November 2011 Open Thread

Personal update from Paulie first this time, since it appears this part does not get read:

As of tomorrow I am once again cutting back my involvement here for an unknown length of time. I may or may not post articles. If I do, please do not expect me to be personally responsible for posting whatever items you send us. This is not my paying job, or that of the other IPR writers for that matter. We all do this in our spare time. I should not be having any spare time any time soon, since I make my own work hours.

If there are items you would like to see posted on IPR you can

A) Send them to contact.ipr@gmail.com
B) Post them in the comments to this thread
C) Ask to be signed up to write at IPR

Anything posted as a story at IPR should directly relate to alternative (“third”) parties or independent candidates, either by subject or by author. We ask that if you sign up to write here that you not post your own personal editorials as stories, although you may post other people’s editorials and/or ask other people to post yours. You may of course editorialize all you want in comments regardless of whether you are signed up to post stories or not.

If you post comments that do not show up, do not assume that you are being censored. There is an automated spam filter and it makes mistakes from time to time. If you alert us to what you believe is a legitimate comment that is not showing up via contact.ipr@gmail.com, someone may take the time to manually get it out of spam. Or not. I do it when I have the time; other people rarely do. If you don’t alert us, chances are we won’t know. If you sign up to write at IPR you can also get your own comments out of spam, as well as post images and videos in comments (other people can not).

Same goes for any comment that you believe should be removed. We very rarely remove any comments except obvious spam, although it is at the discretion of the individual IPR writers. Please do not expect anyone to be monitoring all the comments. If you see something that you believe should be removed, ask the IPR writers. They may or may not decide to do so. Items that may be removed can include threats of violence, libel, slurs, violations of people’s privacy against their express wishes, and repeated harpings on a single subject in numerous unrelated threads after the pattern causes a great deal of annoyance expressed by our other readers. However, that does not mean any such items necessarily WILL be removed, especially if you don’t ask via IPR email. As with posting IPR stories, that is entirely up to our volunteer staff and/or the website owners (who also own many other sites).

There is no group decision process on which stories get posted. Nor is there any group attempt to favor one party or candidate over others. Each of our writers makes a personal decision on what to post, subject to removal by Trent Hill or the company he works for. If you are signed up to write here and not sure whether a particular story belongs on IPR, ask on our email list.

Please do NOT repeat NOT email us any requests that I personally post anything.

contact.ipr@gmail.com automatically forwards to the first several people that signed up to post stories here. Unfortunately, most of them have not posted here in a long time, or post very rarely. Trent is the only person who can add people to that email list. For reasons unknown to me he stopped adding new people that I have signed up here to the list a long time ago. I created a second IPR list for the new people and whenever I can, I forward any non-spam items we get at contact.ipr to this second list. However, that does not mean anyone will post those stories. I hope they do, but I can no longer do more here than everyone else, since it is interfering with my actual responsibilities (IE actual paying work elsewhere).

I may also have to revert to only reading those comments addressed to me personally by name.

If you would like to stay in touch with me personally, I vastly prefer phone calls (415-690-6352) to email. I don’t own a computer, and even if I did, I would need to limit my time on it. My goal for November is to be online no more than one hour a day, after today. I may or may not be online every day.

My apologies for the rant to those who knew all that already.

Discuss almost whatever you want in the comments on this thread, 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.


Call 415-690-6352 if you need to get a hold of me (Paulie), or contact.ipr@gmail.com and/or comments on this thread (both if possible) for news tips to IPR.
I’ll keep forwarding anything I receive that I think belongs on IPR to other IPR writers. I would also like to sign up some new people to help us post.

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. I can’t emphasize that enough. Thanks!

-paulie

131 thoughts on “November 2011 Open Thread

  1. Michael H. Wilson

    I figure it might be wise to put this over here instead of in October.

    Anyone know Jim Lesczynski? Seems he managed to get in the news.

    “Rep. Ron Paul may not win the Republican nomination for president, but the prospect of him running as a third party candidate in the general election is not off the table, he says.

    Paul, long a favorite of the Libertarian Party, is drawing enthusiastic support from its leaders, who are openly pushing him to consider a third party run for the White House.

    “Absolutely, that would be fabulous,” said Jim Lesczynski, media relations director for the Manhattan Libertarian Party.

    Lesczynski says his party agrees with Paul on most of the major issues, calling him an “ideal candidate.” He added that Paul will do better than he did four years ago, but ultimately thinks he will fail in his bid to gain the Republican nomination.”

    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/10/libertarian-party-tells-ron-paul-to-come-on-over/

  2. Richard Winger

    Today the Ohio Secretary of State put Americans Elect, Constitution, Green, Libertarian and Socialist Parties on the 2012 ballot. There was already a court order telling the Sec. of State to put the Libertarians on, and he knew the other parties would sue him if he didn’t do the same for them.

  3. RedPhillips

    I suggest that because of Darcy Richardson’s connection with IPR, past connection with third parties, and the “alternative” nature of ideological primary challenges that we be given free rein to cover his campaign. Any IPR writers or posters object?

  4. George Phillies

    I am amused to note that the LNC is currently voting on appointing a credentials committee for the next national convention. One of the candidates is a current member of Reeves faction Oregon state committee. This appears to me to be massively inadvisable.

    The suggestion that there should be an emphatic recusal requirement, as opposed to the taste of the voting member as mentioned in Roberts, is being argued against by the usual gang of suspects.

  5. paulie Post author

    I suggest that because of Darcy Richardson’s connection with IPR, past connection with third parties, and the “alternative” nature of ideological primary challenges that we be given free rein to cover his campaign.

