R.J. Harris – Libertarian for President in 2012

Supporters of RJ Harris for President send along this major announcement:

August 2011

RJ Harris Campaign Announcement,

We are announcing the website launch for RJ Harris 2012 for President! We are excited about the grassroots organization that has begun for RJ Harris. We the people have so much to look forward to in RJ Harris and are excited about his run for office.

2012 will be an exciting year for Americans that value Freedom and Liberty.

Please visit RJHarris2012.com today to ‘Join RJHarris Liberty Team’ or to learn more about the upcoming campaign.

Campaign Announcement Scheduled for this weekend.

What is being said of RJ Harris?

“I’m glad RJ is running for President, he’s got my vote and my dollars.” ~ California Supporter

RJ Harris is a “Wonderful Libertarian!” ~ Judge Andrew Napolitano

“His 2010 Congressional Campaign was endorsed by Rand Paul. RJ Harris is the younger Ron Paul and we need a Constitutional Libertarian moving forward.” ~ Oklahoma Supporter

“True Liberty and Freedom is within reach with RJ Harris leading the Libertarian Ticket for President.” ~ Ohio Supporter

“You’ve got my support at the Convention.” ~ Florida Supporter

Sincerely,
Supporters of RJ Harris for President

67 thoughts on “R.J. Harris – Libertarian for President in 2012

  1. Darryl W. Perry

    he seems to be very pro-military, yet advocating for non-interventionism…
    National Guard on the border? Abolish Dept of Education – while continuing GI Bill??
    AND people should remember that he was in the GOP as recently as 2010

  2. Mark Seidenberg

    RJ Harris explains his personhood view for unborn Citizens. However, he does not explain
    his views for the unborn non-citizen Nationals
    or the unborn children of aliens.

    Does anyone knows what he thinks on these other issues of personhood?

    Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg

  3. paulie

    National Guard on the border?

    On the plus side, however, he is also for making legal immigration much easier.

    remember that he was in the GOP as recently as 2010

    He ran as a Republican due to Oklahoma’s crazy ballot access laws and was endorsed by the Ron Paul faction of the party.

  4. paulie

    or the unborn children of aliens.

    Does anyone knows what he thinks on these other issues of personhood?

    He thinks unborn children of aliens are very dangerous. Didn’t you see that movie with Sigourney Weaver on a spaceship?

  5. Brian Holtz

    His extensive issue positions seem very similar to Ron Paul’s, except that Harris is much better on marriage. He’s also a little better on abortion, although his “Convention of Women” idea will strike many as odd.

    His “Valley Forge” video has good production values, but it will seem too martial to many Libertarians, and not many NatCon delegates would agree that his two tours in Iraq means he “fought for our freedom and liberty twice”. However, his positions on foreign policy are essentially the same as Ron Paul’s.

    It’s always good to have more serious competitors for the LP presidential nomination.

  6. Catholic Trotskyist

    I like Harris’s Convention of Women idea. It has long been the opinion of the Catholic Trotskyist Party that women should take most responsibility for the pro-life movement, and the Convention would make clar that women need to be in charge of this debate and that women have very differing views. I will soon be adding this idea to the platform of the Catholic Trotskyist Party, and I would like to announce that the Catholic Trotskyist Party endorses R.J. Harris for the Libertarian Party nomination for President. We also endorse Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination, Ron Paul for the Republican, AIP and Constitution Party nominations, and NOTA for the Green Party nomination.

  7. RedPhillips

    “The 1st and 9th Amendments protect the freedom of Citizens to marry whomever they choose.”

    No they do not. This is clearly a modern imposition. The idea of gay marriage would have been unfathomable to the Founders in 1787. Heck, is was unfathomable to the vast majority 50 years ago.

  8. 24/7 the T-Rex of Talk Radio

    The MORE the merrier ! Can’t we get some more NEGATIVE on here before his official campaign starts ?! Kinda like some types of insects, they EAT their own.! This guy can perhaps energize and activate new bodies for the LP. Very important if he can help secure OK ballot access for ’12 to give those good people another choice on their ballot. The more voices for liberty the better !

