California held a special election on May 21 to fill the vacant State Senate seat, 16th district. Three Democrats, a Republican, and a Peace & Freedom Party member ran. Here are the unofficial results. Unlike regularly-scheduled elections in California, in special elections, if anyone gets 50% of the vote, there is no second election. It appears the Republican, Andy Vidak, is winning this seat outright. The district had been represented by a Democrat who resigned his seat to take a job in the private sector.

The 2013 Libertarian Party of Florida State Convention begins this Friday, and will include a major announcement concerning US Congress – District 19, at the Hilton Naples

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

May 22, 2013

Naples, FL – The Libertarian Party of Collier County is putting finishing touches on the Libertarian Party of Florida state convention being hosted this weekend at the Hilton Naples. The Collier County affiliate of the Libertarian Party of Florida has been busy organizing the convention since it was awarded the bid to host over Duval County (Jacksonville) and Hillsborough County (Tampa) in the early fall of 2012.

The 2013 Convention, which is open to the public and press, will run from May 24-26, 2013 at the Hilton Naples Hotel. The public is invited to attend free events on Friday evening (6-9pm) and Saturday morning (9am-11am). The convention will consist of the state party’s annual business meeting and special speaking engagements from both local and nationally known speakers, including:

• KrisAnne Hall, constitutional attorney
• Roger Stone, former Nixon & Reagan advisor
• Lawrence Reed, President of the Foundation for Economic Education
• Geoffrey Neale, Chairman of the National Libertarian Party
• Nikolai Wenzel, Assistant Professor of Economics at Florida Gulf Coast University
• Tony Stiles, Libertarian radio personality

The Libertarian Party of Collier County anticipates this to be the most highly attended convention in the history of the Libertarian Party of Florida. Jared Grifoni, Chairman of the Collier County affiliate, said, “The Libertarian movement has grown by leaps and bounds not only at a national and statewide level, but at the local level right here in Collier County. We are proud to have been able to bring the state convention to Naples this year and we feel that it is no coincidence that this convention will be the best yet, not only because of the good people of Naples and Collier County, but because the message of individual liberty, economic freedom, and limited government transcends the left-right paradigm and brings people together.”

On Saturday, May 25, at 9:15am, there will be a major announcement delivered at the convention regarding entry into the 2014 race for US Congress District 19. Members of the public and press are encouraged to attend this special moment.

For additional information on the Libertarian Party of Collier County please visit www.CollierLP.com, and for a full schedule of events for the convention please visit www.LibertyRising2013.com.

Full schedule is below: 

Facebook page for the convention:
https://www.facebook.com/LibertyRising2013?fref=ts

Published on Examiner.com on May 21st, 2013

Here is an excerpt from the article specifically concerning LP nominee for Virginia governor Robert Sarvis:

No to Sarvis

Noting that Cuccinelli had challenged his Democratic opponent, Terry McAuliffe, to a series of 15 debates around the state, the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner asked him whether he was open to including Robert Sarvis, the Libertarian Party‘s nominee for governor, in those events.

“Not really, no,” Cuccinelli replied. “I mean, he’s going to be a one or two percent vote getter and I just don’t think that’s realistic.”

He tempered his response by adding, “It’s not that I have anything against him. I just don’t think it’s realistic.”

To read the rest of the article, please go to the following link:

http://www.examiner.com/article/gop-candidate-ken-cuccinelli-says-no-to-including-libertarian-nominee-debates

Recently, one Robert Peck of the Washington Constitution Party did an article on Independent Political Report in response to my article, ‘As an Independent American‘, that was re-posted on IPR -in a poor attempt to rebut it, the arguments, and stated evidence for why I left the CP and joined the National IAP in the first place.

Indeed, while I will not answer every sentence paragraph he had written in his response, I will feature certain portions that do need to be addressed and respond to it in detail…

Mr. Quirk casts numerous aspersions on the Constitution Party. He makes statements that may cause some to believe that there are actually numerous national political parties of relatively equal strength that all hold the same Biblical and Constitutional values; that an organized effort is underway to unify those parties and that the Constitution Party refuses to take part in his unification effort due, in his words, to its being “petty,” “unscrupulous,” “sectarian,” “incompetent,” and made up of individuals who have demonstrated “sneering arrogance and haughty demeanor” and are “wolves in sheep’s clothing.” It should be noted that Mr. Quirk appears to have discovered the supposedly nefarious nature of the Constitution Party only after its choosing not to participate in his unification efforts.