    Agreed

  6. paulie Post author

    Via The Agitator,

    goooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! goooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooolllll!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  7. paulie Post author

    Employed for a while? Even better news!

    Doing decent for a change, but I can be making several hundred more bux per day by getting off this thing. So I’ll be hopefully doing that a lot more.

  8. paulie Post author

    Hope your addiction kicks in from time to time. I always enjoy reading what you post here.

    I’m sure it will. I’m just hoping is does the opposite of kicking in sometimes too…

  9. Jill Pyeatt

    I’ve fought compulsive issues my whole life, and I was interested to read an article naming some famous people who also have problems with that. Three people who were mentioned were Cameron Diaz, Justin Timberlake, and Leonardo DiCaprio.
    So, we’re in good company, Paulie!

  10. Deran

    This is an article Richard Winger links to on BAN, the article is by Juan Williams, who I’ve never thought was a very astute analyst, suggests Ron Paul could be Americans Elect presidential candaite.

    I just don’t see Paul’s thinking or world view being in very close alignment to the Centrist inclinations of the financiers behind AE? AE does not strike me as being very libertarian?

    And Williams insists Paul has recently not ruled out an independent/third party campaign if he does not get the GOP nod. That seems pretty highly speculative as well?

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/11/04/could-ron-paul-wind-up-running-as-independent-in-2012/

  11. Robert Capozzi

    23 D: I just don’t see Paul’s thinking or world view being in very close alignment to the Centrist inclinations of the financiers behind AE? AE does not strike me as being very libertarian?

    me: Some Ls like myself see libertarian as BEING centrist, actually. Still, I see yer point…AEers probably not interested in RP…

  12. Jeremy C. Young

    So, they designed it to keep Nader out, but let Ron Paul in. Also: no generals?

    Geez, they ought to just disqualify any and all CEOs. I can’t imagine a job that prepares you less well for being President of the United States.

  13. Scotty Boman

    http://www.atr.org/fifth-michigan-senate-candidate-signs-taxpayer-a6485

    Fifth Michigan Senate Candidate Signs The Taxpayer Protection Pledge
    In his bid to defeat Democrat Debbie Stabenow, Scotty Boman, has signed the Taxpayer Protection Pledge.

    In the race for Michigan’s U.S. Senate seat, five candidates have signed the Taxpayer Protection Pledge. Scotty Boman, a libertarian activist, Clark Durant, the co-founder of Cornerstone Schools (Michigan), former U.S. Rep. Pete Hoekstra, American Family Association of Michigan President Gary Glenn, and evangelical pastor Randy Heckman are the first four candidates in a crowded Republican field to sign the Pledge in their bid to defeat incumbent Democrat Sen. Debbie Stabenow.

    Other announced candidates for the Republican nomination include retired auto worker Rick Wilson, businessman Peter Konetchy, and businessman Chuck Marino. There are also a number of other individuals considering a run for the seat.

    In 2006, Sen. Stabenow defeated Republican Michael Bouchard by a margin of 57% to 42%. Since then unemployment in Michigan has increased significantly and as of August was 11.2%, compared to the national average of 9.1%.This was an increase from the prior month and only three states have worse unemployment numbers.

    In 2010, the trend to elect Democrats in Michigan was reversed when Republican Rick Snyder defeated Democrat Virg Bernero in the gubernatorial election. This Republican gain was met with success in the state legislature, which is now also controlled by Republicans.

    By signing the Pledge, Boman, Hoekstra, Clark, Heckman, and Glenn commit to the taxpayers of Michigan that they will “oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax rates for individuals and/or businesses … and oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates.”

    Read more: http://www.atr.org/fifth-michigan-senate-candidate-signs-taxpayer-a6485#ixzz1czQgUuSS

  14. Scotty Boman

    Retire the Jersey by 11.11.11!
    8
    The Ticker June 24, 2008. STEVE SCHRADER. Free Press sports writer: Scotty Boman, a Libertarian candidate in Michigan’s senatorial race, is not related to THE Scotty Bowman. He wants to make that perfectly clear by putting something that looks like a Red Wings jersey on his Web site.
    The Ticker June 24, 2008. STEVE SCHRADER. Free Press sports writer.

    When I ran for United States Senate in 2008, an article in the Detroit Free Press mocked my use of a red and white hockey jersey claiming I was only taking advantage of my familiar name.
    Of course other candidates had sported jerseys featuring their names with the number “08,” but this was the only coverage the Scotty Boman for United States Senate Campaign got from a major daily in 2008.

    So I kept the Jersey on my banner. Apparently, the mainstream media found it to be more interesting than monetary reform, non-interventionism, or individual rights. Well, it looks like I am getting a bit more respect this year, so I am almost ready to retire the jersey.

    I have received considerable coverage in print media, radio, and television.
    I have been included in a state-wide poll.
    I have been speaking to TEA Party and Republican groups, as well as participating in their forums.
    I have endorsed by “Liberty Candidates.”
    I have been endorsed by a former rival.

    I do, however, need to get over a hurdle: 15,000 valid signatures by May 15th 2012.

    Volunteers are already pounding the pavement with clipboards, but I need a well-financed professional effort to fulfill this requirement.

    To kickoff the professional effort I need $11,111.11 between now and 11-11-11 at 11:11 AM. Moments like these only come by once every century. I am only one person, but with your help we can win. Retiring the Jersey is the first step to retiring Debbie Stabenow.

    This money bomb starts the 5th of November. Let’s make the 11th a day to remember.