    The Libertarian Quad on the Nolan Chart has much room and does encompass MILLIONS of people who don’t realize they are in that quadrant. BIG tent LIBERTARIANISM is the best way. Get’em in, then you can purify them !!!!!!!

    12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12

    Susan Gaztanaga explains, “What is a Libertarian”?: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ir96gHWC5qQ&feature=related

    The Founding Fathers and a Libertarian Hands Off Government: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TiuAMQ1jmA&feature=related

    What is a Libertarian (USA)?: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMvKck3KvfU&NR=1

  9. paulie

    “The 1st and 9th Amendments protect the freedom of Citizens to marry whomever they choose.”

    No they do not. This is clearly a modern imposition. The idea of gay marriage would have been unfathomable to the Founders in 1787. Heck, is was unfathomable to the vast majority 50 years ago.

    The 9th amendment refers to rights retained by the people. Those rights may be more broadly defined than they were 200 years ago.

  10. paulie

    T-Rex,

    Please stop using numerous comments to post lists of quotes and/or links that are not directly related to the thread topic or to a comment you are responding to.

  11. Darryl W. Perry

    page 10
    PETITIONS AND FILING FEES
    At the time the Declaration of Candidacy is resented, it must be accompanied by either a supporting petition or a filing fee… A filing fee may be submitted in lieu of a petition. Most candidates for office submit a filing fee instead of a petition. A filing fee must be in the form of either a cashier’s check or a certified check.

  12. Andy

    “No they do not. This is clearly a modern imposition. The idea of gay marriage would have been unfathomable to the Founders in 1787. Heck, is was unfathomable to the vast majority 50 years ago.”

    State marriage licenses were unfathomable back in 1787.

  13. RedPhillips

    “State marriage licenses were unfathomable back in 1787.”

    I don’t disagree with that. But the state has long forbade certain types of marriages. Siblings, 1st cousins, mixed race, etc.

    I don’t support gay marriage, but what I was objecting to is trying to claim the Constitution for every modern policy preference. Someone may think gay marriage is fine and dandy, but the 1st and 9th amendment have nothing to do with it.

  14. Andy

    Red Phillips said: “I don’t disagree with that. But the state has long forbade certain types of marriages. Siblings, 1st cousins, mixed race, etc.”

    Why should the state prohibit any marriages? People should be able to enter into voluntary relationships and they should be able to define those voluntary relationships however they wish.

  15. Ralph Swanson

    To my knowledge gay marriages were well known to Native Americans such as the Iroquois. Their confederation was I believe cited as a source of the Constitution.

    Libertarians like me made the argument that such treaties and the legal practices they protected were implicitly common law AND the Supreme Law of the Land. This with the 9th Amendment made gay (and other) marriage suitable for public consideration. Both conservatives AND most Libs and gays thought this was too radical. Now they’re being ruled law and underway by popular vote or pressure.

    Next: Libertarians like me are reviving old free immigration treaties. I’ll be dead before that’s adopted (maybe!) but stay tuned, extreme conservatives, as you dream on of the return of laws against inter-racial marriage and cousins everywhere.

  16. paulie

    From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

    As part of the Protestant Reformation, the role of recording marriages and setting the rules for marriage passed to the state, reflecting Martin Luther’s view that marriage was a “worldly thing”.[27] By the 17th century many of the Protestant European countries had a state involvement in marriage. As of 2000, the average marriage age range was 25–44 years for men and 22–39 years for women. In England, under the Anglican Church, marriage by consent and cohabitation was valid until the passage of Lord Hardwicke’s Act in 1753. This act instituted certain requirements for marriage, including the performance of a religious ceremony observed by witnesses.[28]

    ….

    In the early modern period, John Calvin and his Protestant colleagues reformulated Christian marriage by enacting the Marriage Ordinance of Geneva, which imposed “The dual requirements of state registration and church consecration to constitute marriage”[29] for recognition.

    ……

  17. paulie

    what I was objecting to is trying to claim the Constitution for every modern policy preference. Someone may think gay marriage is fine and dandy, but the 1st and 9th amendment have nothing to do with it.

    Perhaps Harris is more inclined towards a literal text interpretation of the constitution, as opposed to one based on original intent?

  18. RedPhillips

    “To my knowledge gay marriages were well known to Native Americans such as the Iroquois.”

