Our monthly open thread. Post news tips about alt parties and independent candidates, discuss any story that should be posted here but has not yet been posted, or even delve into completely off-topic stuff….just avoid quarantined thread subject matter and things that could get us and/or you into legal trouble such as threats, libel, and copyright infringement.
News tips can also be sent to the IPR writers who have chosen to make their contact info available at https://independentpoliticalreport.com/about/.
It’s also become an IPR tradition to post videos in the open threads. Here’s an album by Ill Bill – The Hour of Reprisal:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQG2asp3Uls
Finding more old threads with comments removed.
$^&&$^&^&(***()?!!
It might be a positive if he agrees to it.
I do think it will lead to some dirty ballot tricks including the whole ticket being left off some ballots so we need to take that into consideration.
I think Richard Winger is right in that those states misunderstand the Electoral College. Of course, some states will refuse to print the names and so a stand-in can be named, but I believe, in terms of media coverage, it would be a positive to have Snowden as the VP nominee.
I think some states did refuse to print underage Peace and Freedom nominees on their ballots more recently.
Regarding the discussion above about Snowden for VP, see http://www.ballot-access.org/2012/04/how-the-1892-presidential-election-shed-light-on-the-question-of-printing-underage-presidential-and-vice-presidential-candidates-names-on-ballots/
http://www.lp.org/blogs/staff/tn-city-councilman-elected-to-county-commission
a: the fact of the matter is that most mainstream Democrats and mainstream Republicans fear even the most moderate of libertarian proposals.
me: I’m not sure that’s a fact. Some mainstream Ds can at least consider some military cuts. Some mainstream Rs can consider some domestic cuts. The more extreme cuts lose all the mainstream on both sides.
If you don’t want to be in the mix, that’s OK, but then it becomes highly likely that you’ll be in the political wilderness.
Congratulations to both of them.
FYI: I learned on Facebook that Cody Quirk and his wife are expecting a baby boy in November.
I think it’s actually Ron Paul’s granddaughter that Benton is married to. But yeah, he did work for McConnell and has now resigned.
Speaking of the Republican Party, here’s an interesting development:
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/mitch-mcconnell-campaign-manager-jesse-benton-resigns-110465.html
Will Rand Paul hire hire his sister’s son-in-law to run his Presidential campaign in 2016? It could be a tense Thanksgiving at Ron Paul’s house.
Two boots of the same tyrant on our necks.
Exactly.
Losty said: “And Andy, With Oregon, All I have heard is there was a Republican Attorney involved if I remember correctly. That goes back to my point to a non-Gov. entity but the Republican Party. Same with Illinois.”
Republicans and Democrats control the government. They are so tied in with the state that you could essentially call them one in the same.
Also, I do not think that it is just the Democrat and/or Republican party apparatuses that is trying to sabotage the Libertarian Party / movement, I think that the party / movement is also under the surveillance of and under attack from the government intelligence agencies (the NSA, the CIA, the FBI, the DHS, the DOD, etc…).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ZeFJkGfaoxs
“Robert Capozzi August 31, 2014 at 1:02 pm
‘a: Realize that in the minds of mainstream Democrats and mainstream Republicans, all libertarians (even ones who’d be considered to be moderates) are extremists.’
me: Sort of agree. Although I am the most philosophically radical L on Earth, my positions are quite moderate by L standards, and yes some Rs and Ds would say I am an extremist.”
Even the smallest cuts in government can cause mainstream Democrats and Republicans to freak out. I’ve worked on petitions that were for small tax cuts, or were to reduce penalties for possession of small amount of marijuana, or for medical marijuana, and had mainstream Democrats or Republicans act like the sky was going to fall and that there would be chaos in the streets if these things were to pass.
Sure, the more hardcore the libertarian – and the more hardcore their presentation – the more that it scares mainstream Democrats and mainstream Republicans, but the fact of the matter is that most mainstream Democrats and mainstream Republicans fear even the most moderate of libertarian proposals.
I separate Tea from Republican for this, and Progressive Dem from Dem. Maybe I’m idealistic, but..
Medical MJ pulling 80-90% in FL: Green and Libertarian, Progressive Dem, and I’ll go so far as now to say Dem.
Gay Marriage: Green/Progressive Dem/Libertarian .. also gaining among non-neanderthals.
Legalization in 2 states, Maybe 3 in November. Nevada Petitioning (Full legal or the 23rd. medical state, Paulie?): Again, Green/Libertarian/Progressive Dem.
GMO Labeling: Green, Not sure any other major alternative party.
Anti-War: Green/Libertarian
2nd. Amendment (to Right of Scalia): Green/Libertarian/Tea
No Fiscal Safety Net: Libertarian/Tea
Whatever your opinions on those issues are:
If it’s No Fiscal Safety Net or 2nd. Amendment to the right of Scalia that will be the most important issue to the voters, the LP should pull from Republicans.
If it’s Anti-War, MJ, Civil Liberties, The LP should pull from Dems.
If neither, it’s the Libertarian 2. A Stuffed Pig on the Libertarian line should get 1-2%.
And Andy, With Oregon, All I have heard is there was a Republican Attorney involved if I remember correctly. That goes back to my point to a non-Gov. entity but the Republican Party. Same with Illinois.
a: Realize that in the minds of mainstream Democrats and mainstream Republicans, all libertarians (even ones who’d be considered to be moderates) are extremists.
me: Sort of agree. Although I am the most philosophically radical L on Earth, my positions are quite moderate by L standards, and yes some Rs and Ds would say I am an extremist.
That’s where rhetoric is important. Many/most Ls would say “abolish NATO.” I would say “it’s high time for this country to have a conversation about remaining in NATO.” Personally, I’d love to see the US out of NATO, but my experience is that the average person doesn’t care to deal with a zealot. “Having a conversation” is an invitation for others to look at an issue from another perspective; it’s far less threatening.
I’d say there are levels of “extremism,” then. Fringe extremism and edgy extremism is a way to look at it.
Rothbard discounted the edgy approach as “namby pamby,” and therefore ineffectual. I’d say the Golden Rule always works, so I disagree with MNR. Who wants to be lectured at?
http://www.ballot-access.org/2014/08/illinois-attorney-generals-office-will-investigate-intimidation-of-libertarian-petitioners-and-petition-signers/
http://politics.suntimes.com/article/springfield/pistol-packing-petition-challenger-prompts-review-ag/fri-08292014-121pm
http://politics.suntimes.com/article/springfield/under-gun-petition-challenges/wed-08202014-801pm
http://politics.suntimes.com/article/springfield/rauner-firing-blanks-flap-over-hired-gun-ballot-challenge/tue-08262014-837pm
http://politics.suntimes.com/article/springfield/rauner-appalled-outraged-gun-bearing-petition-challenger/thu-08282014-827pm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/doug-ibendahl/illinois-libertarians-lod_b_5737462.html?utm_hp_ref=chicago&ir=Chicago
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/doug-ibendahl/rauner-camp-brings-a-gun-_b_5709799.html
Jill Pyeatt said: ” If you do any research into stalker-type personalities, I think you might put him into that category. That’s a much scarier category, in my opinion.”
Jill, I consider a government that spies on and sabotages political activists to be more scary than a “lone nut” stalker.
Robert Capozzi said: “However, since it was setup as a magnet for extremists, it’s probably useful for the state to monitor Ls as a way to ID individual extremists.”
Realize that in the minds of mainstream Democrats and mainstream Republicans, all libertarians (even ones who’d be considered to be moderates) are extremists.
” Losty August 31, 2014 at 9:32 am
And who are the LP a threat to more? Republicans (In the main, Looks like Patterson is pulling even, but as the election gets closer, with McConnell’s Management Tea Problems, will that Change?”
The Libertarian Party is a threat to the establishment that controls this country. Libertarians want to abolish the Federal Reserve System, the IRS, the SSA, the DEA, the CIA, the NSA, etc… Libertarians are a threat to the military-industrial complex, the prison-industrial complex, government employee unions, the court system which thrives off of convicting people for victimless “crimes,” etc…
There are lots of people who feed at the government trough and/or who wield great power under the current system. Libertarians want to put an end to this parasitic feeding frenzy and eliminate their system of authoritarian control. So of course “they” (as in the political establishment) see us as a threat.
Now somebody may say, “Libertarians can’t win.” This may be true to some extent in the rigged election process, however, there are other ways of winning. Ideas are powerful. I doubt that a majority of the population will ever be libertarians, but this does not matter, because we do not need a majority of the population to radically change society. If we had 1/3, or 1/4, or even just 1/5 or 3/20 of the population on our side, we could create a radical shift in society. Just imagine if 10% or 15% of society said that we are not going to pay taxes anymore, and we are no longer going to follow any “law” which violates libertarian principles. If several million people did this the government would not have the ability to do anything about it. The government is able to control us only because most people just go a long with it. If a critical mass of the population just decided to stop going along with the control system there would be nothing that the government could do to stop it, and the government controllers know this, and this is something that scares the shit out of them.
So yes, the government controllers have a motivation to make sure that libertarian ideas never become too popular, and they are not above pulling “dirty tricks” to make sure that these ideas do not become popular to the point where it threatens their control system.
I don’t think we so much hurt Republicans vis a vs Democrats, although some Republicans and a lot of people in the media seem to accept this as an article of faith and ignore all evidence to the contrary. Actual polling, including exit polls, from many states show we earn just as many votes away from Democrats as from Republicans, but it is usually the Republicans who try to steal and siphon our votes with underhanded attempts to keep us off the ballot.
I think we are actually more of a potential threat to the establishment and government-intertwined big money corporate interests such as military-industrial, police-prison-industrial and many others. Obviously it would not be good for them if we ever got big enough to win significant offices. But even without winning, we are spreading our ideas to many more people and those ideas are becoming more seriously discussed and in more and more cases adopted by more and more people. In some cases we are influencing people to start single issue or educational organizations that came into the movement through the LP. In some we are causing them to start liberty leaning groups in the establishment parties. Some create various kinds of social media outlets, magazines, lawsuits, ballot measures, etc., and many other tactics for pushing our ideas forward and in many cases their activism started with the LP but did not remain there. By publishing ballot statements and interviews and appearing in debates we open up a lot of people’s eyes and minds, even when they don’t end up voting for us, and sometimes push some of the candidates we run against to adopt some of our ideas.
So the threat could be a lot bigger than our numbers indicate. And there’s also always the threat that we could “go viral” and become a much bigger threat to them, as well. When I go out and talk to the general public I find libertarians every single day that I am out there. If any significant portion of these people became politically active and organized we would make serious changes in our government. Maybe that’s why the small handful of of us who are libertarian activists, *and* are willing to, know how to and have experience talking to hundreds of people a day, day in and day out, *and* have done it for years all over the country, are of “special concern” to some people with a lot of money and power potentially at stake and also liability for many dirty tricks and criminal actions that they have been behind over the years.
I’m not talking about their puppet politician that they hold up with the middle fingers of their left and right hands and engage in a Punch and Judy show to distract the public from themselves. We are a threat to the puppetmasters themselves, not just to Republicans or Democrats.
And who are the LP a threat to more? Republicans (In the main, Looks like Patterson is pulling even, but as the election gets closer, with McConnell’s Management Tea Problems, will that Change?
The LP is a potential threat to a lot of vested interests. The fact that we haven’t become a lot bigger may be due to the tactical ineptness and psychologically self-defeating patterns of LP members, or it could be external sabotage. Most likely it involves some of both. There is extensive documentation that this happens even with much smaller parties and movements than the LP and plenty of evidence that it is not just a thing of the past.
Andy,
As a Political Threat, I doubt it.
The ones who are a political threat are not the ones to cause what one would consider anything close to a “threat” except a threat to some political goals. Also, Though being a Balance of Power in elections is very important (See VA, KY, and other states that have close important races where the LP and CP can add up to a balance of power, etc), That is not the same as winning majorities in elected bodies or winning offices in the executive branches of state or Federal government.
However,
If one starts with the assumption that there are extremists in the party or –how to phrase it, the Vast Majority of people would qualify as Extremists, then that is a different issue. Same with the AIP, and others of that ilk (Not to compare AIP with LP by a long shot, but for an example the AIP, and more with a Stringent Ideological vein.) And on that basis I am not sure. Robert used the phrase “magnet for Extremists” for the LP, and I am sure one can argue that for the AIP, CP, and more.. Stringent ideological parties. Now to me one can argue the the Tea Party could be considered a magnet for extremists to a point, and now their ideology is Mainstream Republican Party Politics. However, if one gives that idea credence, one can see it in that vein.
This version would not do do anything to the political aims and efforts of the parties as a whole, but it did make news when Mr. Bundy joined AIP for example.
Now, Would your run of the mill Republicans “”Infiltrate”” to stop the LP (and to a lesser extent AIP/CP) from being a Political threat to THEM? That is a different question. We have seen “interesting” tactics on trying to keep the LP off in Illinois, and I am not sure they will end up being the Balance of Power there. Imagine if the LP picked up steam enough to be the BOP in a Large number of states. That along with the Demographic shift that seems to doom the Republicans to irrelevancy outside the Confederacy eventually –and not all the old Confederacy as Texas’s and Florida’s Demographics is turning it Purple over time– may cause the Republicans to try more extreme measures.
I am not sure how you can get more extreme than using armed people to go door to door to, the best word is intimidate people for petitioning for purely political ends, but if anyone can think of any, it’s a Republican.
A, ya know, I think you may well be correct, but perhaps for different reasons. Anyone with eyes to see can recognize that the LP itself is no threat, since it is so prone to institutional self-sabotage. The foundational concepts are so unworkable the LP will never be an electoral threat.
However, since it was setup as a magnet for extremists, it’s probably useful for the state to monitor Ls as a way to ID individual extremists. Perhaps they can catch the next McVeigh wanna be in this manner.
“’Vernon’ being a paid government troll is the more likely scenario in my opinion (and I base this opinion on lots of research).”
“Vernon” may also be a government plant who has infiltrated the LP and who also trolls online. If “Vernon” is a government plant, I would not be surprised if it is somebody who we have seen or even met in person at LP meetings. It may even be somebody who smiles and acts friendly to our faces at LP meetings.
I’ve long suspected that the LP is infiltrated with government plants. It would not surprise me if there were at least one or two on the LNC at all times, and at least one or two in every state party, as well as some of the more active county parties and more active campaigns (like the campaigns for President).
I do NOT automatically trust anyone who calls themselves a Libertarian (or anything else for that matter). I’d be willing to bet $10,000 right now that the LP is infiltrated with government plants, and that the party is under under government surveillance, and that the government sends trolls out to create trouble and spread propaganda on internet forums where Libertarians post.