  15. history ----- on the current situation(s) .... Lake

    OUT WEST and To All:

    I have tendered my resignation as Chairman of the Reform Party of Nevada in favoring the appointment of the dynamic political leadership of Mr. Jeff Richards, a successful Reno, Nevada businessperson.

    I have every confidence in Mr. Richards, whose impressive credentials bring to our organization the valuable business experience, with a passion for our state and concern for our nation’s well-being, that is needed to effectively move the RPNV forward to state and national prominence.

    Jeff Richards has already proven his leadership skills by assembling a very impressive group of organizational officers that will guide our RPNV state party to unprecedented new heights and effectiveness.

    In conjunction and affiliation with the national Reform Party USA, Nevadans will be offered a sensible, formidable and soon-to-be-rising political party voting choice for all Nevada’s citizens to support.

    It is with pride and will be my distinct privilege to continue serving Mr. Richards as Vice-Chairperson of the Reform Party of Nevada.

    Sincerely,

    D. Bruce Westcott
    Vice Chairperson
    Reform Party of Nevada
    COPIED TO PRESS AND MEDIA LISTS

  16. Darryl W. Perry

    “Duopoly: How the Republicrats Control the Electoral Process” is Valuable Tool for Ballot Access Activists

    Darryl W. Perry has recently published a book “Duopoly: How the Republicrats Control the Electoral Process”, which is available on Amazon. Normally this blog doesn’t carry book reviews, although the printed Ballot Access does. However, “Duopoly” is too useful not to be publicized in both places.

    The book has five appendices, each containing valuable statistical data that is not easy to find elsewhere. Appendix One is especially useful. It is titled, “Congressional Re-election Rates for U.S. House of Representatives”. It covers the entire period 1789 to the present. It shows, for each regularly-scheduled election, the number of seats, the number of open seats, the number of members seeking re-election, the number being re-elected, and then shows percentages for each of the last two categories. At a glance, once can see that re-election rates have increased in the modern era, relative to the past when elections were less regulated. In 1874, only 58.3% of the incumbents who were running for re-election were re-elected. Other years in which re-election rates were below 70% were 1842, 1854, 1862, 1890, 1894, and 1932. By comparison, starting in 1950, there has never been an election with that percentage being lower than 85%.

    The book also has re-election rates for the Canadian House of Commons, 1869 to the present, showing Canadian elections are much more likely to result in a high turnover. Canada has equal and tolerant ballot access laws for all candidates, unlike the U.S.

    There is much, much more that is useful in this book, and a future paper edition of B.A.N. will review the book in more detail.

    http://www.ballot-access.org/2011/11/06/duopoly-how-the-republicrats-control-the-electoral-process-is-valuable-tool-for-ballot-access-activists

  17. Darryl W. Perry

    LP Presidential candidate Roger Gary was a candidate for San Antonio River Authority – according to unofficial results http://www.bexar.org/el45a.htm
    Gary was one of 8 candidates and receive 9.85% of the vote. This my seem high, however voters were able to vote for 2 candidates – the 2 winners combined to get 52.39% of the vote.

  18. Jeremy C. Young

    The Oklahoma Daily reports a sighting of RJ Harris protesting a proposed smoking ban on the Oklahoma University campus:

    Third-year law student RJ Harris told the committee a complete tobacco ban would be an overreach by the university and would violate the liberties of people who smoke.

    Yes, this is the same RJ Harris who’s running for President in the LP. He’s also a third-year law student at OU.

  19. Deran

    I wonder if Mayor Mike Bloomberg’s clamp down on #OccupyWallStreet makes Bloomberg more or less attractive as an Americans Elect presidential candidate?

  20. Jeremy C. Young

    Okay, now I know I spend too much time hanging out with you people. I dreamed last night that Wayne Root became the chairman of my academic department and started firing professors because they didn’t do enough to sell the brand.

    The funny thing is, I think in real life Root and I would be friends. He’s a quick thinker, witty and engaging, and has an awesome family. We don’t agree on much politically, but he seems like a genuinely nice man.

  21. Thomas L. Knapp

    @43,

    I don’t know Harris’s exact age, but my recollection is that he’s an 18-year National Guard veteran which, even if he enlisted at 17, would make him at least 35 years old.

    Lots of people go back to school in adulthood these days, especially if they have and are using GI Bill benefits, etc.

  22. Stewart Flood

    Mr Phillies is incorrect. The motion that failed was to replace a previous purchase motion that passed.

    The intent was to alter the fundraising goal, which had been stated as a specific hard amount in the original motion that passed and that is still in effect.

    Fundraising is going very well, especially in the past week or so. There was one particular pledge made today that I wish I was at liberty to identify. It was a very touching pledge that certainly means much more to the party than the amount — which was not small!

  23. Stewart Flood

    Sorry…meant to say Dr Phillies.

    But to clarify my previous message:

    We do have authorization to purchase a property, if certain specific goals are met.

    Mr Hinkle has been burning the midnight oil for weeks, calling potential donors. His efforts, along with the efforts of staff, have been gaining momentum. The fundraising goals are within sight.

  24. Stewart Flood

    Correct, several goals. I’m not sure exactly where we are on this right now. I’ve seen a lot of reports over the past few days, with lots of numbers and deadlines. The numbers keep changing, and more money is coming every day (quite a bit recently), so while the original deadline for a certain amount was not made, fundraising does appear to be on track for the next deadline.

    My understanding is that Mr Wiener’s motion is not dead.