Actually I was well aware of such a nefarious nature that existed in the Constitution Party previously- but since I was a member then, and wanted to help strengthen it, I largely keep my mouth shut until the past couple of months, and before then, tried in sincere fairness to include the members of the CP Executive and National Committees with the Clarion Call To Unite Committee and this great effort that we are still pursuing; we constantly sent out emails and even made phone calls to many of the members of these leading committees in the CP, only to be met by either silence or skepticism. And after the CP National Committee meeting had their meeting in Baltimore, to their zealous extent of rejecting the sincere and public efforts of the CCTUC- while greatly disappointed, I at first accepted the results of the meeting, that is until a good associate of mine that attended the Baltimore meeting had this to say about what had happened, and of course I became incensed when I then learned about specifics of the events at Baltimore. However, then again there have been times in the past where I have spoken out vehemently on certain internal matters that were dividing the CP at the time, and especially against certain individualswho were, at the time, also leaders of the CP.

On February 28 of this year, I was first made aware that something called the “Clarion Call to Unite Committee” (CCTUC) had been formed and was seeking “political unification of all constitutionalist parties,” according to a January 6, 2013 article at Independent Political Report. Mr. Quirk appears to head the CCTUC and I am aware of at least one other individual involved in the effort – there may or may not be others. The parties named in the January 6 article for which unification is sought, included the Constitution Party, National Independent American Party (not to be confused with the Constitution Party’s Nevada state affiliate by the same name), America First Party and the American Party.

Let’s take a quick look at each of the parties that CCTUC seeks to unite, indicating that by “joining forces” they can “turn the tide.”

Yes, I indeed contacted Mr. Peck and other national, regional, and state leaders of the CP, wanting to include them in our efforts, which only shows our intentions were sincere, open, and courteous.

The American Party, formed in 2006, only existed as a single state party in Florida and though the website is still up, they appear to have ceased operations in 2011 and are no longer listed with the Division of Elections.

Here’s where Mr. Peck gets it wrong again; the American Party was actually formed in 1969, as a continuation of the American Independent Party, which supported George C. Wallace in the 1968 Presidential elections. The former California affiliate of the CP (which is also called the American Independent Party), used to be a affiliate of this national party back then until it (and other state affiliates) broke away from the AP in the mid 1970′s over internal matters, and afterward a bitter rivalry existed between the AIP and the AP for a long time. Indeed, while now the AP is nearly defunct and may not have ballot access anywhere anymore except for Florida, perhaps; they have expressed interest in the CCTUC and in merging the parties together, and have greatly contributed to such efforts as well. And despite the visible snobbery of the Constitution Party in it’s attitude towards these other parties, we still welcome them and treat them with courteousness and respect.

Mr. Peck, unfortunately, needs to be better careful with what he asserts, are facts and genuine history.

According to Wikipedia, the America First Party was founded in 2002 and reached its high water mark that same year with 11 candidates nationwide and has never made ballot access in more than three states.

This time, Mr. Peck is correct. However, it must be noted that the AFP was founded by the former conservative members of the Reform Party, along with many of those that supported the candidacy of Pat Buchanan back in the 2000 Presidential elections. Why exactly did these people simply start their own party when they could have simply joined the CP instead is a good question, and one that can be answered in the most part later on in this response.

The Independent American Party was formed in 1998 and appears to have never had more than three organized state parties and in 2012 only had ballot access in one state.

In contrast, the Constitution Party, founded in 1992, has state party affiliates in nearly every state. Over the years, the party and its Presidential candidate have achieved ballot access in a minimum of 21 states and as many as 41. Constitution Party state affiliates have put as many as 50 candidates on the ballot in a single state.