I wonder how many phonies there are across this country who show up at LP meetings and smile and shake hands and pretend that they really care about liberty, but who are really government plants who are there to inform on the real activists, and to sabotage the party from within to make sure that it does not become too successful.
Sound paranoid? Start doing some research on how the government has a long history of spying on, infiltrating, and sabotaging political movements, and then this may not sound quite so paranoid to you.
Look at all of the internal problems the LP has had over the last few years in Oregon, California, Nevada, Pennsylvania, etc… Is this all just a coincidence, or is there something more sinister going on here?
I am leaning more towards the government troll hypothesis. He or they seem(s) to have access to information that virtually no one knows (and then distorts that info). Even LP insiders would not know some of it. He/they also seem(s) to have insider knowledge of the petition business. Some of the things that have been referred to would pretty much have to involve surveillance of a few of us as they have never been discussed with anyone. There are other things going on which indicate the probability of ongoing surveillance and possible sabotage.
Sorry if this sounds paranoid, but I don’t want to go into enough detail to fully explain exactly which details I am talking about here.
The other possibility I see is that he/they have computer cracking skills, but even then, there would probably also have to be some surveillance as well because some of these things have never even been mentioned/discussed online or in emails.
Paul said: “We are dealing with a seriously sick individual here. ”
It is probably just somebody “doing their job” with one of the government intelligence agencies. It could even be somebody posting from another country since the US intelligence agencies have working agreements with some intelligence agencies in other countries.
” Jill Pyeatt August 31, 2014 at 12:53 am
Actually, I’m not sure that Vernon is a paid government troll. He’s obviously been involved enough with the Libertarian Party long enough to have history from several years ago. Also, his attacks are very personal. If you do any research into stalker-type personalities, I think you might put him into that category. That’s a much scarier category, in my opinion.”
“Vernon” being a paid government troll is the more likely scenario in my opinion (and I base this opinion on lots of research).
Actually, I’m not sure that Vernon is a paid government troll. He’s obviously been involved enough with the Libertarian Party long enough to have history from several years ago. Also, his attacks are very personal. If you do any research into stalker-type personalities, I think you might put him into that category. That’s a much scarier category, in my opinion.
” Jill Pyeatt August 30, 2014 at 9:58 pm
It does seem odd that a man would be so obsessed with other men. I suppose ‘Vernon’ could be female, I suppose. Either case, Vernon is a sad human being.”
“Vernon” is probably a paid government troll.
“Vernon” the lying fake coward said: “So why should I or anyone else believe you now about some thread that you won’t censor?”
Why should anyone believe anything that you say when you are too chickenshit to post under your real name?
I do not hide behind fake names. People here know who I am. A lot of people who post here have either met me in person or at least seen me in person.
You hide behind a fake name and use an IP anonymizer because you have no credibility.
Or even then:
See http://rexcurry.net/
Paul said: “A) Someone legit such as a whistleblower or party employee or insider could use the same IP anonymizers to leak interesting information or opinions that they would not post if they could be identified”
If this were ever to happen, the source could send the article to an IPR writer, or to all of the IPR writers, and after making a decision as to whether or not to post the story, if the story gets posted, the IPR writer could state that the source wishes to remain anonymous for whatever reason at the beginning of the article, and then the article could follow after that.
I’m starting to think we should ask Warren to start banning the IP anonymizers that this troll is using.
I was hesitant to do that up til now because
A) Someone legit such as a whistleblower or party employee or insider could use the same IP anonymizers to leak interesting information or opinions that they would not post if they could be identified
B) There’s lots of different IP anonymizers out there, just like lots of different screen names the troll uses.
However….
A) Has not been happening. Almost all comments that have been posted via Anonymouse and Hidemyass (recently, only Anonymouse) appear to be our troll, and
B) Almost all of the troll’s comments have been made using the same anonymizers – recently Anonymouse, and going further back also Hidemyass.
Yep!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIs5StN8J-0
Here’s an example of someone being kicked out of a meeting for what they DON’T say. I don’t say the “Pledge of Allegiance” and will not until our country stops its murder-by-drone program.
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/os-mayor-tosses-man-for-not-standing-for-pledge-of-20140829,0,6519021.story
It does seem odd that a man would be so obsessed with other men. I suppose “Vernon” could be female, I suppose. Either case, Vernon is a sad human being.
“Vernon” should get a life. Or maybe a more honest way to make a living. Or perhaps both.
Why compromise? Posting long since addressed libel, slander, half-truths and guilt by association crap does not make it either true or relevant regardless of what thread it gets (re)posted in. Repeating it over and over does not make it more true. The fact that in the past month the troll has escalated to emailing it to hundreds of people in the LP, other alt parties and the petition business is even more disturbing. We are dealing with a seriously sick individual here.
I won’t delete the comments quite yet but I am not making any promises. They should probably be deleted.
Along the lines of what Jill and William are talking about
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/30/terrorist-watch-list-rules-innocent-people
People are ratting out each other. Someone who saw the “threat” against a non-specified kindergarten felt the authorities should be contacted and the writer’s life ruined forever. Likewise, the NSF database to catch “hate speech” encourages internet users to report “hate speech” or “false ideas.”
Luckily, an anonymous donor paid the $500,000 bond so that the guy who made the internet “threat” did not have to remain in jail until his trial. This makes me encouraged that there are people with money who actually care about these issues.
Someone with money would put that money to good use if they created a database to somehow counter any effect of the NSF database.
Someone with even more money could use it to send out the very simple message that no use of a word or phrase should ever be criminalized or viewed as worse than the intentional bodily harm to another. This message could be reflected in academia, news, and entertainment.
“Actually, no, I don’t remember that. ”
You have a bad memory. Maybe it’s why you did not remember that you promised you would not censor that other thread that other time?
“I think your comments are the only ones I delete anymore, and I only delete those where you obsessively deride Paulie and Andy, with no proof of these supposedly heinous things they’ve done.”
Actually Jill I have presented plenty of proof and would have presented a lot more, but the last time you offered to have me post it in a different thread which you supposedly would not censor I started to do that and then you broke your word and censored that one too. I’ll go ahead and post on the thread you and William recommended even though it is in response to comments on this thread.
Let’s see if you keep your word this time.
Earlier in this thread we talked about all the negative hit pieces that are coming out about libertarianism. Lew Rockwell had this to say about it today:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/08/lew-rockwell/were-winning-3/
WS said: “The discussion needs to be what we can do to change the culture.” I certainly agree with that, but it’s a hard thing to do in context of all the other loss of liberties out there. It really has been incremental–a court case here, another there, so that people don’t seem to realize what’s happening.
I was amazed that the news reported on V. Stiviana’s revelation this week that Donald Sterling is really gay without any disclaimer that this is simply what one scorned and silly woman decided to say. It didn’t seem to get any tration out there, as I only heard the comment one night and nio more talk later. The best thing to do is ignore situations where the public gets upset about something a public figure says and not make a big deal about it. If enough people refuse to get upset, then eventually things might change.
We’re a long way from that happening, though.
I removed the link I posted to the thread discussed above. Here it is:
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2011/01/thread-for-discussion-on-petitioners-2/
I have no control over how you choose to spend your time, Vernon, except the ability to delete comments that are put here only to cause trouble for participants here. I think your comments are the only ones I delete anymore, and I only delete those where you obsessively deride Paulie and Andy, with no proof of these supposedly heinous things they’ve done.
Jill,
In the short term, the “threat” statute needs to be amended or ruled unconstitutional. In the long term, something needs to be done about the culture.
In today’s culture, words ruin careers but violence does not. I believe this is because of the political correctness movement prevalent in the media and education. The criminal justice system simply reflects this cultural trend. It treats someone who makes an internet threat worse than someone who beats up his wife or girlfriend. The discussion needs to be what we can do to change the culture.
Vernon said: “when I followed your offer not to censor the other thread you went ahead and broke your word and censored that one too. Remember that?”
Actually, no, I don’t remember that. Did you forget and troll under a different name?
I’ll tell you what Jill. I’ll just email it to a few hundred people in your party and the petition business. See if you can censor that?
William Saturn
“Vernon, all you are doing is re-posting comments from years ago.”
Not true. I presented a great deal of additional analysis and added old information as suporting evidence. This was in response to conversation earlier in this thread.
Jill Pyeatt
“I think posting your comments about petitioners on the open thread William pointed out is a good compromise. I won’t delete them as long as you put them there.”
What thread is that? I thought this was the open thread and this is where the comments I am following up on were (see August 6-9). Also, you made a similar promise about posting on a different thread before, then when I followed your offer not to censor the other thread you went ahead and broke your word and censored that one too. Remember that?
So why should I or anyone else believe you now about some thread that you won’t censor?
I think posting your comments about petitioners on the open thread William pointed out is a good compromise. I won’t delete them as long as you put them there.
Vernon, all you are doing is re-posting comments from years ago.
William Saturn, please check the spam/trash file, do you agree that the information I am presenting should be censored by Pyeatt and Frankel?
Any ideas of where to start to do anything about this, William? There certainly is an erosion of liberties and many fronts, and this one is particularly troubling.
Anything you write on the internet can be misconstrued as a threat. Any one of us could be the next one thrown in prison over internet comments.
Very troubling developments on a case concerning internet free speech
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/Judge-refuses-to-dismiss-charge-in-Facebook-5722569.php
Much, much more:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/170534479641175/885038711524078/?notif_t=group_activity
More details:
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/seattles-pot-tickets-the-scandal-behind-the-scandal/Content?oid=20289145
http://www.alternet.org/why-dont-feds-prosecute-police-brutality-cases
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2014/08/28/spd-expands-critical-investigation-into-police-misconduct
Someone mentioned at the top of this topic that Tim Donnelly was the sole dissenting voice for the confederate flag bill. He was the Republic Liberty Caucus’s choice for governor. He is on the side of liberty in a few issues, but very far from it on others.
http://riderrants.blogspot.com/ is a good place to keep up with the myriad real problems of the People’s Republic of California.
While the legislators are dicking around with non-existent problems…
Mark Christensen
Mark Christensen 9:59am Aug 30
If you’re in trouble in California and want to invoke your Fifth Amendment right to remain silent if questioned by police, you better speak up and say so—because not saying a word can and will be used against you in a court of law, according to the California Supreme Court.
California Supreme Court Cuts Back Fifth Amendment Right to Remain Silent When Questioned by Police
http://www.alternet.org
Another example of shrinking civil liberties in the land of the free.
NewFederalist
In all the time the state legislature spent doing this, it did not do something else. You know, something like banning gun ownership, adding compulsory High School classes with labs on recreational pharmaceuticals and fornication, creating a negative income tax rate for Democratic Party donors, feeding all Green Party members to the sharks, etc.
We’d be a lot better off if the First Amendment had stopped at “Congress shall make no law …” and the state constitutions had cribbed from that.
Joshua Katz: “I do. Since they answer to all citizens, why are your opinions on what they should sell more valid than mine?”
Here is a simple solution. If you do not like the selling of replicas of Confederate paper money that has pictures of Confederate flags on them in a museum gift shop, THEN DO NOT PURCHASE THEM!
And once again, this bill EXEMPTS museums and schools! So the bill accomplishes NOTHING.
Good point. Someone please set the legislature up with a full calendar of vigorous debate on mohair subsidy weeks, bills prohibiting the state government from doing things it already does not do, resolutions about alien planets that do not exist, and so on.
>Yeah, ideally “the state” should not exist, but being that it does exist, and being that it does run >museums, and being that these museums have gift shops, I have no problem with them selling >or displaying Confederate flags, or any other historical flags or other symbols.
I do. Since they answer to all citizens, why are your opinions on what they should sell more valid than mine? Isn’t the safest course to simply not sell things that some find objectionable? Even if you think that government museums should be run like businesses, for some reason, note that businesses tend not to carry things that only a few would buy and that would offend many. If you treat the state as a business, you’re essentially complaining about a business decision not to sell a product.
>The fact that this issue is even being talked about, much less voted on in the California >legislature, illustrates just how screwed up the state government is in California.
What would you rather they be doing? Talking about stricter enforcement of drug laws, cracking down on medical dispensaries, raising taxes… It’s not like the time spent on this would otherwise have been spent on repealing gun laws.
William Saturn’s original point about twitter was much more relevant than the silly continuing tangent about the CA bill which does absolutely nothing.
“Robert Capozzi August 30, 2014 at 6:20 am
‘a: …selling or displaying Confederate flags, or any other historical flags or other symbols.’
me: Let’s test this. ANY other would include KKK, Nazi, Hammer & Sickle, NAMBLA.
Strikes me that a state enterprise should conduct itself like private ones.”
If something has historical significance, then yes, a museum gift shop should be able to sell it.
I remember a board game that came out back in the 1980’s called Axis and Allies. The game contained pictures of flags from Nazi Germany, fascist Italy, Imperial Japan, the Soviet Union, etc… Should a museum gift shop be prohibited from selling this game?
Also, what if a museum sells a book that has Nazis, the KKK, NAMBLA, etc…, in it? Should this be prohibited as well?
This controversy about a picture of a Confederate flag on replicas of Confederate paper money being sold at a museum gift shop is an example of what happens when people who are overly sensitive, ignorant, and down right stupid, gain political power.
Furthermore, as Paul pointed out, the bill actually EXEMPTS museums as well as schools, thus further illustrating just how idiotic this situation is.
Museums and schools are specifically exempted from the bill. It does literally nothing. Like many pieces of legislation (The legislature designates this week as mohair growers appreciation week, etc.)
I hate it when that happens. I hope you were able to make it to the toilet in time and flush the Dondero before it spilled all over the table, floor, and/or people’s clothes.
a: …selling or displaying Confederate flags, or any other historical flags or other symbols.
me: Let’s test this. ANY other would include KKK, Nazi, Hammer & Sickle, NAMBLA.
Strikes me that a state enterprise should conduct itself like private ones. If a private bookstore doesn’t want to sell NAMBLA memorabilia, I’d say that’s probably a good business decision.
California is full of ridiculous ideas. Here’s a charmer that’s being seriously considered:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/california-legislature-passes-means-bill-25169090
Odd, Dondero came up at dinner tonight with a group of Libertarian friends in Los Angeles County. We were talking about how Jesse Benton of Ron Paul’s 2012 campaign quit Mitch McConnell’s campaign, and somehow then started talking about soured Republicans. That’s when someone brought up Dondero.
“Joshua Katz August 29, 2014 at 9:05 pm
Andy, yes, the state of California should also ban itself from selling Confederate books. If you asked about ice cream, I’d say yes again.
There is no freedom issue with the legislator banning the state from acting.”
Yeah, ideally “the state” should not exist, but being that it does exist, and being that it does run museums, and being that these museums have gift shops, I have no problem with them selling or displaying Confederate flags, or any other historical flags or other symbols.