    As you know, I am in favor of purchasing a building and getting out of DC “proper” and into northern Virginia. I have inspected this building twice, the second time in some detail. (Looking at wiring/office usability)

    This building will fit what we need.

  25. George Phillies

    @53 As a courtesy, since you have done work looking at the property and did do the nice work on phones for state parties, even if it does not happen to help our state party, to consider whether missing the first goal is a terminal consequence for the motion.

  26. Stewart Flood

    I’m really not sure where we are right now. We’ve had so many motions back and forth (some at the same time) that anything could happen.

    As far as phones go, we’re still in the implementation phase. We had to wait out an existing contract for phone services that ended just over two weeks ago. Since we are going to be moving — whether to a building we own or a building we rent — we have been trying to time the project to implement during the move.

    Bring up new service (IP based with lots of neat features for states) at the new location, shut off service at the old location.

    My understanding, from what I have been told, is that missing the first goal was not a terminal consequence for the motion.

    I didn’t write the motion, but I did vote for it.

  27. history ----- on the current situation(s) .... Lake

    “We must get rid of these European wild boars because they sleep overnight on US [Texas] soil during the day and cross over to the Mexican side to feed,” Ignacio Legarreta, a state official, told local media.

    The boars of European origin, which were imported to Texas as pets and then replicated in the wild, have caused serious damage to the flora and fauna of the area, officials said.

    “They have reproduced to reach more than 50,000 animals that threaten the area,” said Legarreta.

    The authorities intend to use cages with food inside to trap the animals.

  28. Nicholas Sarwark

    Does anyone know the status of the building project? What is the deadline for money to be raised by and what is the necessary amount to keep moving forward?

    I keep seeing requests for donations, but nothing that says what the goal is or when it has to be done by.

  29. Stewart Flood

    We have raised somewhere between $180k and $190k in donations and pledges of donations (which I believe are some of the bigger checks, but they are from people who’s reputations within the party would indicate that they will certainly follow through on their pledges)

    The bank would be fine with a number in the $170k range, but a portion of the LNC, numbering less than half but more than a third, want us to have a lot more than that to put down. I do not recall the exact figure, but I believe it is in the $240k range.

    Mr Hinkle’s “Monday Message” is, in effect, asking us to hit the goal right now. He believes that this will convince at least a few members of the board to vote yes on the current motion on the floor.

    My understanding is that if we don’t have 2/3 approval by end-of-day tomorrow (Nov 22nd) then an opt-out clause in the contract will be triggered. I do not know if there is a way to prevent this, other than getting at least two of the eight people who voted in the last motion to change their votes.

    Since the vote is of a motion that has completed, it is certainly not improper to post the results here. Note that Mr Hinkle was in favor, but he usually does not vote unless there is a tie or if his vote would make 2/3 passage possible. Had there only been 6 no votes, Mr Hinkle would have obviously cast his vote in favor, causing the motion to pass.

    Confusing, but that’s the way chairs do things…

  30. Stewart Flood

    Voting has ended for the email ballot shown below.

    Voting “aye”: Craig, Flood, Karlan, Kirkland, Knedler, Lark, Redpath, Ruwart, Wiener

    Voting “nay”: Eshelman, Mattson, Olsen, Root, Rutherford, Sink-Burris, Visek, Wolf

    With a final vote tally of 9-8, the motion FAILS to receive the 2/3 vote required by LP Bylaws Article 10.5 which states, “The Party shall not borrow in excess of $2,000 total without prior approval by 2/3 vote of the National Committee. This shall not include current operating debt for trade payables.”

    Alicia Mattson
    LNC Secretary

  31. Stewart Flood

    Please note that this is not the tally of the votes on the motion currently on the floor. It would be improper to publish member’s votes while they are deliberating.

    But it is not improper to list who voted no on the previous motion, since this vote will be part of the official party minutes and published online at some point in the near future.

  32. Michael H. Wilson

    And this was posted on Facebook yesterday.

    Rebecca Sink-Burris
    As one of the At-large representatives on the Libertarian National Committee, I agree with Mark Rutherford’s comments below.

    Mark W. Rutherford
    Politics Alert!!!! – If interested – read on. There are eight members of the Libertarian National Committee, including me, that are being attacked for demanding transparency, competency, honor, adherence to fiduciary duty and accountability regarding the building fund the LNC created last November 2010. Just like Ron Paul does with Congress, I will continue to vote no regarding the LNC building fund until there is transparency, competency, honor, adherence to fiduciary duty and accountability.

  33. Stewart Flood

    Huh?

    Attacked for transparency? Honor? This is the first that I’ve heard of this.

    I don’t agree with the way eight members voted, but I have not attacked them for demanding anything. I wonder who they are talking about.

    As far as transparency goes, isn’t publishing the names of those who voted for and against buying the building being transparent? Or would they consider this an attack?

  34. Stewart Flood

    @62,

    Yes, where on Facebook?

    @64,

    If you look at the history of the board over the past several terms, you will find that the vote is not always along any specific “ideological” division. It is not always “radicals” vs “non-radicals” or “green hat” people against “blue hat” people (threw that one in there to keep GP guessing!).

    In this case, it is those who believe that the economy will fail, we will have hyper-inflation, the building will lose all value, etc., vs those of us who believe (right or wrong) that by saving hundreds of thousands of dollars (or even more than a million) over the next decade, it doesn’t matter if we have a failed economy or hyper-inflation.

    If the economy fails, would you rather be in a building you own, or one that you rent, where you could suddenly find that the landlord didn’t pay the electric bill. (yes, this does happen!)