    I would have to see legitimate scholarly citations to believe that. Pagan societies have handled the homosexual act differently, but have generally considered exclusive homosexuality as aberrant.

  19. RedPhillips

    “Why do you have a problem with gay marriage, Red?”

    Jill, because God calls homosexuality an abomination. It was a capital offense in the Old Testament. That tells me God does not much like the act.

  20. Jill Pyeatt

    Do you take everything in the Old Testament literally, Red? Do you ignore the part in the New Testament where Christians are admonished not to judge, and to care for one another?

    Aside from that, how can a Libertarian advocate having one set of rights for one part of the population, and another for another group? I’m disappointed to read this, Red.

    I need to leave the computer and my house, however, so I won’t be continuing this conversation. I don’t think this is the best forum for it, anyway. I was just shocked to read this and felt like I had to put my two cents’ worth in.

  21. Jill Pyeatt

    My apologies, Red, I see on Facebook that you aren’t calling yourself a Libertarian. Beautiful family, by the way.

    I still disagree vehemently with your view, however. I have some Bible verses supporting my view. I’ll get that to you, if you’re interested.

  22. paulie

    I would have to see legitimate scholarly citations to believe that. Pagan societies have handled the homosexual act differently, but have generally considered exclusive homosexuality as aberrant.

    You can start with my link to the wikipedia article, and see its links to other wikipedia articles dealing with same sex marriage and same sex unions. If sufficiently motivated, you can read the sources and discussion pages for each article. If even more motivated, you can research those source books and articles yourself.

    Same sex unions existed in many cultures throughout history and in many different parts of the world, and sometimes these unions were formalized.

    God calls homosexuality an abomination. It was a capital offense in the Old Testament. That tells me God does not much like the act.

    Other offenses treated similarly included eating pork and shellfish.

  23. Andy

    Red Phillips said: “Jill, because God calls homosexuality an abomination. It was a capital offense in the Old Testament. That tells me God does not much like the act.”

    So in other words Red, you want to use the government to force your religious views on to everyone else. This is a violation of the 1st amendment.

  24. Robert Capozzi

    Hmm, I seem to recall accounts of JC kissing dudes.

    As for what God said or didn’t say, I can’t say I’ve even heard Him/Her say anything. Some may CLAIM they’ve heard Him/Her, or the Holy Spirit, but I cannot know if things got lost in translation or not, or whether the witnesses were just hearing voices in their head, or whether the witnesses were fabricating what they “heard.”

    All this tells me to be skeptical of moral claims. Seems prudent to me, all things considered….

  25. paulie

    Harris’s position that abortion is unconstitutional is bizarre, not to mention contrary to the party platform.

    He says “The due process and equal protection provided by the fifth and fourteenth amendments to all persons, including unborn persons, makes abortion unconstitutional.” His belief that fetuses are persons is not spelled out in that amendment, which he acknowledges by saying a new amendment to state that is needed. However, fetuses as persons is a belief many people, including some LP members, also share.

    The LP platform says “Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.” As far as I can see the LP platform takes no stances on what is or is not constitutional, and appears to me to leave latitude for the beliefs of party members who are in the minority within the party on this issue.

    As for keeping government out of the matter, that would seem to me to put all of you who are not anarchists, on either side of the abortion legality question, at least somewhat at odds with the platform. If you believe abortion should be legal, and you are not an anarchist, you almost certainly believe that government should protect abortionists in the same way it protects anyone else who is involved in a legal business or practice. Abortionists in particular are apt to be attacked by some individuals whose conscientious consideration leads them to believe that abortion is mass murder, and who are not wiling to wait for the government to agree before acting on their beliefs. Obviously, those who want government to ban abortion and enforce that ban do not want government kept out of it.
    By protecting abortionists against attacks, government does get involved in the matter.

  26. PLAS Supporter

    Most important question for RJ Harris; what’s his stance on the Oregon LP affiliation issue? What about Nevada LP controversy? California AIP drama? Minnesota Green Party drama?

  27. eric sundwall

    BH- “It’s always good to have more serious competitors for the LP presidential nomination.” (BH

    Serious in what sense? Like being a former Congressman or Senator? (ie Barr, Gravel)

    All the “I will” talk doesn’t make him a serious third party candidate with realistic expectations about the endeavor.