The fact that this issue is even being talked about, much less voted on in the California legislature, illustrates just how screwed up the state government is in California.
Personally I think Dondero is working for the Democrats. Yes, he does try to push the myth that libertarians are, or at least can be, Republicans, but he seems to have that as a secondary project, the primary project being to make Republicans look as bad as possible.
“Jill Pyeatt August 30, 2014 at 1:33 am
I run across quite a few articles that are written for the sole purpose of blurring the lines of what libertarians believe, or deliberately continuing the myth that we are much like Republicans.”
Sounds like you could have been reading some Eric Dondero.
I run across quite a few articles that are written for the sole purpose of blurring the lines of what libertarians believe, or deliberately continuing the myth that we are much like Republicans. A lot of them I put in the small ‘l’ open thread that we have here on IPR. The sheer volume of these articles has increased tremendously over the past year or two. Is it just a coincidence? I really don’t think so. Did Republicans strategists decide after their loss of 2012, that we were partly at fault, and this is a plan to minimize our movement? I certainly think that’s possible. Is it simply a spontaneous reaction to the fact that libertarians are in the news much more often? That’s certainly a possiblity, too.
There are different kinds of hit pieces.
The ones coming from the right do seem to reflect a certain fear in the Republican Party that libertarians will change the orientation of the GOP. The flying monkey right and the corporate welfarist right doesn’t want the gravy train derailed. The more marginal flying monkey right sees itself as competing with libertarians for the marginal mindshare in the GOP.
The ones coming from the left tend to be more … exploitive. Their authors consider libertarianism “fringe” enough that caricaturing the GOP as libertarian will serve as an indictment of the former.
JP said: “The hit pieces are coming faster, and from all sides now. That means the philosophy of libertarianism is really scaring the heck out of people.”
Me: Correlation does not prove causation. I certainly hope that your statement is correct. However, it doesn’t appear to me that many people are scared of libertarianism. It appears to me that few people (or governments, as the case may be) give a s**t.
I am a perpetual student at the feet of the Rothbard of Left and Right. The Rothbard of the attempted fusion with the paleocons I pretend did not exist.
Andy, yes, the state of California should also ban itself from selling Confederate books. If you asked about ice cream, I’d say yes again.
There is no freedom issue with the legislator banning the state from acting.
I would suggest that if they spent more time on trivial issues, the state of California would be in far less trouble.
Fortunately the alternet author spent little time researching the bizarre quotes of Rothbard. The position that police should be able to inflict summary justice on criminals, and that supporting mandatory Christian school prayer is the correct libertarian point of view, come immediately to mind. Ayn Rand was an avowed enemy of our party, a point we might politely repeat on a very regular basis. Pauls are conservatives, except when near our wallets. And lining up with right wing/Koch groups is simply poisonous.
Republican Conservatism, the opposite of Libertarianism.
From last night’s RT program “The Big Picture”:
http://rt.com/shows/big-picture/183568-sen-audio-obama-middle-class/
Scroll ahead to the 42:00 mark.
PEACE
It was him.
Looking at the comment allegedly made by Prof. Phillies I am not certain it was even him making it. All lower case letters and no space between first and last name? Someone may just be stirring the pot. I may disagree with George on a few things but I cannot believe he would applaud this incredible waste of time and come down on the side of even more government intervention. I hope I’m right.
georgephillies August 27, 2014 at 1:57 pm
Bravo for the people of California for telling their state government not to sell memorabilia of the Flag of Treason. And nuts to the pseudolibertarians who still champion the southerners, and their campaign to protect the right of slaveholders to fornicate their twelve-year-old girl slaves and eleven-year-old boy slaves.”
This strikes me as being absurd on multiple levels. I lived in California for several years, and I have also visited California multiple times, and I never once saw a Confederate flag displayed at any state or local government building, and for that matter, it was a rarity to see a Confederate flag displayed anywhere in California.
The reason that this bill came up is because some idiot Democrat legislator from Compton had a family member who visited a state museum, and while in the museum gift shop, they saw replicas of Confederate paper money for sale, and the replicas of Confederate paper money had Confederate flag on it.
If it is not OK for a museum gift shop to sell replicas of Confederate paper money because they have pictures of Confederate flags on them, should it also not be OK to sell history books that have pictures of Confederate flags on them?
Given all of the problems in the state of California, does anyone here really believe that this is an issue in which the grossly over-paid state legislators in California ought to be wasting their time?
Are we supposed to ignore history because some overly sensitive ignorant moron may be offended?
If so, why limit this standard to only the Confederate flag? Why not ban the display or sale of any flag or symbol that offends anyone?
I really don’t see how anyone can claim to be a libertarian and favor banning the sale or display of a piece of cloth.
Saying that the Southern states committed treason by voting to secede from the union strikes me as a ridiculous statement, and it strikes me as being hypocritical as well being that this country was founded by 13 British colonies which seceded from Great Britain. So by this standard, the American flag is a flag of treason. Also, far more slaves were traded and held in bondage under the American flag, than under the Confederate flag, not to mention all of the other atrocities that have been committed under the American flag, such as the suppression of Native Americans, etc… Given these facts, should the sale or display of the American flag be banned as well?
Testing comments
The hit pieces are coming faster, and from all sides now. That means the philosophy of libertarianism is really scaring the heck out of people. This piece is particulaly bad, however, and I believe the author actually believes what he wrote.
An interesting reminder of how others (in this case, progressives) see libertarians: http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/6-strangest-libertarian-ideas?paging=off¤t_page=1#bookmark
http://reason.com/blog/2014/08/28/john-mcwhorter-calls-california-legislat
John McWhorter Calls California Legislature Out for Choosing Symbolism Over Substance in Fighting Racism
Political commentator John McWhorter, who has described himself as a “cranky, liberal Democrat,” provides the right context to see the bill banning the sale of Confederate flags… by the state government of California for what it is, a largely symbolic effort that’s not actually “making a real difference in black lives (and deaths).”
I have no interest in the Confederate flag law. That was brought up by Andy and somehow got juxtaposed into what I said.
Indeed, there are real freedom of speech issues, but a decision by a state to not do something is not, and cannot, be one of them. Again, I’d prefer if states simply displayed or sold nothing – or, you know, stopped existing.
To be clear, I’m not talking about “civil liberties” but a bill banning “hate speech” disguised as a “Civil Rights” bill.
Good point, William.
http://reason.com/blog/2014/08/28/foxs-kim-guilfoyle-wants-putin-esque-war
I’d like to see Libertarians make a bigger issue of it. Freedom of Speech is on life support. All it takes is one “Civil Rights” bill and it’s lost forever in this country.
OK, I agree that is a bad idea. What else?
We should be discussing the government’s monitoring of “hate speech” on Twitter.
Mark Christensen 8:14am Aug 28
While there are likely many factors involved with the militarization of American police, the contracts pertaining to the leasing of this military equipment include stipulations that encourage law enforcement agencies to use the gear as quickly as possible.
DOD 1033 Program Requires Police To Use Military Gear Within One Year or Return It
thefreethoughtproject.com
In recent years, police departments across America have been seen using military equipment in respon…
Certainly agree with Paulie on this one! Well said.
They forgot to include the US flag of treason against King George III, the California flag of treason against Mexico, and the Mexican flag of treason against the King of Spain.
I’m not aware there has even been any kind of issue of the California state government displaying any confederate flag. Really, how often has that happened?
I’m not on the side of the confederates – in an election between Jeff Davis and Abe Lincoln I’d write in Lysander Spooner, and wish the north had seceded first, as many abolitionists wanted to – but as a “free speech issue” or even as a sane use of the legislature’s time in a state with some very serious problems this just doesn’t pass the WTF/SMH test.
There are legit free speech issues out there. This is not one of them. And as for the California legislature they should all get their pay docked for spending time on this non-issue as well as for ignoring the far more important problems they are supposed to be dealing with (but then again, California is probably better off the less the legislators deal with the state’s real problems). Negative IQ points for anyone spending time and energy discussing this “issue,” including me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcvyHMyhpaA
A nice amendment would have been to strike the confederate part, thus banning the state from selling or displaying anything. Not because I favor the Confederates (both sides can be horribly wrong in a dispute) but because I favor anything that bans the state from doing something.
That said, I don’t think the votes of Southern Democrats on the tariff are relevant. Secession was voted on by state legislators, who may have disagreed with their colleagues in Washington – after all, we all know what happens when you go to Congress. More importantly, though, I’m not sure that Southern intent is what matters, and it is clear that Northern intent was to collect the tariff, at least from the executive perspective. Pointing this out is not to justify Southern practices.
I do think it can be explained economically why, alone among developed nations, the US did not end slavery peacefully. This doesn’t justify the practice – economic pressure never justifies doing evil.
Bravo for the people of California for telling their state government not to sell memorabilia of the Flag of Treason. And nuts to the pseudolibertarians who still champion the southerners, and their campaign to protect the right of slaveholders to fornicate their twelve-year-old girl slaves and eleven-year-old boy slaves.
And for the scoundrels who claim that the war was about tariff, note the words of Senator-turned-traitor Yancey, who noted that the moderate tariffs–his words– in question had received the near-unanimous support of Soutehrn Democratic Congressmen and Senators.
That’s not what the CA bill does.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/21/california-confederate-flag_n_5698482.html
“California lawmakers hauled down the Confederate flag this week — figuratively speaking — as both houses of the state legislature gave final approval to a bill banning the state government from displaying or selling items featuring the Civil War emblem.
The bill, AB 2444, passed the last legislative hurdle on Thursday when the California State Assembly voted yes 66-1, with only former gubernatorial candidate Tim Donnelly (R-Twin Peaks) voting no, the Los Angeles Times reported. The measure would still permit the flag’s use in school textbooks, public museums and other educational settings.”
“William Saturn
August 27, 2014 at 1:15 am
The US government is inching closer to banning so-called ‘hate speech.'”
I read that the state legislature in California recently passed a bill to ban the sale or displaying of the Confederate flag. This is completely moronic on multiple levels, and it is anti-liberty as well. If the governor signs it into law, hopefully somebody will challenge it in court and hopefully it will get thrown out.
http://www.ballot-access.org/2014/08/california-bill-easing-definition-of-political-party-passes-legislature/
The US government is inching closer to banning so-called “hate speech.”
http://freebeacon.com/issues/feds-creating-database-to-track-hate-speech-on-twitter/
Follow the trends people. A Congress near you will pass a ban on “hate speech” disguised as a “Civil Rights” bill. A progressive Supreme Court will uphold. For all Americans, this will spell the end to free speech, the most fundamental right.
Libertarians beware. You will forever lose your voice once the government classifies the expression of libertarian ideas as “hate speech.”
It’s time for libertarians to stand up and face their most immediate threat.
Does anyone reading this know a John Smith who uses the email address [email protected] ? This person used to post here, or at least used to read this site. I suspect that this person may be a fake, and that they may be the same person (“Vernon”) – or with the same group of people – who has/have been trolling here for several years.
Starchild, thanks for your reply. A few thoughts:
1. You write: “and is commonly accepted as such within that region”
That’s kind of my point. While I did write that anarchy is true always and everywhere, and there is no other system, at all, what I meant was probably closer to the following: anarchy exists as soon as the statement above is false, regardless of any other institutions. That is, all it takes to have ‘anarchy’ is a widespread realization that there is nothing legitimate about government.
2. You’ve been in the party longer, but I would have to respectfully disagree that the average convention-goer has sounder views about party governance – or at least qualify that statement. The average convention goer tends to be new to the party (at most conventions, there is a majority or close to it of first time attendees) and to not fully understand what it actually takes to achieve some particular ends.
As an example, (and I’m definitely going to ruffle feathers around here with this, and I know you’ll disagree), at the last convention one member, who I do not know, was promoting having more time for bylaw proposals from the floor. You probably agree with him and view that as a sound view on party governance. I agree in theory, but in practice, with the knowledge I have gained from studying parliamentary procedure and participating in the NAP and NEAP, I would say that this position leaves much to be desired. Bylaws are hard, and can very easily be done badly; that’s why we have a committee write proposals and, in principle, think carefully about membership on that committee. Proposals from the floor can easily create bad situations (bad in the sense of unworkable, not just undesirable.) I recently took over as parliamentarian for my fire department, and found that the bylaws were unworkable since no parliamentary guidance had been sought in the past for proposals. Bylaws can, for instance, accidentally create a requirement that half of the party be present to hold a convention.
So maybe I can agree about the soundness of views, but the LNC member has the experience to know how things actually work. This is similar to what I gained by serving in elected office. I think we libertarians tend to view government officials as sitting in an office with a dial marked “more freedom” and “less freedom.” We tend to lack specific knowledge of what government officials actually do all day. (Democrat voter tend to view government the same way, except with a dial marked “more widespread prosperity” and “less widespread prosperity.” Their problem is lack of knowledge of economics.) As a result, it’s reasonable to ask that our candidates, in addition to a sound ideology, also demonstrate sufficient knowledge for us to believe that, in office, they’d know how to achieve what they talk about.
The party works similarly. It is easy to make a statement at the convention. Knowing how to execute it is less widespread.
I don’t think having a structure without a board is the answer to the concerns you raise. The answer is raising awareness, creating that culture you speak of, and additionally making sure that members know how to achieve what they want as well as wanting it – and know whether or not it is possible to achieve. That will prevent the growth of centralized power we both worry about and produce a solid check on the board – one that is effective, not just wishful.
I do not dispute, of course, that the convention is the ultimate authority and power of the party, not the board. However, we can’t have the convention all the time. I know you aren’t arguing that we should, but in practice, we also can’t expect all decisions to be made in a widespread way. There is a gap between theory and practice.
A few further thoughts, Joshua, in response to a couple other things you wrote…
“Finally, organizations must also act, not spend all their time deciding. This requires that some decisions be referred to either individuals or to a board…”
I’m not sure this is a requirement that organizations must follow if they are to act. I’m thinking of the “do-ocracy” approach — that is, a system in which anyone belonging to the organization is empowered to make decisions and act on its behalf, perhaps within certain prescribed limits.
One obvious problem with a do-ocracy is that the set of people who are the best or most active “doers” won’t necessarily be the set of people whose ideas or methods are most conducive to the goals of the organization.
Another significant problem with this approach that it doesn’t offer an obvious solution to the problem of power, and how to keep it from becoming concentrated and abused. Then again, none of the alternate systems I’m aware of have really figured out how to address that problem either.
On the positive side, a do-ocracy has much less need of rules and bureaucracy.
Anyway, you conclude that:
“Organizations should adopt governing structures that allow most decisions to be made by a small number, who do devote a substantial portion of their time to making decisions, so long as they are watched and can be removed and replaced as necessary.”