    If we have hyper-inflation, would you rather either own hard assets (a building) and be in some debt — but not a lot of debt — while money inflates, or in a lease where the next year the rent goes up? (It almost always goes up in leases, usually by a predetermined percentage each year)

    And if the building is worth…say half of the current value in a decade? Unlikely, but if it is, we still own it. No one forces us to sell at a loss.

    Why would we be selling it anyway, unless it would be to buy a better building that would probably also have dropped in value, keeping the cost/sale values somewhat relative? Oh yeah…and the one MILLION dollars plus that we’d have saved over the decade? Gosh, I guess that is more than the building is worth now, so how could we lose?

    Sorry about the rant, but some people are demanding transparency, so why not…

  35. Michael H. Wilson

    Well having flunked Nerd School all I can tell you is that apparently I received it from Rebecca Sink -Burris.

    Other than that, it was one of the many posts I get everyday from people.

    How else can I answer the question? Is there someway to provide you with a link? I’ll check back after I do some real work for an answer.

  36. Thomas L. Knapp

    Stewart @ 66,

    Without expressing an opinion on the particular building/price/terms (I haven’t looked at those things closely), I think you make very sound general arguments there.

    Right now, with the market down, seems like a good time to buy a building.

    In case of general economic collapse, you’re almost certainly better off owning, even if there’s fixed-rate mortgage debt involved, than leasing.

  37. Nicholas Sarwark

    In case of general economic collapse, you’re almost certainly better off owning, even if there’s fixed-rate mortgage debt involved, than leasing.

    My understanding of the financing is that the mortgage is an adjustable rate note, with a 7.5% interest rate cap and a 10-year balloon payment. Not exactly the 30-year fixed at 3.75% I just got.

  38. George Phillies

    @69 The DC real estate market is rather detached from the real estate market in the rest of the country.

    @70 The conditionals of the Wiener motion appear to have failed, meaning that it would appear there is no longer a motion that was passed that allows a building purchase to proceed — or perhaps not.

  39. Thomas L. Knapp

    Nick @70

    That mortgage may not be what you just got, but in the context of hyperinflation, it’s just fine. If inflation is 2000% and your interest rate can’t go higher than 7.5%, you’re shitting in high cotton on that particular monthly bill.

    Ditto the balloon payment. In hyperinflation, the cab fare to the post office and the stamp to mail it may be bigger than the payment.

    To put it a different way: If you expect hyperinflation, you want to have your hands on THINGS (like buildings), not on CURRENCY, when it hits.

    Massive DEflation would be a different story, of course, but my impression is that not many experts consider that likely.

    GP@71, That may be the case, but I suspect that even if the DC market isn’t as down as the rest of the country, it’s probably below peak.

  40. Nicholas Sarwark

    I’m not saying those are horrible terms, but I would rather the building debate be had about actual facts and figures than have people assume that it’s being financed with a 30-year fixed note, since that’s what most people have experience with.

    The specifics I’m aware of:

    Building price: $860,000

    Building size: ~3,000 sqft, 3 stories (kind of like a row house)

    Interest rate: 5% for the first 5 years, 7.5% cap for next 5 years, balloon payment of balance after 10 years.

    The piece of the puzzle that is unclear to me is how much has to be raised for the down payment, and by when, for the project to proceed.

  41. Thomas L. Knapp

    Nick@73,

    To clarify once again:

    I am not familiar with the terms of THIS proposal, nor comparatively with the usual sale prices, mortgage terms, etc. for buildings of that type in that area. For all I know the whole thing may suck.

    I was just saying that Stewart makes good arguments for getting A building, not necessarily THIS building.

  42. Stewart Flood

    @73,

    I have already tried to answer that question. We had a total of somewhere between $185k and $190k in total pledges and contributions before today’s message was sent out.

    I do not have the exact amount of how much of that is already on hand vs pledges, but I know that quite a bit of it has been collected. I will ask if I can post that amount (and what the amount is of course…)

  43. Stewart Flood

    @74,

    Yes, I was making the general case. I was not making the case for this specific building.

    Some LNC members believe that this specific building is not a good selection. I do not believe it is perfect, but no building you buy is. I don’t “love” the building, but I “like” the building. Our staff members who have been part of the search like the building too. They believe it will work well for what we need it for.

  44. LNC Chair Criticizes His Members

    From the latest Monday memo

    “Dear Friend of Liberty,

    I am serious when I tell you the LNC is on the verge of pulling the plug on the office we’re looking at.

    I hope to raise $XX,XXX more as soon as possible, just to help convince the rest of the LNC it is worth going forward.”

    That’s the National Chair saying you should give money to persuade LNC members to change their votes, because…what?…

  45. Chuck Moulton

    George Phillies wrote (@80):

    That’s the National Chair saying you should give money to persuade LNC members to change their votes, because…what?…

    Because buying a building is a great idea and the window of opportunity is running out.

  46. LNC Chair Criticizes His Members

    @81 Because buying a building poisons organizations, not to mention the building is a promise of failure…it is no larger than the current office, and, being a condo, gives no expansion, not to mention that it puts the back office in DC, which is just plain stupid.

  47. Steven Wilson

    I believe being mobile would be cost effective and beneficial to ground work. If we had a senate of state chairs and a mobile center office that went from state to state, focusing in on ballot access and dealing with top two, the liberty movement would be more readily available to deal with real problems. It would move every year and set up to deal with that particular states main problems.

    Forcing the party to deal with real state problems would alleviate the infatuation it currently has with foolish factionalism and make-believe issues.

    Mobility is the key to survival. It would keep the party busy and in the now. It would keep the party solution-based instead of theory.

