: Libertarian, Orange County (Calilfornia) Daily Registrar columnist, and http://www.anti-war.com contributor Alan Blok has passed away recently in Riverside County (California).]
Nano-foam could plug underground CO2 leaks
* 10 June 2011, newscience.com
BURYING carbon dioxide deep underground is an attractive solution to climate change, but keeping the gas from bubbling to the surface may prove difficult.
Injecting nano particles into underground reservoirs before they are filled with CO2 could make any leaks self-sealing.
When CO2 rises quickly through cracks in the bedrock, the highly pressurised gas behaves like a liquid and shears into droplets.
Steven Bryant, an engineer at the University of Texas at Austin, says silica nano particles coated with polyethylene glycol would bind to the droplets, creating a viscous foam.
This would plug leaks much like the inner coating on a self-sealing tyre [tire] does, he says.
The latest issue of Liberty for America magazine is now up on the LfA web site http://libertyforamerica.com/lfamagazine.htm
I have given permission for people to report material form the magazine on this site.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8HRFBviUDs&feature=player_embedded
It’s a well-prepared 4-minute video with a machine voice.
I found the original at HumbleLibertarian.com.
The deadline for registration for the LPNH/LPMass conference ‘Future of the Libertarian Political Movement’ is fast approaching. June 14 is the last day for registration! LPNH.com or LPMass.org/Conference for more details.
Don Gorman is coming! He will appear on the panel “New Hampshire Politics”, together with the NH State House Majority Committee Whip, NHLA representative Joel Winters, and LPNH State Chair Rich Tomasso.
There will be a Presidential debate! Lee Wrights! Roger Gary! More may be announced.
The full schedule of times and panels:
The Conference
Highlander Inn at Manchester Airport
Sunday June 19, 2011
Registration opens — 9 A.M. (Coffee, Pastry)
9:20 A.M. Welcoming Remarks (Rich Tomasso — LPNH; David Blau — LPMass)
9:30 Session A: Guest of Honor Mary Ruwart
“Future of the Libertarian Political Movement”
10:30 Session A: Guest of Honor Ernie Hancock
“Future of the Libertarian Political Movement”
Session B: Outreach to Young People
(Alex Peterson, Loren Spivack, Nick Murray)
11:30 Lunch (Buffet: Caesar salad, Chicken Piccata or Chicken Saltimbocca, pasta, cookies)
12:30 Keynote Speaker: Guest of Honor Judge John Buttrick “Future of the Libertarian Political Movement”
1:30 Invited Speaker Panel: “Future of the Libertarian Political Movement” (Ruwart, Hancock, Buttrick, Keaton)
2:15 Session A: Electronic Politics (Bonnie Scott, Mark Edge, Dan Reale, Ernie Hancock)
Session B: Libertarians and GLBT Outreach (Angela Keaton, Carol McMahon)
3:15 Session A: New Hampshire Politics (Don Gorman, Seth Cohn, Joel Winters, Rich Tomasso)
Session B: My First Run For Federal Office (Joe Kennedy, Bob Clark, Dan Reale)
4:15 Session A: Libertarians and the Antiwar Movement (Angela Keaton, Alex Peterson, John Walsh, Will Hopkins)
Session B: Candidate Recruitment
(Alwin Hopfmann, Dave Blau, Rich Tomasso)
5:30 Dinner (Buffet: clam chowder, salad, maple glazed pork tenderloin, London broil, rice, seasonal vegetable, dessert)
6:15 Presidential Candidate Debate:
Roger V. Gary and R. Lee Wrights
Moderator: George Phillies
7:30 Straw Poll to Award Delegate Votes &
LPNH Reception
9:00 Convention Ends
Carl E. Person, Harvard Law Graduate, who ran for New York State Attorney General, announces his intention to seek the Libertarian Party’s nomination for President in 2012:
http://drtomstevens.blogspot.com/2011/06/carl-person-to-seek-libertarian-partys.html
It’s the weekend, AGAIN !
Something for everyone to think about…
Check out
The Alex Jones Show Archives: http://www.gcnlive.com/programs/alexJones/archives.php
June 02, 2011 (hour 3)
I know, I know it’s TOO much for some, but you must admit some INTERESTING chit chat indeed !!!
KaY… I’m glad you’re here!
Welcome Stacy D. ! Let us hear from you more often. New ideas are welcomed and NEEDED !!
Indiana: No Warrant Required, House-to-House Random Search Is Now Legal
– http://libertarianviewpoint.com/blog/?p=5297
The beginning of the END or the END of the beginning. Time to wake up and smell the FASCISM !!! These Fascist Judges must be RECALLED or IMPEACHED by we the people. This is serious stuff people. The noose on freedom is tightening.
PS as for p. I’m just glad the lad got a job, I’m sure he feels better about things !!!!
A Nice Gift For Your LP Friend(s) – http://www.lpstuff.com/shop/index.php?_a=viewCat&catId=128
“ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. VOTE LIBERTARIAN.” – http://www.lpstuff.com/shop/index.php?_a=viewProd&productId=5
I’m still surprised to see that people don’t get it. Some people think the U.S.A is so great that It can never fail, let alone fall. People, wake up. We have fallen. And if we continue to do nothing we will fail miserably. I don’t know what they put in the Kool-Aid but it worked.