This is of course more or less the model embodied by the Libertarian National Committee (although by no means without problems). It has the advantages of being familiar, and broadly workable.
However the Libertarian Party’s governing structure also includes conventions where decisions are made by significantly larger numbers of people, each of whom devote much less time to making decisions for the organization.
And my observation, over the years I’ve been in the party, has been that the average convention delegate tends to have sounder views on running the organization than the average member of the party’s leadership.
This strongly suggests to me that a model where more people are involved in making decisions, but each of them spends somewhat less time at it — we certainly don’t want our activists putting all their time and energy into internal party affairs! — would be preferable to the more representative approach we use now. In other words, an approach that has a bit more of a direct democracy (or direct republicanism, to be more technically accurate) flavor to it.
Unfortunately, current reality that only a small subset of LP members are concerned enough with the party’s governance to get involved. Part of the challenge I see is figuring out how to make our party’s governing process simple enough, engaging enough, and interesting enough to create the flourishing culture of internal, bottom-up activism that we need.
We need this culture not primarily in order to make better decisions on an issue-by-issue basis, although I do think that would be a result, nor even mainly to “walk the walk” by modeling within our own organization something more like the kind of individual-empowering governance we want to see in society at large. Mainly we need it to ensure the Libertarian Party’s own sustainable future as a libertarian organization!
We need it in order to prevent our party from gradually falling victim to the dynamics of power, because without vigilance, that’s what tends to happen to large institutions over time (and by “large” in this context I would include any group with thousands of members). The danger is of becoming increasingly run on a top-down basis by a class of professional politicians and administrators who are more interested in their own power, perks, and careers than in advancing the cause of liberty.
Joshua – I see your point, and agree that at the global level, the world is in a de facto state of anarchy.
I would not define that as being true *within* most countries, however (*maybe* Somalia, Iraq, Syria, etc. on a countrywide level). If there is an organization (or individual!) that claims to be the government or established authority for a particular region, and is commonly accepted as such within that region, then I would say that anarchy does *not* exist within that region.
It may be true that governments such as we know them (i.e. coercion-based governments) are ultimately just violent gangs. Nevertheless, a definition of anarchy that creates a situation in which *any* system meets the definition of anarchy is a meaningless definition.
I strongly agree with you that pure democracy (absolute rule of the majority) is not a good system — by “some form of democratic or consensus-based rule” I was including republican type systems that include individual voting and majority rule but with rights for minorities, as well as consensus-oriented systems where minorities have even more power.
You write, “Once that recognition is made [that we live in anarchy], behaviors and thought patterns change. The most important change is this one – since man is a social animal, and since there is no central power to rely on to create social structures, we realize that we must create them ourselves, if we desire the benefits of society without the drawbacks of empowering gangs which have shown themselves to be, for lack of a better term, anti-social.”
Is this any different than simply saying “Once the recognition is made that coercion-based governments are illegitimate…”? Telling people we live in anarchy now seems likely to just create a lot of confusion — haven’t anarcho-capitalists been saying for years that an anarchist system would be much *better* than what exists now?
It seems better not to muddy the waters or sully the name of anarchism — yes, I realize the term has long been sullied in most people’s minds, but I don’t want to sully it for the future as well — by associating it with the status quo. If we don’t have any differentiated terms to talk about the kind of society we want, it will be much more difficult to achieve. Think of Ayn Rand’s sci-fi story “Anthem”, if you’ve read it, where the man escaping from the collectivist/totalitarian society has to reinvent, or rediscover, the concept of “I”, in order to really get his head straight about what he wants and what he doesn’t want.
Anyway, thanks for your thoughtful post.
http://www.ballot-access.org/2014/08/california-senate-passes-bill-easing-definition-of-political-party/
“paulie Post authorAugust 25, 2014 at 11:18 am
Good luck, let me know if and when you have established one. I heard there’s something in Chile but I can’t afford it.”
I can not do it alone. Even if I were really wealthy I’d still need help from other libertarians to make the Libertarian Zone a reality.
I am willing to volunteer and contribute money to such an effort if there are other libertarians out there who are serious about turning this concept into a reality.
http://ancap.liberty.me/2014/08/24/lichtenstein/
Starchild – I strongly agree with almost all of your points. As we’ve discussed, I think #14 is absolutely key and cannot be overstated. However, I must take issue with this one:
(7) Self-government (that is to say, anarchy) is the most bottom-up means of governance in a society, but within institutions (governments, political parties, and other organizations) the most bottom-up means of governance is some form of democratic or consensus-based rule.
Maybe I’m misunderstanding, so let me just say what I think on this topic rather than arguing with you, as there may be no need to. Anarchy, to me, is literally only an idea – and simultaneously the only type of society there can be. I am an anarchist because I believe that governments cannot, and do not, exist. They are, quite literally, gangs. So anarchy is not the most bottom-up means, it is the only way a society can exist, period. This explains why some of your other points hold, by the way – anarchy requires good behavior, and since we live in anarchy, there is no way for the less powerful to make the more powerful behave correctly. So the reason groups and institutions tend to have leaders who become corrupted is precisely this same scenario.
The key is to recognize that we live in anarchy. Once that recognition is made, behaviors and thought patterns change. The most important change is this one – since man is a social animal, and since there is no central power to rely on to create social structures, we realize that we must create them ourselves, if we desire the benefits of society without the drawbacks of empowering gangs which have shown themselves to be, for lack of a better term, anti-social.
So it is because we live in anarchy that institutions, groups, organizations, and other types of voluntary associations must exist.
Once they exist, they must act. Before acting, they must decide how to act. Before deciding, they must adopt rules for deciding. Whatever rules an institution adopts, the most important point must be adhering to those rules, except when they run counter to the aims of the organization itself (if the LP adopted a bylaw, within article 6, at a sparsely attended convention to require each affiliate to sacrifice one sustaining member each month, with the ritual to be performed by kosher slaughter on the highest land point within that state, that bylaw should not be followed. Similarly, if the LP adopted a bylaw banning affiliates from running candidates, that should not be followed.) Failure to adopt rules prevents true freedom. It is not freedom to be required to enter into open-ended agreements without knowing what will then happen. It is not freedom to give over one’s assets, or time, without any idea of a decision making process. Failure to have rules is also destructive of the very freedom to associate – an association without rules will fail to remain intact. Where, within a group, each acts according to their own view of what is good, there is no true freedom (Henry Robert, paraphrased.)
I do, though, have thoughts on what rules should be adopted. I think consensus decision making is as far from bottom-up governance as one can get without rule by fiat. It is, quite literally, decision making by exhaustion – the position adopted is the one clung to most stubbornly. It is entirely undemocratic.
Nor is democracy ideal, either. Pure democracy (the right of the majority to decide) fails because, ideally, there should be rules in place requiring the majority to allow the minority (speaking of numbers at the start of the decision making process) to present their case, as some of the majority may well find it decisive, and thus the majority may shift. Thus, what is needed is a set of rules that permit the majority to decide and to act for the organization, but only after hearing the minority.
Furthermore, some things are of sufficiently high importance to require more than a temporary majority. While a majority of an organization should always be able to act after hearing from the minority, in practice, not everyone attends every meeting. Thus, usually the majority refers to the majority present at a meeting. Some issues are too big for that, and too hard to reverse. Thus, they require either a very sizable majority at a meeting (one that already met quorum) or a majority of the entire organization.
Finally, organizations must also act, not spend all their time deciding. This requires that some decisions be referred to either individuals or to a board (or both, since the board is then an organization and capable of referring powers to an individual, except as proscribed by the organization.) People cannot always be meeting. So organizations should adopt governing structures that allow most decisions to be made by a small number, who do devote a substantial portion of their time to making decisions, so long as they are watched and can be removed and replaced as necessary.
As you know, there is a governance structure, and a set of rules, instantiating exactly these. There are, in fact, several. All fall under the general label of “common parliamentary law,” or, more accurately, parliamentary procedure. (The 11th edition of Robert’s, for the same reason, changed most instances of ‘legal’ to ‘valid’ and referred to procedure rather than law.)
Good luck, let me know if and when you have established one. I heard there’s something in Chile but I can’t afford it.
Yes, but I’d question how many of those people are really poor. Regardless, this figure also does not include the number of people who work for the government, the number of people who contract with the government, and the number of people who work in some kind of government protected job or business.
Is there any doubt that those among us who value individual liberty are in serious trouble in this country? It may be time to separate ourselves from those who live off of the government and to establish a Libertarian Zone ( https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2014/07/andy-jacobs-the-libertarian-zone/ ).
Can’t remember, but I seem to remember him being a Wayne Root supporter.
My memory may be inaccurate on this, but wasn’t Brendan Kelly vehemently opposed to the Republican Party and against the LP nominating former Republicans for President? I am not sure, which is why I started by saying that my memory may be inaccurate on this…
That’s only counting welfare for the poor, which is a drop in the bucket next to middle class entitlements and welfare for the rich/corporate welfare beneficiaries.
40% of Americans are on Welfare
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2014/08/40-of-country-on-welfare-obamacare.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsuQVhZB0Ds
Expert: 9/11 False Flag Was The Greatest Crime Of The Century
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNlsX2evWAs
Mark Christensen posted in CopBlock.org Fan Group
Mark Christensen
Mark Christensen 7:16pm Aug 23
Paul Joseph Watson asserts that civil unrest is exactly what our government wants. They are using the domestic army to provoke civil unrest so that they can then clamp down on citizens who are speaking out against the government.
VIDEO: “Domestic Army” in Ferguson Attacks Reporters So They Cannot Film Police Brutality
survivaljoe.net
Paul Joseph Watson does a good job of breaking down exactly what has happened in Ferguson, Missouri …
Brendan Kelly, who in 2012 had run for Congress in New Hampshire as a Libertarian, has defected to the Republican Party and is running for Congress in the same district in their primary.
Karin Rösarne posted in Design for Liberty
Karin Rösarne
Karin Rösarne 8:03am Aug 20
Just sharing the good news. David K Williams kicks tail in Colorado. He is now endorsed by the largest group of Common Core Parents in Colorado. Way to go! Bumper stickers coming next week.
Stop Common Core Colorado Endorses David K Williams for Attorney General | PRLog
http://www.prlog.org
Stop Common Core Colorado Endorses David K Williams for Attorney General. Stop Common Core Colorado,…
Jed Ziggler (August 1, 2014 at 9:50 pm) writes, “…I can honestly say I don’t know what a bylaw is, nor do I care. I want to know how you plan to make this country better. I want to see you doing real activist work. There’s a lot of what the LP & GP do that I like, but the bureaucracy & internal drama over very small matters has got to go.”
Jed, I hear you. Unfortunately, as miserable as bylaws are, we cannot afford to ignore them. By way of explaining, allow me to lay out a few observations or axioms:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(1) The longer an organization has been around, the more bureaucratic, set in its ways, and dominated by a group of insiders it tends to become.
(2) The United States government has been around quite a long time, and obviously has grown extremely bureaucratic, as well as statist and top-down (qualities which all tend to go together) and dominated by a group of insiders (broadly speaking, the leaders of the Republican and Democrat parties plus the “permanent government” of senior civil servants).
(3) A major — perhaps THE major — reason why the U.S. government has become what it is today is because power corrupts.
(4) The corrupting influence of power doesn’t hold true exclusively for government, although that is where it is most dangerous since governments have more powers than any other institutions — it applies to ALL concentrations of power.
(5) Short of using force to disperse and prevent undue concentrations of power — which runs the risk of concentrating even more power in the hands of those doing the dispersal or prevention — the only practical means of keeping buildups of power from threatening freedom are to vigilantly maintain a culture and rules unfavorable to the accumulation of power.
(6) Even organizations that have very little power are at risk of becoming authoritarian institutions ripe for facilitating the abuse of power, should they become powerful, unless they have strong cultures and structures in place to prevent any significant power that they may come to possess from being concentrated in the hands of a few.
(7) Self-government (that is to say, anarchy) is the most bottom-up means of governance in a society, but within institutions (governments, political parties, and other organizations) the most bottom-up means of governance is some form of democratic or consensus-based rule.
(8) Democracy is famously slow and messy (that is to say, prone to “internal drama”), relatively speaking (in the words of George W. Bush, “If this were a dictatorship it would be a heck of a lot easier — so long as I’m the dictator”), but when it comes to governance, it is as the well-known Churchill quote has it, “the worst possible system except for all the others.”
(9) Democracy, or bottom-up governance within an institution, only works on a sustainable basis when an electorate is informed and engaged, and leaders are held accountable.
(10) The only way to sustain an informed and engaged electorate and leaders who are held accountable is to be vigilant in maintaining a culture and rules that enable and reinforce these values.
(11) Left to their own devices, those in power will tend to adjust and interpret the rules to maintain and expand their own power.
(12) Bylaws are to organizations like the Libertarian Party what the Constitution is to the U.S. government.
(13) The actions and discussions of leaders must be transparent to their constituents, because if you do not know what your leaders are saying and doing, you cannot hold them accountable, and if you cannot hold them accountable, then you have lost control of your organization to its leaders, and it is at high risk for any significant power that may come its way to be concentrated in those leaders and exercise its usual corrupting influence.
(14) Voters who are properly engaged and vigilant will want to see political leaders who practice what they preach, i.e. have a track record of walking the walk, not just talking the talk. (In other words, if we cannot run the Libertarian Party on a bottom-up basis, and model within our own organization the kind of governance we call on the U.S. government to practice, we will suffer a real lack of credibility, and deservedly so.)
(15) Political leaders who emerge from an organization with a strong bottom-up culture and rules are going to be less likely to succumb to the corrupting influences of power or tolerate the abuse of power among their colleagues than those who do not.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you or anyone else have any discussion or questions on any of these points, I am eager to hear your thoughts, questions, and feedback.
http://reason.com/reasontv/2014/08/22/jeffrey-tucker
Jeffrey Tucker on Liberty.me and How the Internet Undermines the Nation-State
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=GIM1tO9MIIY
http://reason.com/blog/2014/08/22/bloombergs-stop-and-frisk-explosion-look
Bloomberg’s Stop-and-Frisk Explosion Looks Ineffective As Well As Unconstitutional
— On Fri, 8/22/14, William Redpath wrote:
> From: William Redpath
> Subject: LP is on the ballot in Illinois.
> To: [email protected]
> Date: Friday, August 22, 2014, 1:12 PM
> We survived the challenge.
> Ruling handed down by the State Board of Elections
> today. More to come.
>
> Bill Redpath
>
_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
[email protected]
http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________
Lnc-votes mailing list
[email protected]
http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-votes_hq.lp.org
[Lnc-votes] [Lnc-business] Republican bullying tactics in Illinois failed and will backfire.