    This is my dollars worth of opinion. Cheers to you.

  48. Stewart Flood

    This building is not a condo. It is part of a row of office building that all look similar and have a common front face (we used to call these row homes in Philly if they were residential).

    It is a fee simple arrangement. There is a common area, the parking lot, but there is no regime fee for building maintenance. (I believe the parking lot/grounds keeping fee is $100/month).

    Yes, a stand-alone building would be preferable, and we looked at some. But they are usually refurbished old homes, with lots and LOTS of restrictions on how you can modify them (some general probably slept there as they tended to do back then).

    You also have the same issue with a single building as you do with one that has buildings next to it: how do you add to it? You usually can’t.

  49. Jeremy C. Young

    I’ve become convinced that Stevens is trying to torpedo Person’s campaign, whatever Person may think is going on. I think Person is a nice man who has little understanding of political strategy. That means he shouldn’t be the nominee, but I don’t want to see him publicly humiliated and have decided not to post any more stories about this.

  50. Darryl W. Perry

    http://www.freepatriot-press.com/2011/11/why-i-oppose-balanced-budget-amendment.html

    Many groups have been lobbying the U.S. Congress to pass a Balanced Budget Amendment. In fact, a proposed amendment was rejected by the House of Representatives on November 18, 2011. However, an amendment requiring a balanced budget will not prevent deficit spending and/or an increase in the federal debt.The rejected “Balanced Budget Amendment” had loopholes wide enough to drive a truck through.Loophole #1 “Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed total receipts for that fiscal year, unless three-fifths of the whole number of each House of Congress shall provide by law for a specific excess of outlays over receipts by a rollcall vote.” This means that as long as 261 Representatives and 60 Senators agree to the budget, it doesn’t need to be balanced.Loophole #2 “The limit on the debt of the United States held by the public shall not be increased, unless three-fifths of the whole number of each House shall provide by law for such an increase by a rollcall vote.” Again, 261 Representatives and 60 Senators can vote to raise the debt-ceiling.Loophole #3 “The Congress may waive the provisions of this article for any fiscal year in which a declaration of war is in effect…. [or] any fiscal year in which the United States is engaged in military conflict which causes an imminent and serious military threat to national security and is so declared by a joint resolution, adopted by a majority of the whole number of each House, which becomes law.” Well, if that’s not the ultimate “we don’t have to balance the budget”clause, I don’t know what is. As long as the U.S. military is waging some form of military conflict and the Congress passes a joint resolution deeming such action to be in response to (or to prevent) “an imminent and serious military threat to national security” then Congress doesn’t need to balance the federal budget. It’s bad enough that American foreign policy costs tax-payers nearly $1 trillion per year, however more military spending will make sure the federal budget never needs to be balanced.The proposed Balanced Budget Amendment also falls short, in that it allows for increased taxation and does not limit the federal government from borrowing or printing money to cover budget shortfalls, it only says “Total receipts shall include all receipts of the United States Government except those derived from borrowing.”And the icing on the cake is that the amendment (if approved) would not go into affect until the “the second fiscal year beginning after its ratification or the first fiscal year beginning after December 31, 2016? whichever is later. With all of the loopholes, it doesn’t matter when the amendment takes affect, the Congress can simply override the requirement to balance the budget.If the Congress would simply abide by the limits placed on it by the U.S. Constitution, there would be no need for symbolic votes on toothless amendments.

  51. Stewart Flood

    A “Zoosexual”? Now that is a term that I had not heard before.

    Does that met that they stalk animals in zoos, where they are being held captive against their will?

    Talk about force!!!

  52. paulie Post author

    Responding to Steven Wilson’s facebook message here, since his email address entered for IPR comments bounced:

    Checking email/web for the first time in about a week at a city library (Andy’s computer that I was borrowing to get online is broken again and the last one I got quit getting online at all a long time ago, so I no longer use it) … got over a thousand emails to sort through

    Email is a really bad way to reach me for the foreseeable future. My cell at 415-690-6352 has unlimited nationwide minutes.

    I’m not even going to try logging in to facebook, way too many things to catch up on there.

    I’ll be back at IPR at some point, dunno when.

    Thx

    -p

    On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 9:13 AM, Facebook wrote:

    Are you taking off from IPR? I have been…
    Steven Wilson 8:58am Nov 23
    Are you taking off from IPR? I have been checking lately and have not seen your work. Hope all is well. Freedom fighters Unite.

  53. Darryl W. Perry

    http://www.freepatriot-press.com/2011/11/former-president-george-w-bush-former.html

    In early 2011 the Boston Tea Party National Committee passed a resolution supporting War Crimes trials “for every person that has violated the ‘law of war’.” The BTP added that any potential War Crimes trials should be privately funded, instead of being paid for with taxpayer money. It seems that someone listened and on November 23, 2011 former U.S. president George W. Bush and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair were found guilty of war crimes by the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal after a four day hearing in Malaysia. The tribunal was initiated by former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, who is also President of the Perdana Global Peace Foundation, and was modeled after the 1967 tribunal in Sweden and Denmark that found the U.S. guilty of a war of aggression in Vietnam.

    The prosecution argued that the U.S. and U.K. had advanced the viewpoint that regime change in Iraq could be the basis for the use of force. “This viewpoint had been expressed as far back as 1998 when president Clinton suggested that Saddam Hussein had to be removed to end his threat. The Iraq Liberation Act passed in 1998 declared that… the regime headed by Saddam Hussein [be removed] from power. This then became the official U.S. policy. Bush and Blair had on various occasions since then expressed this viewpoint.”