  28. Brian Holtz

    To a first approximation, “serious” here means “doesn’t immediately embarrass the LP when people look at their presidential campaign web presence”. Also, having been on the Napolitano show is a plus.

    My dream candidate would be someone like

    Walter Williams
    John Stossel
    Ed Clark
    David Friedman
    Thomas Sowell
    Tom Palmer
    Ron Paul
    Larry Elder

  29. Andy

    “Walter Williams
    John Stossel
    Ed Clark
    David Friedman
    Thomas Sowell
    Tom Palmer
    Ron Paul
    Larry Elder”

    Larry Elder is a pro-war Republican sympathizer. I used to listen to his radio show a lot and I had hope for him at one time but I became disgusted with him to the point where I couldn’t stomach him anymore.

    Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell are disappointments for similar reasons.

  30. RJHarris' Stike Teams For Liberty!

    The Campaign Announcement will be scheduled for late August. Liberty Unites for RJ Harris will occur on September 1st. It will be the kickoff to the best effort a Libertarian has ever attempted.
    I ask for your support and your help.

    Strike Teams have already hit the ground for ballot access. I would like to thank everyone of you out there in this hot sun getting the signatures we need for Liberty.
    Your efforts are the indication of a successful campaign for 2012.

    Libertarian State Leadership will have the help of the RJHarris Liberty Team to assist in corrdinating your campaign efforts for 2012.
    Our unity for Liberty will make a Libertarian effort in 2012 stronger and more effective than in any other Election Year.

    Get Active. Join the Harris Liberty Team

    Harris Liberty Team is Growing!
    The RJHarris Libety Team will have plenty of ways you can assist the campaign. Submit your email, look up your state, contact our phone or send us a message on the contacts page.

    Your loyalty will penetrate every home in 2012.
    More Freedom. Less Government.
    Success Equals 1 out of 3 Voters

    Our Campaign efforts in 2011-2012 will win hearts and minds for the 2012 election. Our focus on the current issues troubling America will have a Libertarian response and solution.
    We will express a strong Libertarian effort with common sense.

    Donate to RJ Harris 2012 https://secure.piryx.com/donate/rwnHupTg/RJ-Harris-2012-for-President/

    Primary Issues

    Economy : Jobs : Spending : Budget Deficit
    End all foreign aid, eliminate deficit spending, DO NOT raise the debt limit or taxes, audit the Federal Reserve, restore a constitutional gold and silver currency,…

    National Defense
    I will lead the Soldiers of the Republic from the front and ask nothing from them that I would not or have not already freely given in the defense of our country. The Commander-In-Chief ought to be someone who knows first hand the hardships of military service, both on the service members and their families, the experience of which would guard against a temperament quick to commit them to the rigors of combat or the hell of war without just cause or the proper constitutional authorization. …

    Foreign Policy
    Peace through strength in International Waters and at home; free trade, honest friendship and the cessation of entangling alliances abroad. I will END ALL FOREIGN AID! We are $15T in debt and…

    Immigration Policy : Secure Our Borders
    I will fight to eliminate the social welfare state and the high taxes required to pay for it which are chasing our jobs and prosperity overseas. Simultaneously, I will seek from the Congress a very robust and permissive immigration policy to help grow our middle class making us more competitive with other emerging markets around the world. …

    Insurance and Health Care
    Article I section 8 allows the Congress to provide for the general welfare “of the United States,” not the individual citizens thereof. Health care is an individual welfare and as such it is supposed to be left to the states or the people to provide in accordance with the 10th Amendment which leaves all such powers to the states or the people respectively. Thus, I will not enforce Obama Care…

    Our Education : Smarter Children and Choices
    Article I section 8 allows the Congress to provide for the general welfare “of the United States,” not individual citizens thereof. Education is an individual welfare and as such it is supposed to be left to the states or the people to provide in accordance with the 10th Amendment which leaves all such powers to the states or the people respectively. Thus, I will work for the elimination of the Federal Department of Education and to send all of its funding back to the states. …

    EmailShareThis

    Accepting Donations Now!

    https://secure.piryx.com/donate/rwnHupTg/RJ-Harris-2012-for-President/

    Campaign News
    Campaign Announcement to secure the future of America.
    Aug 25 / 2011Liberty Unites behind RJ Harris.
    Sept 1 / 2011Campaign Enters Battleground States

    Looks like this young man plans a very SERIOUS campaign for POTUS.