Inbox
x
[email protected] via googlegroups.com
11:36 AM (2 hours ago)
to lnc-business
http://politics.suntimes.com/article/springfield/under-gun-petition-challenges/wed-08202014-801pm
https://www.quinnforillinois.com/quinn-illinois-statement-regarding-rauner-voter-intimidation-guns
Bill Redpath
_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
[email protected]
http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
Press Release
Libertarian Party of the Florida Keys endorses no candidates for August’s elections
8/20/14 – Key West, FL
Ahead of August 26th’s local elections for many non-partisan offices in Key West and Monroe County, Libertarian Party of the Florida Keys Chairman Mike Kane released the following statement:
After much discussion and review, the Libertarian Party of the Florida Keys has decided not to endorse any candidates for Augusts’ elections. It was a consensus among all members that no candidate took the Libertarian approach to solving today’s societal woes: reducing the size and scope of government.
Rather than addressing important Libertarian issues, such as ending the failed war on drugs, reducing property and sales taxes, marriage equality until government is out of marriage licensing altogether, advocating for jury nullification, and the eventual privatizing of schools, most candidates are incredibly vague with their campaign slogans such as “increasing transparency in government”, “restoring trust in city hall”, and “setting high standards”.
Some candidates are focused on making government work more efficiently, and even worse, other candidates want to further expand government’s control over the economy, education, and people’s personal lives.
Until candidates are willing to promote Libertarian solutions to bad governance we cannot in good faith support them.
The Libertarian Party of the Florida Keys is supporting Libertarian candidates Adrian Wyllie (Governor) and Bill Wohlsifer (Attorney General).
About: The Libertarian Party of the Florida Keys (LPFK) was founded July 9th, 2014, and is an officially recognized affiliate of the Libertarian Party of Florida. LPFK is in the process of forming a Committee with the Monroe County Supervisor of Elections. For more information, please visit https://www.facebook.com/FloridaKeysLibertarianParty, http://www.lpf.org, or call Chairman Mike Kane 703-962-0720
The Secret Playbook of Internet Trolls
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/08/trolls-whats-confusing-nature-game.html
You are already an anarchist – with Larken Rose
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4xFlT3EKNw
Yep, the cops can’t keep their lies straight.
I’d put the police riot down as “premonition of bigger things to come.”
“Video shows him paying for the cigars, and even if he was a thief how would that justify summary execution, much less the police state we are seeing in Ferguson and surrounding areas right now?”
As with George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin, it’s important to remember that WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT HAPPENED.
I can construct a plausible narrative in which the police officer was fully justified in the moment in shooting Brown.
The main reason I suspect that narrative is not the correct one is because the story FROM THE POLICE SIDE keeps changing. Little “trial balloon” changes to the story from “anonymous sources in the police or prosecutor’s office” keep popping up, while the witnesses who have actually been willing to identify themselves and publicly associate themselves with their statements have been consistent (and consistently unsupportive of the ever-evolving police version).
If it takes you two weeks to get your story straight, then it stands to reason that what you are doing is trying to get your story straight. Which means that instead of telling the truth, you’re telling the story that you think will work out best for you.
The 10-day police riot in Ferguson might be put down to incompetence, or it might be put down to “the longer we keep folks riled up, the longer we have to try and figure out a story that we can sell to protect a member of the thin blue line.” What it can’t be put down to is anything reasonable.
Yep. It may also explain the spam from Marlon Areola.
Video shows him paying for the cigars, and even if he was a thief how would that justify summary execution, much less the police state we are seeing in Ferguson and surrounding areas right now?
Stop US government intervention in the middle east.
And stop spamming multiple threads with the same inane distraction.
This probably explains the presence of Vernon.
How the Government Can Destroy Your Reputation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EI9vOnlzoJA
The Libertarians are quick to denounce the likely justified shooting of the thief Michael Browne. ISIS beheads Iraqi children and Americans, and all we hear from Libertarians is silence. Where is the moral outrage about ISIS? What is the Libertarian solution?
Congrats Mark.
New York LP filed over 30,000 signatures for twelve candidates yesterday morning.
More detailed separate article to appear soon, I hope!
For anyone who hasn’t seen it yet the discussion above about Kelly Canon’s facebook message got its own thread
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2014/08/libertarian-replies-to-open-letter-to-libertarians-and-their-candidates/
The Reform Party of North Carolina announced an endorsement for Barry Gurney for US Senate.
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Barry-Gurney-Unaffiliated-Write-In/487688611364966
http://thecryptosphere.com/2014/08/15/a-message-from-the-ferguson-protesters-to-anonymous/
Marc Stevens @ the 2014 Jackalope Freedom Fest
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcO_SGlB-Ug
Thanks! It’s not quite so crappy as I thought it was when I first read the finished thing, but I think I did a better job in the links above. Then again the opposition pieces I was responding to there were more coherent as well, and I put more time into writing those responces…this one was off the cuff, like the original note I was responding to seems to have been as best I can tell.
Great response, Paulie!
By the way does anyone know if American Third Party Report has been suspended, or is just taking a break? They haven’t made any announcements but did suddenly stop posting articles. There’s a good discussion of it at Saturn’s blog…. see comments at http://thesaturnalian.wordpress.com/2014/08/03/new-third-party-blog-launched/
Check out
http://functionalfillmorefrugal.wordpress.com/
Nathan Norman makes a pretty compelling case that I must be Frankel….I can’t see how anyone can argue with it, and he has a pretty awesome blog overall. Check him out! He says he is competing against IPR and will provide a better alternative. It looks like American Third Party Report has already died so that very well may be true. It certainly declined after Nathan Norman was removed as a writer there. He has interesting and original articles and interviews and says that he will not allow the Oregon LP silliness to take over the new blog like it has IPR. He also has a pretty hot porn collection in the “private” tab at the top of the page.
Hopefully everyone here will go over there and start commenting, and maybe sign up to post articles if Nathan allows that (I think he is the only one posting articles so far and Robert Milnes is the only one besides him posting comments).
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2014/08/paul-frankel-disrupt-did-you-say/
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2013/12/paulie-frankel-response-to-rodney-lee-conover-on-joe-the-plumbers-website/
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2013/11/paulie-response-to-carrie-sheffield-at-forbes-on-who-will-be-the-next-libertarian-spoiler/
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2013/11/paulie-response-to-derek-hunter-at-townhall-on-the-problem-with-libertarians/
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/08/militarization-liberals-and-libertarians-agree.html
http://www.ballot-access.org/2014/08/kentucky-u-s-senate-poll/
Bondurant, why don’t you write something up about the spoiler effect in Virginia with Sarvis? Here’s a link with some info on it:
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2014/01/washington-post-why-robert-sarvis-is-no-virginia-senate-race-spoiler-for-ed-gillespie/
Thanks!
Not my best effort IMO, I’m tired from insomnia but there you have it.
Great, Paulie! I believe at least one person on Facebook is writing one up as well.
In order to stop, first we would have to start. We aren’t part of the conservative vote so there is no way for us to split it.
I love it when people try to predict the future. We’ll see.
I read the entire message. Where are the facts?
I won’t quibble over “significant” here, but the primary goal of opposition parties is not necessarily to directly win elections – its to influence the debate and push the larger parties in the diection we wish. Using these methods, despite not winning many significant races, the prohibition and socialist parties in the first half of the 20th century got the larger parties to adopt their key goals. By threatening to tip the balance between the larger parties in close elections, electing a few of their people here and there, and building movements that threatened to possibly become major parties if their issues were ignored they caused much larger parties to sit up, take notice and pass their ideas into law. That has been the traditional role of smaller parties throughout American history, and it has been how many of the significant policy changes over the years started. It is no less so today. Republicans like this one howling is a good indicator that it is working.
This supposes that we split the votes away from Republicans. In reality, this has been polled in many races, in many different years and in many different states. The largest share of our votes comes from voters who would otherwise have not voted at all, and of the ones who would have held their noses and voted for Democrats and Republicans the numbers tend to be about the same for each of the two. In many races a larger percentage of the Libertarian vote would have actually gone to the Democrats than to the Republicans.
I’d like to see this appreciation. Show me some serious money and volunteer help. So far it seems to be sorely lacking. Mind you, the Demorats would be wrong if they did think that we helped them but I would be happy to take their money based on this mistaken belief of theirs….however, it seems that Democrats are smarter than that, unfortunately. The Republicans seem to be the only ones who think we help the Democrats.
I seriously doubt they were “good” Republicans, and this supposes once again that without Libertarian candidates in the race our voters would all still vote and would all, or overwhelmingly, vote Republican. The author provides zero evidence for this assertion, which is flat out wrong and completely contradicted by the actual polling data that does exist.
The Republican in that race was just as bad or worse than the Democrat, so even if this was true it would not be a good thing if Virginia was “enjoying” a theocratic Republican rather than a crony corporatist Democrat right now. But it’s not even close to being true: multiple polls, including exit polls, in Virginia show that without Libertarian Sarvis in the race the Democrats would have won by an even larger margin. In other words, while Libertarian voters found both the Democrat and the Republican unacceptable and repellent, a larger percentage of us found the Republican to be even more unacceptable and repellent than the Democrat. A large chunk would have just stayed home, and a large chunk would have voted for the Democrat – not because we like him either, but just to keep the Christofascist Republican out of office. A somewhat smaller chunk would have voted for the socially repressive and regressive Republican, not because we like him either, but just out of fear and loathing of the Democrat. The end result would have still been the Democrat winning, and voters would have been deprived of the opportunity to express disgust with both of the poor choices offered by the establishment parties without it being mistaken for apathy.
That depends on whether the Democrats and Republicans both bother to run. In many races they only put up one or the other, but not both. Maybe it’s because they have looked at the voting records of the Democrats and Republicans who actually get elected, found that they both vote with each other in the high 90 percent range, and decided not to split the votes of their fellow Demopublicans. In those cases, Libertarians typically draw anywhere from 10% to 40% and sometimes more.
Being the difference maker (or perceived difference maker) is a form of winning, since the pain of loss is what spurs larger parties and their politicians to change their policies, and often is the only thing that can.
WRONG!
Sorry for yelling, but I can’t emphasize that enough!
We have no such delusions.
You still seem to think that we find conservatives to be preferable to non-conservatives. We do not.
Well, yeah, we have elected mayors and state legislators among many other positions, but that’s really besides the point. See above; the strategy is not necessarily immediate wins.
Execpt that it isn’t our mindset, just a strawman of the author’s own construction. Notice zero examples of any Libertarians actually making any such claims here?
We have. It’s called the Libertarian Party. The bigger two are equally bad, just in slightly different ways. And on many important issues they are both terrible in the same way.
Major error there. We have as many or more differences with Republicans as we have with Democrats, so joining them is out of the question.
None of that is relevant, since we don’t find the Democrats to be worse than the Republicans. If anything, they are two sides of the same bad penny.
But supposing I did find one of them to be better than the other, I would still want an opposition party putting pressure on them from my direction; otherwise, their only incentive is to continuously compromise with each other.
Actually, while some Tea Parties in some states have started their own parties, I would say that the larger failure of Tea Partiers – most of whom are conservatives, not at all libertarians – to start a new national party has been pretty stupid on their part, since they would have much more effectively pressured the establishment parties from outside than from inside. However, in their case at least they have one of the two which they find clearly preferable to the other one, which is not the case with Libertarians.
We are neither trying nor accomplishing splitting the conservative vote. Libertarians are not conservatives.
I’ll grant that you are really that simple, but that isn’t an option for us, since we find both of them to be equally abhorrent – a right boot or a left boot on our necks.
That difference is mostly illusory. But even if it is real, it’s not even remotely in the same direction as the difference Libertarians would like to make.
Again, this goes back to the fundamental mistake that libertarians are conservative. “Conservatives” are just as likely or more to be authoritarian (the opposite of libertarian) as are “liberals”.
Most of the Republicans claiming to be some kind of libertarians are not anywhere close.
Splendid idea. Close down the Republican party, come out for ending the drug war, come out for ending the military-industrial complex and the “war on terror,” end military engagement overseas and police militarization at home, end immigration quotas and the border police state, end corporate welfare and mixing church and state, support marriage equality, and we might have the start of something to join forces about. You might could come over to the Libertarian Party then.
And I personally urge every libertarian reading this – especially if you’re a candidate running against a Republican in November – redouble your efforts! I’m seeing more and more whining like this from Republicans, so we must be doing something right!
We won’t, and you’ll just have to be mad about it….and I guess be damned. But that’s what you deserve for backing the non-lesser evil that is the Republican Party.
I thought I already explained that isn’t even the right question to ask, much less what we think.
It isn’t our doing, but if you can’t live with it – unlike the Christofascist Republicans we support people’s right to end their life with dignity. Although I am not sure dignity is an option in this particular case.
Exactly what we have been doing, but deeper, harder and faster.
BTW, I don’t care if Republicans can live with it or not.
Ms. Canon wrote an “open letter” but does not allow comments on her Facebook page. I would like someone to raise the issue of polling data in Virginia that appeared to indicate that Sarvis “stole” just as many votes from McAuliffe as he did Cuccinelli.
I mean in this comment section. Then you can make it an article if you want.
OK, coming right up. I’ll just post it here.
Actually, it continues to get a lot of mileage on Facebook. If someone wants to write a rebuttal, I’ll post it as an article. Actually, I’d enjoy having several rebuttals. I’ll put a call out on FB, too.
Shit, I scrolled and still missed the overlong and mind numbing post. Feel free to delete mine.
Bondurant, that was already posted in this same thread yesterday. It was no less ridiculous then.
The following “open letter” was posted to Facebook by a woman in Texas. Of course the comments on her page are not open so it cannot be discussed with her outside of her sphere. I imagine many faces in palms upon reading this:
This has been a long time coming…
* * * OPEN LETTER TO LIBERTARIANS AND THEIR CANDIDATES * * *
(From a Tea Party Republican)
Please cease and desist from splitting the conservative vote. Please just STOP IT. You don’t have the numbers, and you never will. Here’s a few facts for you:
#1: In the last two or three decades in Texas, not one libertarian has won a significant partisan 3-way race. Ever. (I’m not including school board or city council races. They are non-partisan) If such an occurrence has indeed happened, please name the race. I dare you.
#2: The same above can be said nationally, and in other states.
#3: All libertarian candidates have really managed to do is split the votes away from Republicans JUST ENOUGH to throw the race to the democrat candidate in tight races. (and don’t think for a second that the democrats don’t appreciate your “involvement” in their victories!)
Case in point(s):
At least FIVE different state house races were thrown to the democrat candidate in just the last 4 election cycles – because of a libertarian candidate. And for the most part, these were GOOD republicans!