True, but again, one also needs to examine the circumstances for each party in this contrast; first off, the national party that I am now a member of largely started as a breakaway from the American Party, and even at that time, the AP was much smaller then the CP, so therefore the IAP started as a smaller tent then the National CP, whom started as several state affiliates that merged together, and therefore started with a ‘bigger tent’. And unfortunately, the IAP was domination by extremist and incompetent leadership back then; the kind of leadership that even I butted heads with, and held negative views of the IAP for the longest time because of such people.

Yet, over time, such people either died of natural causes, or were voted out of their positions in the IAP, and things therefore changed for the IAP, gradually, especially in achieving ballot access and have better organized themselves recently after a long period of dormancy, in which I will be helping them from now on, while also still reaching out to the other parties which are in dialogue with the CCTUC.

On the factor of the CP; indeed, since they started out as a bigger tent, and had more competent and practical individuals as their leaders, they did hundreds of times better then the National IAP did… Back then.

It must also be noted that those state affiliates that were well organized and ran as many as 50 candidates- did so only because of the level-headed & experienced leadership of that state party, along with the dedicated members of that particular state, in addition with state election laws which were quite favorable to those particular state affiliates which made it easy for that state party to do, and to grow as well.

Yet the national party itself, played a very little, to almost no role in those factors at all; the truth behind the former strength in the CP was that it was made up of several individual state parties that had already existed for many many years, and were already organized enough to get and maintain ballot access on their own, as well as run many candidates for various offices. However, only a few of these state parties exist in the CP, and the majority of the state affiliates that were founded afterwards have instead fared poorly and have also lost ballot access recently, and even the ones that do considerably well in organization and can stay on the ballot are very weak in comparison to the Nevada and Utah affiliates of the CP.

Therefore, while the CP has seen success on the local levels, and some good showings on the state level… On the national level, the truth is the complete opposite; it is this level that the CP fares poorly, where both the Libertarian and Green Parties, with their well-funded organizations and capable leaders, easily run circles around the CP and put it to great shame when it comes to the voting results of each presidential election.

And in it’s 20 or more years of existence as a national party; on trying to restore constitutional government and bringing America back to its moral and traditional foundations, it has failed. And with the way it is organized, ran, and funded, it will continue to fail until it collapses and fades away.

I don’t mean to speak disparagingly of other political parties. I recognize what an achievement it is to organize and obtain ballot access in even one state. However, to suggest that the Constitution Party and its supporters should put on the line all that they have labored for and built by yielding it up to a merger with these other parties, some of which may not even be actual parties, is ludicrous.

In comparison to these other state parties which the CCTUC has reached out to, especially the ballot-qualified California AIP, whom has three times as many registered voters in their ranks in their state alone, compared to the entire National CP, where their Nevada affiliate by itself, makes up 90% of the national voter registration for the CP; in reality, it is ludicrous for the National CP itself to reject considering any talks on the subject of merger. Especially when these other parties, including the Independent Green Party of Virginia, and the Constitution Party of Oregon (another ex affiliate of the National CP that left many years ago), also have ballot access in their respective states while the National CP itself, does not.

The real issue is this – that the door to the Constitution Party has always been open to any and all who share its commitment to Biblical presuppositions and strict adherence to the plain text of the U.S. Constitution as interpreted according to the original intent of its framers.

Oh really?

From the words of former National Chairman, Jim Clymer:

“Religious tests have come up before. For example, several years ago a majority of the leadership of the CP in Illinois (the predecessor to the currently affiliated CP of Illinois) supported the exclusion of Catholics from leadership positions in the party or from membership positions altogether. At the 2004 National Convention of the Constitution Party in Valley Forge, there were platform amendment proposals submitted proposing a religious test for party membership. In both of these instances the CP rejected efforts to exclude certain religions from participating in the party.”

I highly doubt that, Mr. Peck. In fact, the above paragraph is only the tip of the iceberg in the CP’s turbulent history on the subject of religious sectarianism.

Seeing that the Constitution Party was founded well in advance of the other parties that are being proposed for unification, one would be forced to assume that the other parties were formed either because they were not aware of the Constitution Party’s existence at the time, or because they hold sufficiently differing views so as to be incompatible with the Constitution Party’s platform.