    The prosecution further argued that “the Doctrine of regime change and doctrine of humanitarian intervention were declared illegal by the International Court of Justice in Nicaragua v U.S. [1986]. The U.S. by passing the Iraq Liberation Act went against the decision in the Nicaragua case.”

    The judges agreed and ruled “[t]he 2003 invasion of Iraq was an unlawful act of aggression and an international crime… They acted in flagrant violation of international law of war and peace… We therefore find that the charge against the two accused is proved beyond reasonable doubt.” The tribunal ordered that Bush and Blair’s name be entered in a register of war criminals, urged that they be recognized as such under the Rome Statute, will petition the International Criminal Court to proceed with binding charges and will petition the United Nations to pass a resolution to end the American occupation of Iraq.

    The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal is also scheduled to hold a separate hearing next year on charges of torture linked to the Iraq war against Bush, former Vice President Dick Cheney, former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and four others.

  54. Peter Burry

    Hello,

    As you likely know there is currently only one announced candidate for the Reform Party’s presidential nomination, Michael Whitley of Florida. There is currently talk, however, that Frank McEnulty (the party’s 2008 Vice-Presidential nominee) will make another run for the presidency with the party. The prospects of this candidacy were discussed at the 2011 National Meeting in Long Island. Insiders say McEnulty will soon enter the race.

    Thank you,
    -Peter Burry
    [Peter.Burry@lawyer.com]

  55. OldAntifederalist

    NewFederalist, care to run for the Reform Party presidential nomination? You would be no worse than any other candidate.

  56. George Phillies

    @101 It appears to me that the level of due diligence was improved in process. I am advised that the proposed contract was felt by some LNC members to be excessively expensive.

    With respect to Hinkle, I saw what appeared to be a report — not sure where, off hand — that Hinkle was planning on running for another term.

    In my opinion, the latest antics show once again that most LNC members need to be sent on their way. Were you interested in running, Nick?

  57. Jeremy C. Young

    If I were Wayne Root, I would run again. And if I were an LNC delegate, and the only choices were Hinkle and Root, I’d vote for Root. If the choices are self-serving energy and dynamism on the one hand and petty and vindictive lethargy on the other, sign me up for the former.

    The best candidate IMO would be John Jay Myers, but I do not think he will do it.

  58. Kleptocracy And You

    Wayne (Root), you are a pig. – Robert Milnes // May 3, 2011 at 5:31 am on IPR

    Why haven’t we, as a party, asked Wayne (Root) to simply join one of the war parties? – Karen Kwiatkowski

    I have a suggestion for the LP HQ strategists. The focus on vote-getting at the national level has led the LP into precisely the situation that you are noting today (a criticism of the party within liberty circles). I would love to see the party concentrate on supporting local elections of libertarians (which it does nicely), and in DC, to serve primarily as a rating and clearance site for Congressmen and Senators. – Karen Kwiatkowski

    I also think, that beyond the fleas the LP gets from lying down with characters like Root, and promoting him, we should be careful about our other bedfellows in DC. The Cato Institute does fine work, but it is not as effective in gaining Libertarian friendly legislation and votes as is Jim Babka’s interactive and aggressive DownsizeDC, and nothing Cato has produced on constitutional foreign or domestic policy comes even close to what is done daily over at the Bumper Hornberger’s Future of Freedom Foundation in Reston, VA. – Karen Kwiatkowski

    Because the LP has taken a very public stand that it is a party founded and based on principle, not popularity, it makes itself vulnerable to criticism for appearing unprincipled. The 2008 LP presidential nomination of well-known conservative Bob Barr, and the promotion to Chair of the LP National Congressional Committee of the rabidly pro-war Wayne Allyn Root caused people of all political stripes to look at the LP and wonder whether the principle of the party was peaceful libertarianism, or just political experimentation and number-crunching. – Karen Kwiatkowski

    Wayne Root, in particular, is allowed by the LP to speak for the party, and honest libertarians throughout the American population and within the LP are turned off. You suggest that my criticism of these anti-liberty, pro-state LP voices are the same as criticizing the GOP for being pro-life because some minority members of the GOP are pro-life. But when the GOP fields candidates and spokespersons, particularly at the national level, they toe the party line, and they don’t suggest that there is “room” at the philosophical table. Our own LP table is already small. Embracing statists and nationalists quietly within the party is one thing; making them front and center as a leading voice of recruitment and policy means that these types of unprincipled non-libertarian perspectives become the LP in the minds of everyone. – Karen Kwiatkowski

    Freedom fried random anti-war speech outtakes: http://www.youtube.com/user/clearsky24#p/u/8/wIfq-UoJaik
    49

    John Jay Myers summarizes War For Terror for Lake Highlands High School: http://www.youtube.com/user/clearsky24#p/u/2/_WOL7hNPgqI
    76

    Become a LP ACTIVIST where you live, SPREAD THE MESSAGE: http://www.lp.org/take-a-look

    Who should the Libertarian Party target?: http://www.youtube.com/user/clearsky24

  59. JT

    Jeremy: “@111 really, John Jay Myers a loser? I’d have to disagree on that score.”

    I wouldn’t argue with Dr. Phillies about losers, Jeremy. He continually runs for LPUS Chair and loses by a landslide. He’s an expert.

  60. Jeremy C. Young

    Um, I don’t think I was on the list of “losers,” though Dr. Phillies is welcome to correct me. I’m not a Libertarian and have never even met Dr. Phillies, so I’m at a loss as to why you’d interpret his comments that way.