    The call for volunteers and donars has been made. Will you give ? Will you join ?

  31. RedPhillips Post author

    First of all, Christianity is going on 2000 years old, and serious people of the Faith have been hashing out just what part of the Old Testament law is ceremonial and what is still binding moral law from the beginning. This was one of the first major issues in the Church. And a broad general consensus has been arrived at with Seventh Day Adventists, for example, being something like the outlying limits of the debate. So the idea that the moral prohibition against homosexuality is still in effect is not freelancing. A better question would be who before modern times suggested otherwise. Also, there are clear New Testament prohibitions against homosexuality – 1 Cor 6:9, Rom 1: 26-27 – so even if the Old Testament verses were in dispute, the New Testament is clear.

    And of course the New Testament speaks about grace and love, but you can’t have grace without sin. If we define away sin, grace from what then? Nothing in the New Testament can be read such as to down play sin. In fact, it ups the sin ante. According to Jesus you are guilty of adultery if you think lustful thoughts.

    What apologists for homosexuality should ask themselves is why they feel homosexuality should get some sort of special dispensation that no other sin gets. No one is trying to undefine lying as sin. No one is trying to undefine fraud as sin. Or even other sexual sins. People may not like it. People may not follow it, but no one is trying to argue that the Bible doesn’t really condemn adultery or other extra-marital sex as sin. They just ignore the prohibition. Only homosexuality seems to get this special treatment, an entire apologia designed to undefine it as sin. What drives this? Is it really an attempt to better understand the Bible? Does honest exegesis demand this? Or is it an attempt to impose modern values upon the Bible?

    Now I do think it is reasonable to believe that what God was specifically prohibiting was opportunistic (as opposed to exclusive) homosexuality. (The Romans’ verse implies this.) Sex is a powerful and potentially very disruptive societal force, and, as our Catholic friends are aware, it is fair to extrapolate that a lot of the Biblical moral prohibitions regarding sex are for the purpose of confining it to its natural procreative context and away from being just another form of recreation. In this context homosexual sex is always illicit because it can never be procreative. Now this doesn’t give the exclusive homosexual a free pass. The homosexual act is clearly prohibited, and he must live a life of celibacy to be within the will of God, but it does contextualize what the moral concerns are. (We all have our crosses to bear, and nothing in the Bible says everyone struggles equally with the same cross.) From the standpoint of the society, you don’t want adultery because then you’ll disrupt the family unit and have a lot of ticked off husbands who want to run a dagger through some other guys heart. Nor do you want young unattached males able to channel their sexual lusts outside the stabilizing and taming environment of the procreative family unit.

  32. RedPhillips Post author

    Oops… the above reply was supposed to begin with this which got lost in the cut and paste.

    I didn’t really mean to side track the thread away from RJ Harris, but I will briefly reply to paulie, Jill, etc…

  33. Good luck and lessons from history ----- on the current corrupt system .... Lake

    Here we go. Like Third Party Watch and other ‘political’ sites getting side tracked on religous matters, Red Haired Phillips immediately picks up a Bible.

    Having said that, Jill, are you aware that many cultures have ‘flood tales’ —– not just the Black Sea abutment of the Lavant. This includes Ur / Babylon’s Gilgamesh in the Noah role.

    Soooooooooo much of the old testament is recorded in ‘Biblical Greek’ ——- as in the Rosetta Stone.

    The six ‘days’ of global creation ???????? ‘Days’ could be 24 hours or a more general, indeterminate amount of time.

    Think of the phrase ‘Give me just a minute!’ Folks do not rush to their stop watches. They realize it is a mere approximation.

    Most New Testament recordings were done HUNDREDS of years after Christ’s death.

    Nail scared palms ???? Not if the writhing, twisting dying body is to stay on the death platform!

    Again, NOTHING in the Koran, Christain, or Jewish texts was written itn 21st American English! Not one thing!