Look at the state of Virginia! Their gov race! Had a libertarian NOT been in that race, they’d be enjoying a republican gov right now! But thanks to the libertarian, they have to endure the democrat.
The absolute MOST a libertarian candidate can hope to achieve *IN TEXAS* is MAYBE 6%~8% of the vote. (That’s being generous) But when the race is tight between a republican and a democrat, that percentage can be the difference maker. But it damn sure won’t be won by the dang libertarian!
Libertarians are supposedly “conservative”, right? So my question to you is this: If you KNOW in your heart of hearts that you can’t get more than 8% (ever), why do y’all continue with your delusional thinking that you could actually win in a tight 3-way race? Is “voting your principles” so sacred that you’re willing to throw a race to the NON-CONSERVATIVE? Hoping that some day, some how, some way, you’ll actually garner 34% of the votes in a tight race? SERIOUSLY?
My collectively-given suggestion to ALL libertarians running in state house, senate, and even the governor race: STOP IT!!! END YOUR RACE RIGHT NOW! DROP OUT. Do NOT eff-up this election with your ridiculous mind set that you’ll magically garner 34% of the vote! Read my lips: IT. WON’T. HAPPEN.
Join forces with the one political party that so closely matches your ideology! The republicans would rather NOT have to fight you at every turn. They would rather have you join them, and work on the tiny issues that you differ with.
Now don’t get me wrong… The republican party has it’s issues. I’ll be the first to admit that! They’re not perfect by any stretch of the imagination. There are some candidates that I’m gonna have to hold my nose and vote for in November. I get that this is the last thing y’all would ever do. But do you REALLY want the democrats taking advantage of you like this? Because they damn sure know that they have a pretty good chance of grabbing that victory WITH YOUR HELP! How’s that make y’all feel? Sanctified? Or stupid?
Let me ask you this: Why, do you suppose the Tea Party never started it’s own political party? Answer: WE’RE NOT THAT STUPID. We knew that we’d end up doing the same exact thing y’all are trying to do right now! Splitting the conservative vote! Instead, we decided to join forces with the one *established* political party who’s ideology matches the closest with ours. It’s really that simple. And through their structure, we are making a difference! From precinct captains to delegates, and all in between! Sure, we have our own issues. We’re fighting “RINOs”, and establishment types all over the place. But I’ll tell you this: I’d rather fight within our ranks, and continue to put better and better candidates in office, than I would spend fighting against another conservative organization, only to keep losing race after race to democrats, just because of vote splitting! There’s plenty of room in the republican party for libertarians! They already exist! And they’re doing a great job!! Rome wasn’t built in a day, but if y’all don’t wake the hell up, Rome can burn to the ground real quick. History has a way of repeating itself. We need to join forces.
With that said, I urge every libertarian reading this – especially if you’re a candidate running against a republican in November – drop out NOW. I’ve personally worked way too hard to get *my* republican candidates this far, by working WITHIN the republican party – not against it! And I’ll be damned if I’m gonna let y’all ruin everything all of us grassroots folks have busted our collective backsides for, in getting the RIGHT candidate in office – just because you won’t work WITH us. Or just because you THINK you can get 34% of the vote! YOU may be able to live with more democrats in office (at your own doing), but not me!!! Together we’re strong. Divided we FAIL. It’s time to fish or cut bait, and there’s still time to do the right thing.
So… What’s it gonna be?!?
How the Government Manipulates Your Thoughts Online | Big Brother Watch
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUWnGXAfabA
Paid Government And Corporate Internet Trolls Are Real
http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/03/01/paid-govt-and-corporate-internet-trolls-are-real/
I wonder how many of these people have popped up on IPR over the years, besides “Vernon.”
Paid government trolls rove internet in search of resisters who oppose police state tyranny
http://www.naturalnews.com/045992_government_trolls_internet_police_state_tyranny.html
“Jill Pyeatt
August 14, 2014 at 1:35 pm
Hey, Vernon, have you started your new job yet?”
What, is Michael Seebeck still unemployed? I thought that he was working as an online troll for the government.
Jed–
Have a great vaca. You’re doing a terrific job on IPR.
While you’re away, keep reading for articles about New York. I sent Jill and Paulie a good story this afternoon.
Here’s something I have been saying a lot longer than a lot of people who are just now realizing this….although the opening still seems to suggest there is a lot more difference than there actually is.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/theprotojournalist/2014/08/12/339560577/the-bush-obama-quiz-whats-the-difference
^It’s probably a government “intelligence” agency job. Not sure about how new.
Meanwhile….
http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/police-should-stand-down-in-ferguson-mo
Militarized police in Ferguson, Mo., after the August 2014 shooting death of Michael Brown.
Tear gas, unrest, controlling the press, and the killing of alleged innocents are outcomes one would expect politicians to rationalize as inevitable in a war zone.
But these atrocities are happening in American cities — now in Ferguson, Mo., in the heart of the United States.
The war is not against tyrants who have invaded America or terrorists who commit mass murder.
No, the war is one that Democratic and Republican politicians are waging against fellow Americans who are hurting no one else.
The War on Drugs is frequently used to justify police who accost minorities walking down the street or otherwise engaged in peaceful behavior. This may have been what precipitated the killing of 18-year-old Michael Brown over the weekend, leading to riots and another shooting on Wednesday.
Although all the facts of this case are not yet known, the War on Drugs can be blamed for breeding the tension and resentment that has led to the dangerous rioting we now see in Ferguson.
“The militarization of our domestic police forces must end,” said Nicholas Sarwark, chair of the Libertarian National Committee. “The failed War on Drugs must end. And there’s no circumstance in which any government authority should attempt to silence or suppress the news media or people peacefully observing police conduct.”
So far, police in Ferguson have placed two reporters under arrest — one for the Washington Post and one for the Huffington Post — along with an observer, a St. Louis alderman.
The Libertarian Party calls on the Ferguson and St. Louis County Police Departments to:
The Libertarian Party also denounces and demands accountability for protesters who vandalize, loot, and destroy private property and thus victimize innocent small business owners.
The War on Drugs has been the rationale for the militarization of domestic police forces, a fact covered extensively by Washington Post reporter Radley Balko. The Libertarian Party calls for repeal of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which provides for dispensation of military equipment to federal and state law enforcement agencies for “counter-drug activities,” and also calls for immediately ceasing the acquisition and use of military surplus equipment and supplies by domestic police departments.
America’s senseless and reckless War on Drugs has ruined thousands of lives. It has failed to serve any useful purpose. It has failed to reduce dangerous use of drugs — and, in fact, encourages drug addiction. It has failed to make our streets safe — and has made them dangerous. It has failed to institute justice — and instead inflicts continual miscarriages of justice.
The Libertarian Party has long advocated for an end to the failed and dangerous War on Drugs. Twenty-seven Libertarian candidates running for federal office in 2014, and many more running for state and local office across the country, have pledged to end the War on Drugs if elected.
Hey, Vernon, have you started your new job yet?
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/08/12/Study-You-Have-Near-Zero-Impact-on-U-S-Policy
So who are these mysterious “elites”? What is their ethnicity or religion? Some of us have known for a long time that it is a zionist occupational government (ZOG) in alliance with secret societies that serve satan. And what is their agenda in bringing in massive third world immigration into all White countries and only White countries? They want genocide!
We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White Children!
There are comments of the LP Florida page that her page doesn’t accept comments. If I find something out about how to reach her, I’ll post it here.
Have a safe, fun vacation!
If anyone knows who this Tea Bagger Republican is, I’d love to respond to her once I get back from vacation. Oh yeah, I’m going on vacation, so I won’t be around here for a few days lol
^^She wasn’t getting much sympathy from Libertarians. LOL
Lynn House posted this on the Libertarian Party of Florida FB page. Someone named Kelly Canon wrote it.
Mental?
Ogles calls her his fiancee, or at least he did until I blocked him on FB for adding me to a “Hillary 2016” FB page. He also told me a couple times that she was a champion for people with disabilities, although I never knew what her disibility was.
Apparently her campaign manager was pretending to be her in written matrials and interviews. When she actually surfaced and wrote on her own behalf her writing was quasi-literate and barely coherent. BTW, did she ever graduate from the community college finally?
“According to http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2012/2012pres.pdf, Briscoe was a write-in candidate in Maryland and received 18 votes.”
Yes, and Ogle was her running mate. Last I heard she had gone back to the Democratic Party.
“NY Green Party Lt Governor candidate, Randy Credico, was arrested for legally videotaping plain clothes cops hassling an African American man.”
Credico is a Democratic Party candidate. The Green LG candidate is Brian Jones. Nevertheless thanks for the link, I will post this as a story.
NY Green Party Lt Governor candidate, Randy Credico, was arrested for legally videotaping plain clothes cops hassling an African American man.
http://www.howiehawkins.org/free_randy_credico
According to http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2012/2012pres.pdf, Briscoe was a write-in candidate in Maryland and received 18 votes.
She entered into a relationship with James Ogle. I do not know if that is still ongoing. If I remember correctly, Ogle and Briscoe ran as a write-in ticket in several states in the 2012 presidential election. I have no further information at the moment.
And the sun will rise in the east and set in the west 🙂
It looks like there will be Libertopia again this year:
https://www.facebook.com/events/1442451932681868/?ref=br_tf
I wonder how many of these people have posted here over the years.
http://humansarefree.com/2013/09/federal-government-hires-internet-trolls.html
“So Mr. Federalist, how do you spell your real surname? Or at least the last two letters thereof?”
With two T’s!
On August 10, 2014, at the American Independent Party of California”s State Central Committee Meeting held in Downtown Community of Sacramento County (one of the 25 communities of that county) which is located in the City of Sacramento, California, elected Mark Seidenberg Chairman of the AIP. He will take office on September 3, 2014 for a two year term.
The current chairman is pastor Wiley Drake of Buena Park, CA. Dr. Seidenberg resides in
Aliso Viejo, CA.
TK – the bylaws proposal included justifying text, which said “the current bylaw may be construed as…” I think that wording was correct. The bylaw can be seen as prohibiting cross-endorsement, but to do so would be incorrect. It prohibits it, in my view, under certain circumstances. (If it did prohibit all cross-endorsement, why would LNC members be specifically prohibited from being cross-endorsed?)
Now, as for the Presidential candidates of other parties being elected to the JC…
LOL!!!
So Mr. Federalist, how do you spell your real surname? Or at least the last two letters thereof?
“Settle down Knapp and Axinn, you both have dual consonants at the end of your surnames.”
Sayeth Eric SundwaLL! 🙂
Missouri LP has the state fair booth ready and open. If any are in Sedalia stop on by. We always make room for freedom fighters. Cheers!!
Donations are always welcome to help pay for the event.
Settle down Knapp and Axinn, you both have dual consonants at the end of your surnames.
“Oops, I forgot. You’re all talk, no action.”
Let’s see … I’ve been vice-chair of one large county LP, vice-chair and chair of an even larger county LP, organized LP committees in two smaller counties, served on my state’s executive committee ran for office five times, was one of a handful of Libertarian appointees to federal office, managed several campaigns (including two winning local campaigns for office and two winning local issues campaigns), worked on several pre-nomination and one post-nomination LP presidential campaign …
I think the words I’m looking for are “go fuck yourself, asshole.”
Thomas–
Talk to me after you run one of the six largest state affiliates for five years in a row, and ran three petition drives amassing 90,000 signatures in three out of the last five summers.
Make sure you donate thousands of dollars to the LP and your state during that time too.
Oh, build some new chapters too bringing new people to the movement and several new local candidates on the Libertarian line.
Oh, challenge some election laws in court and make it easier to run independent candidates.
Oops, I forgot. You’re all talk, no action.
I have to get back to work.
TK
Correct… but the culture of the LNC is such that few, if any, in Oregon desire reconciliation of any form. At our board meeting no one spoke in defense of the LNC or of the value of any relationship with the LNC.
While we are extremely libertarian, the nature of how the LNC conducts is business and has treated state affiliates is prima facie that it is not.
We look forward to someday associating with other libertarian affiliates in a manner that is more conducive to accomplishing our mission.
Wes,
LPO isn’t bound by the affiliate agreement in my opinion. The LNC has, in breach of the rules governing the relationship, constructively disaffiliated it two conventions in a row, above and beyond its attempt at actual disaffiliation (which it tried to do without calling it disaffiliation, a ploy the Judicial Committee put a stop to). A vote against disaffiliation at your 2015 convention would essentially be a vote to “keep trying to get the LNC to honor its agreements.” There’s no reason between now and then for LPO to pretend that LNC is actually doing so.
TK
To be entirely fair, Oregon has disaffiliation on our agenda for Spring 2015 at our convention.
If our board thought we had the authority to do it without the membership voting on it, we would have.
“Fuck, we anarchists are so much trouble. Not following bad rules and stuff like that.”
Yeah, don’t EVEN try to play the anarchist card. Anarchy isn’t no rules, it’s no ruleRs. This particular rule is a rule of a voluntary organization which your state party voluntarily joined, voluntarily committed to follow the rules of, and recently caucused for the purpose of examining and modifying those rules.
If you don’t like the nature of your voluntary commitments, withdraw from those commitments. Don’t just fucking lie for the purpose of gaining the benefits and then ignore them when it’s time to fork over. That’s fraud, which is one form of theft, which is initiation of force.
Jed–No problem.
Thomas–You’ve made the point about repeal or enforce the rule before, which I doubt strongly my many friends on the LNC will do. But as long as it is there and New York Election Law is a fusion state, I am likely to continue to flout it.
Fuck, we anarchists are so much trouble. Not following bad rules and stuff like that.
“If a pro-freedom candidate (say Ron Paul as an example) wanted to run in New York and was nominated by the D’s or R’s first, should we refuse to also endorse him because of that?”
Absolutely. No question.
“So let’s not rush to kick any affiliates out of the Party right now.”
I admit I was a bit rash on this. I tend to exaggerate when I’m in a pissy mood.
“If a pro-freedom candidate (say Ron Paul as an example) wanted to run in New York and was nominated by the D’s or R’s first, should we refuse to also endorse him because of that?”
That’s an interesting question … but it’s the WRONG question.
The bylaws of the national group with which LPNY is affiliated forbid that endorsement.
At one time there was some wiggle room for obfuscation as to the meaning of that bylaws provision, but the matter of “fusion” was brought up at the most recent national convention and the convention chose, now knowing beyond any shadow of a doubt that that was EXACTLY what the provision referred to, to get rid of it.
Repeal the rule or enforce the rule. Those are the two choices an organization has. If it does neither, it’s not an organization, it’s a lawless mob.
Jill–
Taking a break is often in order; quitting is usually not warranted.