  61. JT

    I don’t know the answer to that, Jeremy.

    Maybe most delegates find him more liberal than libertarian.

    Maybe they’re put off by his obnoxious, haughty attitude.

    Maybe they dislike how he has repeatedly attacked Libertarian people and projects that greatly helped to build the biggest, best-funded LP since its founding.

    Maybe they don’t clearly know what he means when he says the LP should be “doing politics” and don’t like the direction he wants the national level to go in.

    Maybe they don’t think his factionalism would make for a fair head officer.

    Maybe a mixture of those things. In any case, there are obvious reasons for Libertarians to reject him.

  62. Jeremy C. Young

    Right. But I generally think that the people he is attacking are people who aren’t good for third-party politics, and who don’t have the LP’s best interest at heart. As for his policy views, I really think that doesn’t matter. I think I’d make a fine chairman of the Libertarian Party, even though I’d make a terrible LP candidate for dogcatcher. The job of the LP Chair is to be fair, active, and organized, to grow the size of the party, and to promote the brand as the delegates determined it to be. Since I’ve been following LP politics, the LP hasn’t had a chair who does all those things (though Bill Redpath did several of them). I think Phillies would do all of them.

  63. George Phillies

    “Maybe they dislike how he has repeatedly attacked Libertarian people and projects that greatly helped to build the biggest, best-funded LP since its founding. ”

    You mean I’ve repeatedly pointed out people who have thrown away money, diverted to their cronies and significant others, and noted accurately the magnificently effective policies that have cost us close to 2/3 of our membership and 60% of our budget?

  64. JT

    Phillies: “You mean I’ve repeatedly pointed out people who have thrown away money, diverted to their cronies and significant others, and noted accurately the magnificently effective policies that have cost us close to 2/3 of our membership and 60% of our budget?”

    No. You’ve smeared people who were the prime movers behind making the LP much bigger and better funded–and then you lament how the LP isn’t as big and as well-funded as it used to be. You’re not alone in that though. And that’s just one reason I gave.

    Jeremy: “As for his policy views, I really think that doesn’t matter.”

    I’m just saying that it probably turns off a lot of Libertarians when a candidate for an LP office sounds liberal (or conservative) rather than libertarian, even if that person doesn’t determine what the LP represents. Go figure.

  65. JT

    As another example in that vein, I think Wayne Root lost the race for Chair because he seems more conservative than libertarian. They dislike his notion of right-leaning individuals as allies and left-leaning people as enemies, his branding himself as a “libertarian-conservative,” and his repeated praise for politicians like Ronald Reagan. Were it not for this, I suspect he’d be the Chair right now. His speaking ability, stage presence, and media prowess still enabled him to finish second though.

  66. George Phillies

    @121 No, I stayed with the facts, leaving people to complain about smears rather than to dispute the facts, because of course they could not do this.

    Readers will note JT hides behind a pseudonym.

  67. Darryl W. Perry

    I’m a little surprised that my article about Bush & Blair being found guilty of war crimes hasn’t been posted here. The article has been posted at Come Home America, Hammer of Truth, iNewp and I was informed via email that the article ran in 2 weekly papers near San Antonio.

  68. Jill Pyeatt

    I’ll post it tonight if I can find it, Darryl. I think it on your Boston Tea Party page, right?

  69. JT

    Phillies: “Readers will note JT hides behind a pseudonym.”

    It’s not a pseudonym. It’s my name.

  70. Jeremy C. Young

    I don’t think Root lost the chair race because he seems like a conservative. I think he lost the chair race because he would use the chairmanship to advocate for his conservative ideas. That’s a difference between Root and Phillies, I think. I’ve never heard anything from Phillies suggesting that he sees the Chairman’s position as one where it’s appropriate to contravene the will of the delegates.

  71. Dennis "DJ" Mikolay

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

    Contact:
    Chairman Jacob Zychick
    Reform Party of New Jersey
    (201) 248-7525
    ReformPartyNJ@gmail.com
    http://www.reformpartynj.org

    Belleville Councilman Joins Reform Party of NJ

    Belleville, NJ, 12/1/2011— The Reform Party of New Jersey’s Executive Committee announced on Thursday evening that Belleville Township Councilman Kevin Kennedy is now a registered member of the Reform Party, thus making him the first elected official within the Garden State to join the newly founded alternative party.

    “I think this is a very positive development,” said Dennis Mikolay, the organization’s co-founder. “It is clear that the Reform Party’s message resonates with people. I look forward to working alongside Councilman Kennedy to help promote the message of political reform.”

    Belleville Township, which is located next to Newark, has a population of 35,926.

    Councilman Kennedy was first elected to the Township Committee in 1998. After several years as a Councilman-at-large, he was re-elected in 2003, 2006, and 2011. An active member of the community, he was recently named “Man of the Year” by the Belleville Irish-American Association, and currently also serves as the President of the Belleville Historical Society.

    The Reform Party of New Jersey was founded by a group of student activists in 2010. While Councilman Kennedy is the party’s first elected official, he is not the first establishment figure to abandon the two major parties. Several months ago, Mark D. Quick resigned his position as a member of Warren County Republican Committee and joined the Reform Party.

    “The recent exodus of courageous citizens from the two major parties is inspiring,” said Chairman Jacob Zychick. “The Reform Party leadership has recently been approached by several other elected officials who have expressed an interest in leaving their respective parties in favor of ours.”

    Additional information pertaining to the Reform Party of NJ can be found online at http://www.reformpartynj.org.

    #######

Leave a Reply