    The word used for ‘hand’ could be wrist to fingers OR elbow to fingers. The Jews, in 5000 years, never crucified any one.

    The Romans, in a tenth of that time, did hundreds of thousands, possibly 2M! It is reasonable that they nailed the body between the wrist’s two arm bones.

    So when Philipine ‘christains’ starting getting ‘sponteous’ sores in the palms of both hands, you might want to mutter ‘What the ……….’!

    Remember, ‘Red’ is a guy whom moans and groans ’bout associating him with Communism and or the GOP on a political site. Having stirred the pot, he then sits back and sinically chuckles.

    And do not let any one, any where, any time tell you [with a straight face] that Christ was born on December 25th, in the Roman Year Zero! Stand fast!

  34. Austin Battenberg

    Geez, everyone is talking about gay marriage rather than the candidate in question. I don’t know who else is running right now, but I welcome him to the race and will support him if he becomes the Libertarian nominee and if Ron Paul doesn’t get the Republican nomination. Of course I might prefer other Libertarian candidates, but that doesn’t mean I don’t like Mr. Harris. That’s just my two cents.

  35. paulie

    still rino afaik. still not on the ballot anywhere, not supported by any delegates to any party’s nominating convention, and reporting no contributions afaik. He claimed he was going to go to the last LNC meeting in Ohio but I don’t know if he actually went. To my knowledge, he only attended one event in 2008, which was in the Philly metro area (where he lives).

  36. Andy

    Red Phillips said: “What apologists for homosexuality should ask themselves is why they feel homosexuality should get some sort of special dispensation that no other sin gets.”

    Nobody is “apologizing” for homosexuality. The fact of the matter is that this is a personal freedom issue. Just because you disagree with something or believe that something is a sin it does not mean that it should be illegal.

    A crime has to have two elements, an identifiable victim, and actual damages that the victim incurred.

    Gays forming voluntary relationships and then labeling those voluntary relationships as marriages does not create any victims or damages, therefore it should not be a crime. You not approving of it does not make you a victim, nor do you suffer any damages because of it.

    You can disagree with it all you want, but gay marriage does not violate anyone’s person or property, therefore it should not be illegal.

    I’m really astounded at the number of busy bodies out there that want to stick their noses in other people’s business. Don’t you have better things to do with your time than worry about Steve and Mike forming a voluntary relationship and calling it a marriage? I mean who cares. Mind your own business and get a life.

  37. Thomas L. Knapp

    I usually only reference Andy when I disagree with him, and I’m trying to change that, so … what Andy said @ 58!

    As an aside, Red, there have been all kinds of attempts to “undefine sins,” starting with Paul. Jesus said that his coming changed “not one jot or tittle” of the law — but post-Jesus Christians seem to have almost immediately dispensed with the whole penis-mutilation thing, and to have promptly placed orders with their local butchers for honey-cured ham and jumbo shrimp and cheeseburger fixins.

  38. paulie

    Since someone asked about Milnes, here is an excerpt his latest email. The rest of that email is a plas rant.

    “My fellow Americans,

    This email is to announce that I have renewed my membership in the Libertarian Party. Confirmation #34540.
    This was not an easy decision. I am not a libertarian. I am a progressive for reasons of practicality. But there is no viable Progressive Party. However I seek to offer the American voters a third viable choice in November 2012 through the Libertarian Party. The best other options would be to pursue the Green party nomination or to pursue an Independent ticket. The Green party is not a very reliable option. An Independent ticket could be pursued after the Libertarian Party nomination is decided. I was a candidate for the LP nomination in 2008.”

  39. Jill Pyeatt

    Andy @ 58: Well said! It’s beyond me that gay marriage is even an issue. Get over it everyone, already, and do some good in this world–

  40. Brian Holtz

    Our house (home of two past NatCon delegates) just got a robo-call from the Harris campaign. I didn’t get a chance to hear it, but that level of organization seems somewhat impressive.

  41. Pingback: R. J. Harris announcement video for Libertarian Presidential nomination | Independent Political Report

  42. Johnson/Harris '12

    R.J. Harris was endorsed by Ron Paul when he ran for congress two years ago. I think he would be a wise running mate for Gary Johnson than someone like Wayne Root.

Leave a Reply