Take a break and see where things are when the dust settles. You’re too good to lose.
Jed–
All good points and I am not sure I can disagree with you philosophically, although I do from a practical (or at least utilitarian) pov.
If a pro-freedom candidate (say Ron Paul as an example) wanted to run in New York and was nominated by the D’s or R’s first, should we refuse to also endorse him because of that?
We are not parasites (for that, I recommend the Working Families, Conservative or Independence Parties), but we do cross-endorse when to do so will advance libertarian ideas and the Libertarian Party.
l think we will have to agree to disagree on this. My interest is advancing liberty, and I believe the degree of my support for the LP (and not any other party) for over twenty years makes my allegiance manifest.
So let’s not rush to kick any affiliates out of the Party right now.
I don’t think Jill is talking about quitting the movement, only the party.
“Jill Pyeatt
August 10, 2014 at 11:22 pm
The Liberty movement needs you, Paulie!”
The Libertarian Party needs you as well, Jill.
The Liberty movement needs you, Paulie! Get well!
I’ve spent most of the weekend thinking about whether it’s time for me to leave the Libertarian Party. We had a terrible episode in Los Angeles county (well, I think it was very damaging to the LP), and we had zero state leadership deal with it. I can’t fight the battle alone, and maybe it’s time to put my energies elsewhere.
Via IPR email list
Q1: Paulie,
Are you doing alright? Did you really have a mini-heart attack?
Q2: Yes, Paulie, can we have a health update from you, please?
A: Thanks for asking.
I may have had one but it was borderline and indeterminate. I have chronic hypertension and sleep apnea, which is probably behind the hypertension and possible mini-heart attack. It also causes chronic insomnia, chronic daytime fatigue, mood and memory problems and puts me at high risk of strokes, heart attacks and possible death. The hypertension also causes frequent headaches and stomach problems. I also have allergies and asthma and chronic lung/breathing problems. I had slightly elevated blood sugar (not diagnosed as diabetes yet, but it runs on both sides of my family so that’s probably coming). Also a slight abnormality in my EKG. I had been having some chest pains and irregular heartbeats, dry mouth and so on, occasional hyperventilation.
I was prescribed blood pressure medication which I got and am now taking. The doctor also recommended that I get an auto-titrating CPAP machine for the sleep apnea, which I don’t have yet. The sleep apnea is probably the underlying problem.
It’s infuriating to be told that “Libertarians are just Republicans who want pot to be legal”, and I can’t in good faith refute that, because here we are, nominating Republicans! Not ex-Republicans, that’s okay unless again they’re Bob Barr types, but people who are on the ballot as Republicans! I can’t support a party that does that.
The United States will not be a free country until the Democratic and Republican parties are no more, and we finally have free & fair elections. By cross nominating major party candidates, the Libertarian Party in New York is endorsing the two party system that is destroying this country.
Feel free not to forgive me. I opposed the office purchase, though, and the Barr nomination. I supported Wrights, but was reasonably okay with Johnson until his comments about Manning and Snowden.
I believe we should be, as a party, doing what we can for freedom. That almost always means defeating R and D candidates. Sometimes, it means cross endorsements. I will take a win for freedom over party affiliation.
When it comes to recovering members of other parties, as opposed to cross endorsements, it’s a case by case issue to me. It depends on the degree of recovery. Barr was not really recovered at all. Gravel, in my opinion, was more recovered. He has not gone back to the Ds.
Historically, the only ways small parties became large was to do it in 3 cycles or less, or to use defectors from other parties. The only exception I know of was the recent Lib Dem break out.
“I bring up bylaws because I believe that voluntary organizations have the right, and often the responsibility, to make rules for their own operation, and our rules require cause for dis affiliation. Complaining about following rules voluntarily agreed to is in line with the popular misconceptions about libertarians. ”
Then call them rules, because I’m tired of reading the word bylaws. Seriously. That’s all anyone in the party ever talks about. It’s annoying.
“As for cross endorsements, my first loyalty is to freedom. My second is to the LP. If a cross endorsement can advance freedom, and can be done in a way that doesn’t violate our voluntarily agreed upon rules, I fail to see the issue. Should the LNC disaffilate parties, or censure them, solely on the basis of your opinion of that party’s actions?
There are many non cross endorsed candidates I find horribly distasteful. Should those states be disaffilated or censured?”
If you can’t understand why I’m upset about the LP nominating the same candidates we’re supposed to be trying to defeat, from the same parties we’re supposed to be trying to destroy, then I give up.
Oh I’ll never stop working & fighting, I’m just done doing it as a big L Libertarian. I’m now an independent. I’m still completely opposed to both parties, I will still support & vote for alternative candidates, including good LP candidates, of which there are many, but I’m done supporting a party that wastes the money I donate to it on townhouses, nominates Republicans & ex-Republican Bob Barr types, has yet to come out forcefully enough against our renewed warfare, recognized an illegitimate Oregon faction at the convention (not only should they not have seated the delegates, it never should’ve come up for a vote), wastes time bitching about worthless bylaws instead of promoting candidates, and many, many more abuses for which I doubt I can ever forgive the party & its officers.
I bring up bylaws because I believe that voluntary organizations have the right, and often the responsibility, to make rules for their own operation, and our rules require cause for dis affiliation. Complaining about following rules voluntarily agreed to is in line with the popular misconceptions about libertarians.
As for cross endorsements, my first loyalty is to freedom. My second is to the LP. If a cross endorsement can advance freedom, and can be done in a way that doesn’t violate our voluntarily agreed upon rules, I fail to see the issue. Should the LNC disaffilate parties, or censure them, solely on the basis of your opinion of that party’s actions?
There are many non cross endorsed candidates I find horribly distasteful. Should those states be disaffilated or censured?
“…I have almost completely lost faith in the LP.”
It happens to all of us, Jed. Unfortunately the alternatives are always worse. Allow yourself to be royally pissed off and then continue to work for what you know is right.
I’m not speaking of bylaws, I couldn’t give two shits what the bylaws do or do not say. Why does everyone always bring up these fucking bylaws!!? I’m speaking of principle. I’m asking if the Libertarian Party is truly an opposition party, truly completely in opposition to the Democrat-Republican duopoly, or are we just lap dogs for the state? For years the LP has told me that they are neither Democrat nor Republican, left nor right. That may be true of libertarians in general, and certainly is for me, but I have almost completely lost faith in the LP.
I believe that particular bylaw is frequently misinterpreted and believe that LPNY is not in violation.
“New York Election Law permits fusion candidates, and LPNY will endorse Democrats or Republicans who also seek our line from time to time in specific cases.”
Then the LPNY should be disaffiliated from (or at the very least formally censured by) the national party. It is 100% unacceptable for any LP affiliate to promote, endorse, or co-nominate any major party candidate, regardless of their ideology, for any reason. The same is true of the fake Libertarian trying to become the GOP governor nominee in Vermont.
I realize the LPNY does not have ballot access in New York, you don’t need to keep bringing it up, and it’s a bullshit excuse for supporting the duopoly.
Again, you have 1 candidate on the ballot for U.S. House in New York. The 2 Republicans don’t count.
If Jim Gray is “totally unacceptable” as the vice presidential nominee why not a draft movement for Robert Sarvis? He certainly has been hot of late.
Hi Jed.
I only now saw your comment of August 6.
The LP does not have ballot status in New York, so petitioning is required for all
races. To get on the ballot as a Libertarian for Congress, we have just six weeks to obtain 3500 valid signatures, which really means 5000 raw sigs., from registered voters who live in the Congressional district.
New York Election Law permits fusion candidates, and LPNY will endorse Democrats or Republicans who also seek our line from time to time in specific cases. This year, the Suffolk County Chapter endorsed Lee Zeldin (whom I do not personally support as I think he is a neo-con) against Tim Bishop in District 1, and Grant Lally (who is a fine candidate) in District 3 against Steve Israel. Lally submitted over 5000 signatures last week as a Libertarian and should qualify for the line. The guy actually read Hayek and understands Austrian economics, which puts him one up on quite a few others who claim to be Libertarians.
FYI, the Manhattan and Brooklyn chapters rejected endorsing Nick Di Iolo (Republican for District 12th CD against Carolyn Baloneyhead) as well as a Democrat in the Bronx for Assembly, as neither was sufficiently in agreement with our principles.
So we permit fusion, but do not give it away willy-nilly.
If we get 50,000 votes for Governor and become a ballot-access party, our position may change on cross-endorsements, but we are not there yet. In general, I think the test should be whether the person is seeking to advance liberty (e.g., Dan Halloran, who was a Republican-Conservative-Independence-Libertarian candidate for City Council in 2009), not which tent he lives in. There are a lot of people on this website who supported a Republican Congressman from Texas for President in 2008 and 2012 over the candidates of the Libertarian Party, but that’s a whole ‘nother kettle of fish!
I applaud your efforts in keeping the campaign accountable. Your newsletter was a fantastic read and I, likely, would have never known about the fiscal nightmare Johnson’s campaign was had it not been for you.
Bondurant,
I totally support your objective. I had somewhat planned to run again in 2020, rather than sooner. The Johnson campaign from start to end seemed to function mostly to transfer money to campaign staff, which is not a good way to go.
George
The PSL nominated Peta Lindsay in 2012. She was only 28. I think the Snowden VP topic would make a good article & thread.
I am aware of the technicalities. I am supportive of delivering a message to the power brokers within the LP and the rank-and-file: It is unacceptable to run a ticket with someone of Gray’s opinion on the Snowden issue and a signal to move away from GOP Lite.
At this stage, is there anyone, a genuine libertarian and Libertarian, that is seeking to run against Johnson/Gray come Orlando?
Snowden is ineligible. He is too young, and he does not live in the United States.
Mind you, I think Gray is completely unacceptable.
I like the idea of Snowden, but–what Joshua said. I agree we need a better candidate than Gray. It’s time to start activiely looking, IMO.
I believe there would be logistical issues in running Snowden.
There’s a Facebook page called Edward Snowden For Vice President – Libertarian Party. Search for it next time your on Facebook (if you’re a user). I think this is something worth building a grassroots effort for. Judge Gray has to go. His stance on Snowden should be a deal breaker for any true libertarian. What better way to say “Fuck Judge Gray” than getting Snowden on our ticket instead of him?
For a minute I thought 14 was his actual age, but that would be way too mature 🙂
Nazi troll is nazi!
I did not get the email. Interesting.
He also sent the e-mail (presumably the same content) to me, Krzyzstof Lesiak, and to Milnes’ old e-mail (which was infiltrated last year).
““vernon14?
I wonder if Vernon14 stands for the 14 words, which is a neo-Nazi pledge.
“Richard Winger
August 8, 2014 at 11:11 pm
The above comment should say New Mexico (1998). Not Arizona.”
It was actually from 1999 in New Mexico. It is amazing how this is still being talked about today – 15 years later – especially given that it was only a small number of registrations, and even more so given that the registrations in question ended up being processed as valid and added to the voter roles in spite of the bogus SSN’s (the reason being that all of the legally required information was valid, and the SSN an optional field, as in it was not required to be a registered voter).
Vernon’s distribution list, according to the email Al forwarded me:
*The entire current LNC
*James Ogle, Richard Winger, George Phillies, Carla Howell, Sean Haugh, Lee Wrights, Tom Knapp, Angela Keaton, Eric Dondero, Mary Ruwart, Christy Steele (former petitioner who has been a friend/associate of Andy, Mark Pickens and myself; commented on IPR a few times several years ago), Christina Tobin, non-libertarian California-based paid petition coordinator Eileen Ray, Shane Cory, Wes Benedict, Constitution Party ballot access coordinator Alison Potter, Scott Kohlhaas, Virgil Goode, Alabama Constitution Party chair Josh Cassity, former Alabama LP chair Mark Bodenhausen, current Alabama LP chair Leigh LaChine, Al Anders.
Same Al.
He also did forward me the email “vernon14” sent to the entire LNC and a whole bunch of other people. I forwarded that to Andy and Jake.
Thanks for pointing out the truth here, Al.
“I suspect that tom knapp is ‘john smith.’ ‘John smith’ is the only person who I forwarded the email to that I do not know off the net.”
You sure do “suspect” a lot of things for which you have absolutely no evidence.
I do not and never have used the pseudonym “John Smith.” Nor have I ever used any pseudonym when discussing LP petitioning, etc. Nor do I support “Vernon’s” set of assorted accusations against various people; I just find them interesting as they apply to Fincher.
“Then of course knapp has to rehash the 15 year old non-issue on ssn’s to register to vote, which the courts had already ruled is not required to register to vote. Knapp ran away like an intellectual coward the last time I challenged him on unconstitutional uses of ssn’s.”
No I didn’t. I just pointed out that whether or not SSNs are or should be required on voter registration forms is irrelevant to whether or not falsifying SSNs IS, in fact, falsifying SSNs.
What I find interesting about this story vis a vis Fincher is that it seems to put on display his attitude with respect to everything: “The truth doesn’t matter if it makes me money.”
On the SSN thing he didn’t say “yeah, that was wrong to do, but I was owed the money and really needed to get it so I did a dumb thing that was just as dishonest as what was done to me.” He defended it to the hilt, because it made him money.
On the alleged veterans’ organization fraud, the story I read on it alleged the same attitude on his part: Sure, the charity didn’t actually exist, but because he spent 28 days in the military once he felt “entitled” to fake it … because it made him money.
To repeat the above: I have no reason to believe, nor do I suspect, that Paulie, Andy, et. al were involved in Fincher’s scam. Hell, I’m even trying to be agnostic as to whether or not Fincher himself is guilty.
I think the alvin above has got to be al anders, long time libertarian activist and former petitioner al anders. Al hit the nail on the head. Thanks for setting the record straight.
I am the one who sent out the email about gary. I suspect that tom knapp is “john smith.” “John smith” is the only person who I forwarded the email to that I do not know off the net.
I find it funny that knapp pops up here with this after I fowarded that email (and I did not forward it to knapp), along with “vernon,” an obvious troll who posts under a fake name.
Then of course knapp has to rehash the 15 year old non-issue on ssn’s to register to vote, which the courts had already ruled is not required to register to vote. Knapp ran away like an intellectual coward the last time I challenged him on unconstitutional uses of ssn’s.
The truth of the matter is that gary used to be a very good libertarian petitioner and activist, but he abandoned both several years ago. He has not petitioned for the lp since early 2010. Paul and I have not seen or spoken to him in years.
He got hooked into this veterans scam by some non-libertarian mercenary petitioners. I think the ones who got him into it quit doing it, but gary kept doing it. I figured he’d get busted some day.
It is kind of sad in a way for somebody to go through a meltdown like this, kind of like the character played by michael douglas in the movie “falling down”.
The above comment should say New Mexico (1998). Not Arizona.
I wish to point out that while Gary Fincher is a dirtbag, two of the allegations levied against him are misleading.
First, the Florida arrest was for petitioning for the LP in front of a post office. He had a right to be there and the arrest and charges were total bullshit. To include this as the writer does reflects more on the integrity of the writer than Gary Fincher.
Second, Gary was hired to gather voter registrations in Arizona and when he was hired the social security numbers were not required. Then he was told that he had to get the social security numbers and that he would not be paid for registrations that did not have them. This was bullshit as well. In Alaska we fought this and got date of birth as a substitution. In Arizona, Fincher had already collected voter registration under that old rules and was told that he would not be paid for these either. That was wrong. So Gary Fincher added bogus numbers to those registrations. Was it wrong. Damn right. He should have stood his ground. But he should have also been paid for registration collected under the old rules.
As for this allegation is the paragraph below, it’s hard to unpack all the lies, half truths and guilt by association in that paragraph. I’m guessing whoever wrote this is someone who has never gathered signatures for the LP because they obviously have no clue. That paragraph is so full of lies and slander that it doesn’t even deserve the time it takes for me to call the writer a lying piece of shit.
“This same crime syndicate including Frankel, Fincher, Mark Pickens, Andy Jacobs and Jake Witmer among others is involved with various political petition related scams, bogus charities, identity theft, drug dealing, prostitution related crimes, public intoxication, assaults, rental car thefts, sex crimes, and shaking down political and business clients for additional money through harassment,”.
Vernon, I don’t know you but you are a liar.
Looks like there may be an opportunity for a third party or independent candidate to draw a decent percentage of the vote in the Tennessee gubernatorial election, considering that the Democrats nominated a perennial candidate with no experience who has raised no money and has no campaign.
“NewFederalist
August 6, 2014 at 5:29 pm
I know this has been touched on before on other threads but I am VERY disappointed that the LP of PA failed to get on the ballot this year.”
The LP of PA has nobody to blame for not qualifying for the ballot but themselves. This year PA had the easiest ballot access requirement that PA has had in a long time.
For anyone to have ever been a long term friend and associate of Gary Fincher really shows their lack of character. Why would you be friends with someone like that unless you are the same type of person yourself? To avoid the taint, don’t associate with or especially hire anyone who has been friends with Fincher now or in the past. Boycott the FOGFs (friends of Fincher).
Don’t know if I’ll re-register, but I agree NF. This was a golden opportunity for the LP (and GP for that matter) to get candidates on the ballot without as much hassle as years past, and they blew it. I’m pissed.
I know this has been touched on before on other threads but I am VERY disappointed that the LP of PA failed to get on the ballot this year. I know all the viewpoints (no way to stay on the ballot even if Ken Krawchuk WON the governor’s race etc.) but geez… if the Libertarian Party wants to be taken seriously and the signature requirement was the lowest since 1970 it just seems that failure rather puts the party in the same league as the Prohibition Party. I guess I will just re-register to make my statement to the party.
previously on IPR:
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2014/04/white-patriot-party-founder-is-prime-suspect-in-jewish-community-center-shooting/#comment-884010 I wrote 2014/06/07 at 10:36 pm
“…Fincher, who is a despicable individual ? among other things, he ripped off Andy out of thousands of dollars, made up B S story about being beaten up, caused me many unnecessary headaches, and at last report was running a scam I really hope he gets busted for, where he sets up in front of Walmarts and pretends to collect money for homeless veterans and keeps 100% for himself. ”
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2012/05/geoff-neale-on-the-situation-with-michael-cloud/#comment-748341
Me to Zapper on 2012/05/22 at 1:22 pm
Now is that fair? I didn?t hear Wayne say that 100% of the donations would go to help homeless veterans, meaning himself, or that anyone he owes a large sum of money to had beat him up. He?s not even claiming the ability to guess anyone?s SS number, as far as I can tell.
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2011/08/b-a-n-both-statewide-alternative-candidate-petitions-in-kentucky-are-approved/#comment-566391
Andy wrote on 2011/08/31 at 9:15 pm in response to Fincher:
…I happen to know several people who have told me that you are doing a charity scam where you pretend that you are raising money for disabled/homeless veterans and that you keep the money. I could name names of specific individuals who know what you are doing and they are names with whom you?ll be quite familiar…………………
………….GF himself deserves to be prosecuted right now for financial fraud. He defrauded myself out of several thousand dollars and he also defrauded a woman out of several thousand dollars, and for the last several months he?s been running a charity scam where he?s been defrauding disabled/homeless veterans as well as people who intend to donate money to disabled/homeless veterans but are instead ?donating? to GF?s scam (ie-GF keeps all of the money for himself). ………..
IPR: Predicting news headlines before they happen since at least 2011
Mark, according to the Green Papers there’s only one, Richard Bell in District 11. http://www.thegreenpapers.com/G14/NY
They also list Lee Zeldin in District 1, but he’s also listed as a Republican, so if that’s true there’s no way in hell that counts. The LP should be running its own candidates, not participating in (con)fusion voting. NY already has enough parasite parties.
They also list the LP as endorsing or having some involvement with Republican Grant Lally in district 3. Is this true also? If the LP is really involved with endorsing & cross-nominating duopoly candidates, that’s shameful.
If any of this is untrue, then someone should contact the site & let them know that they are printing false information.
It is the same Fincher. About time he got busted for this scam.
Andy, Jake and myself have never been involved with this scam and have not been friends of Fincher’s in years.
The rest of Vernon’s bullshit has previously been addressed as well, so I see no point in repetition.
Regarding Illinois, there were no “authorities” involved, just a fishing expedition by Republican scumbags trying to find bogus reasons to keep the LP off the ballot after they failed to find enough invalid signatures or intimidate voters into saying they hadn’t signed, both of which they attempted.
This same crime syndicate including Frankel, Fincher, Mark Pickens, Andy Jacobs and Jake Witmer among others is involved with various political petition related scams, bogus charities, identity theft, drug dealing, prostitution related crimes, public intoxication, assaults, rental car thefts, sex crimes, and shaking down political and business clients for additional money through harassment, like they did with the LNC in 2007 and attempted unsuccessfully with Virgil Goode in 2012. Witmer and Jacobs were just questioned by authorities regarding alleged fraud and forgery in Illinois in conjunction with Libertarian ballot access petitions. And killing a pet now that is just wrong!!! Speaking as a veteran and a dog owner myself….
Thomas L. Knapp
Yes, it is the same Gary L. Fincher, DOB 11/30/61. He has criminal convictions in Texas and Florida, and at the time of his arrest he had a Texas drivers license, Alabama car tags (probably something to do with criminal associate and convicted forger Paul Frankel with whom he killed a dog from Texas and dumped it in Alabama), Massachusetts weekly motel room and said he was entitled to the money (which included over $11,000 in a Bank of America account which has now been frozen) because he had been in the Army for 29 days in 1980 and failed to complete basic training. Another long time associate of Frankel and Fincher, Mark Pickens, was also involved in the scam as well. Fincher and other traveling vagabonds were setting up card tables in front of Walmarts and grocery stores to collect money for a bogus veterans charity and pocketed 100% of the money. They have been running this scam for years all over the country in many different states. A police report of the Massacusetts arrest from Mansfield MA should also be public record.
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&authuser=0&q=gary+fincher&oq=gary+fincher
>Not really fair. The New York Greens have candidates on the ballot for Governor, AG, and Comptroller this year, and 6 U.S. House candidates. I know of only one LP U.S. House candidate.
Jed, Considering that they have ballot status, that’s child’s play.
Yesterday I met with a Libertarian candidate for the 73rd Assembly District in New York City. We need to get 1500 signatures to get him on the ballot. The Green Party needs to get 7. We have a candiadte trying very hard for the spot and they are doing….nothing.
I have a dozen chapter organizations. We ran candidates every year since 2010 while they slept on their ballot status.
If they keep it, it’s because they have Howie Hawkins working his butt off to get publicity for the Green Party while the rest of them are …..sound asleep.
BTW, we have three Congressional candidates this year, but we need 3500 sigs for each while the Green Party needs a couple dozen for each of theirs.
Where Are You Now When We Need You Ross Perot?
Is this the same Gary Fincher who is a former Libertarian Party ballot access petitioner and got caught forging Social Security numbers on New Mexico voter registration forms years ago?
A bit late on this. Tonight, 6pm EDT, there will be a massive teleconference, the first of the Socialist Electoral Alliance. I won’t be listening in, but if I find a write up on this I will post it to the Open Thread.
https://www.facebook.com/events/399838593489703/
Libertarian gubernatorial candidate Dan Feliciano is holding a press conference Thursday, August 7th, to announce that he is seeking to add an “R” to his ballot line with a write-in campaign for the August 26 open primary in Vermont.
Feliciano is being encouraged in his run by some Republicans, who feel that the presumed front-runner and last-minute GOP entry into the primary race, Scott Milne, is not coming out strongly enough against “ShumlinCare,” Vermont’s health care trainwreck that the Dems want to morph into single-payer.
Some in the VTLP are furious at this development (press release forthcoming). Others are helping Dan.
A Vermont article noting his support among Republicans:
http://www.timesargus.com/article/20140804/THISJUSTIN/708049995
Dan Feliciano for Governor:
Website http://www.danfeliciano.com/
Facebook https://www.facebook.com/danfelicianovt
LinkedIn http://www.linkedin.com/in/danfeliciano
Twitter http://www.twitter.com/DanFeliciano
G+ https://plus.google.com/109858322017077646168/posts
Vermont Libertarian Party: http://vtlp.org/
Not Third Party, But May Be soon.
TEA.
McDaniel Filed his suit.
Get your popcorn ready.
Very interesting updates:
New Third Party Blog Launched
Interview with a Time Traveler
Hmm, thought provoking piece from Huckleberry.
I find it puzzling indeed that more young people don’t show up at Green meetings. I suppose it has to do with the education system and the propaganda system. But you would think more young people would be interested in rebelling and not doing what they are told.
A big part of the problem is the low reputation that political parties and political associations enjoy in the usa. There is a sort of assumption, as Stephen Wilson’s comments imply, that all political parties serve to support the status quo in one way or another. This is one of many reasons why it’s important for parties like the Greens and Libertarians to clearly dissaociate themselves from major political parties…but these efforts can be undermined when we nominate former Dems and Reps as standard bearers.
It’s definitely true that Greens need to ‘do’ more stuff instead of just having meetings. And this is why unity is so important–if all of the various left-wing associations could get together rather than infight, then we’d do alot better with social events. But divided, it’s difficult to muster much.
The “After Party” has the right take on this. In order to be truly meaningful in people’s lives and appeal to the young and disenfranchised, political associations should also be mutual aid associations. Given the plight we find ourselves in, perhaps membership in a political association should be more than just going to meetings and voting. Perhaps it should also be concerned with increasing the virtue and well-being of all its members, so that we have more potential to be leaders and examples in our communities.
Think of the labor movements in the first part of the 20th century. Or the example of the Catalonian anarchists (CNT-FAI). It’s time to think big and consider breaking away from the liberal paradigm where political association has little or no place in community life.
“Since then, the GP has not done anything in New York”
Not really fair. The New York Greens have candidates on the ballot for Governor, AG, and Comptroller this year, and 6 U.S. House candidates. I know of only one LP U.S. House candidate.
When I was first in college I had done a great deal with the greens. I worked on campus and in Nashville to help get Industrial Hemp legal again. Cannabis reform was once a canon of the Greens down south. At that time there were a great deal of “hippie” soldiers who had given up on the Democrats. Once it was outed about the corporate money for campaigns it seemed to make them sour on the Dems.
I witnessed many young people get involved in the greens and do good work. Once the hard work came: fundraising, ballot access, and debates; they didn’t last and they didn’t return. I think recruiting the youth comes with a risk; they want instant gratification for their work and won’t settle. Jill Stein got many people excited about the election, but when the results were in the frustration seemed to deflate their energy. The greens seem to be a “issue centric” party rather than a movement of general concern for liberty and self.
I have allows thought that Greens “talk” about politics, but in reality just wait for Democrats to come back around. I think Obama made many greens look back at the Democratic party. I think Hillary Clinton will have the same effect.
I think Ron Paul had the effect on many Libertarians. I know for a fact two libertarians in Missouri went back to the Republican Party when he was running in 2012. I find party loyalty fades as a desired outcome nears. Ron Paul made people believe so they jumped.
IMO, critical thinking about electoral politics will lead you to a conclusion that they serve no purpose; regardless of your party.
Green Party earned party status in New York four years ago due to Howie Hawkins’s fine showing at the polls (almost 60,000 votes) in 2010.
Since then, the GP has not done anything in New York, while the LPNY has grown, ran candidates in every election, added chapters and members and has a far more extensive operation than GPLP.
They should change their name to the Do-Nothing Party.
That’s certainly possible. I wonder if he was ever in the LP (I know he has been a Green for many years, but maybe some time before that). I do see many of the same problems in the LP.
I think Huckleberry’s snide asides about the LP have a fair amount to do with jealousy in many ways. The Greens have never managed to maintain any longterm momentum. Where as the LP has. imo.
He’s a bit harsh on the LP, but he makes a lot of great points. Good to know the Greens bitch about bylaws just as much as the Libertarians do. As a fairly young voter, I can honestly say I don’t know what a bylaw is, nor do I care. I want to know how you plan to make this country better. I want to see you doing real activist work.
There’s a lot of what the LP & GP do that I like, but the bureaucracy & internal drama over very small matters has got to go.
Yes. Interminable meetings, the bain of political activism. That part especially rings true to me. And “consensus”, yeegawd. Consensus is great among five or so people, but as a way of running a large meeting it is abysmal. It’s like the the Occupy folks trying to use “human microphone” as a means of running a meeting.
But I do think he does not talk about how damaged the Green Party was Nader in 2000 not being solidly committed to building the Green Party, and then I think 2004 really damaged the party. The Cobb “safe states” campaign really put the Greens in the light as being liberals at heart.
I know Howie Hawkins and some people are trying to revive the party as more of a radical party, but I wonder if it too late for the Greens?
Huckleberry makes some good points.
This is a pretty interesting Open Letter from longtime Green Party honcho, Phil Huckleberry. The letter is addressed to Greens, but I think it rings true, as far as organizational workings, for all third parties. I also agree that the Greens have become a going nowhere enclave of nearly-geezers. Among the young people on the Left that I know, most consider themselves socialists. Groups like Socialist Alternative have a lot of people under 35 invovled. I’m not endorsing SocAlt, but you can’t help but notice all the young adults.
http://huckelberry.org/?p=52