Funny, because some of these parties that the CCTUC has reached out to are former affiliates of the CP that have disaffiliated from the National CP (not the other way around) at one point or another, and yet trying to bring them back into the CP is something that the members of the CP cannot tolerate?

As for these other parties, I do believe the latter might be the likeliest explanation, yet not because these other parties expose a radically different or more moderate ideology on the major issues,  but because of the various controversies which have existed previously in the Constitution Party, especially when one former Regional Co-Chair of the CP had this to say:

“…Many have objected to my treatment of Mormons by having referred to them in open discourse as “devil worshiping Mormons.” If you object, take your complaint to a higher tribunal, to He who declares All the gods of the nations are devils and to whom you owe due honour, reverence and worship. Since He says, The things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils, I can do no other.”

-then one does indeed wonder why they didn’t join with the Constitution Party in the first place?

The best statement that I’ve heard with regard to the CCTUC’s desire to unite like-minded, Constitutionally oriented parties, is that of Andrew Zuelke of the Constitution Party of Wisconsin, who commented in that party’s May 1, 2013 email campaign:

“I want to remind my fellow constitutionalists that the CCTUC is not breaking any new ground here. Members of the Constitution Party already answered the ‘clarion call’ to unite back in 1992 when ‘a coalition of independent state parties united to form the US Taxpayer’s Party’ which later became the Constitution Party. This idea isn’t new.”

Indeed this idea isn’t new at all, yet if Mr. Peck thinks that the CP has already answered theClarion Call, and nothing more needs to be done in the field of politics, and in restoring constitutional government, then he is very incorrect here, especially since their are other constitutionalist parties out there that have ballot-access, are organized, and very capable of splitting the vote as well as manpower and resources, as they did in the last presidential election with the candidacies of Tom Hoefling and Will Christensen, both whom had ballot access in a state where the CP’s presidential candidate, Virgil Goode Jr., was not on the ballot and therefore, both candidates received votes which could have easily gone to Goode instead, if he were on the ballot in those states.

This above, is one of the reasons why there must be a unified party among those that are tired of the two-party system and also want to see our Constitutional Republic reemerge again, and unfortunately the CP has already dropped the ball on being that unified party that all patriots and principled-conservatives could flock to, especially when Mr. Zuelke’s CP state affiliate recently passes a resolution which calls for not just the recriminalization of sodomy, but also the repeal of‘no fault’ divorce as well, and also, at their recent state convention, reelected a State Chairman that espouses extremist viewpoints and especially had this to say about the 2012 Presidential election on his commentary blog:

“…Here are some other facts:  President Obama is not a Christian.  There is plenty of proof of that, which I am not going to talk about here.  Governor Mitt Romney is not a Christian.  He is part of the Mormon Church.  If you want more information about Mormonism, talk to your pastor…”

Unfortunately, I cannot view the opinions of those members of the Wisconsin affiliate of the CP in high regard, being myself, a Mormon.

…The same appearing to be true of the current effort, the Constitution Party National Committee recently voted to abstain from participation in the CCTUC and instead stay focused on its primary tasks of recruiting members, fielding candidates and welcoming any individuals, groups or other parties who want to join their efforts to that of the Constitution Party.

And with how far in the the red the National CP’s finances are currently, I highly doubt that it can do such for the time being.

I have only become aware of the existence of the Independent American Party within the past year or so. As a member of the Constitution Party National Committee, a state party chairman and the immediate past Western Area Co-Chairman, I am not aware of the Independent American Party ever making contact with or seeking interaction with the Constitution Party. Nevertheless, if they share the same goal as the Constitution Party, then I’ll repeat that “the door is open – come on in and join us.”

Really, then what about this? Mr. Gneiting repeatedly contacted Frank Fluckiger and the others about this, and you didn’t know? However, with the past animosity, and previous events that took place at Baltimore- do you think that the National leaders of the IAP would up and close shop for the sake of the CP? As a national leader of the IAP, I sure as hell am not going back, in which the reasons why, I will elaborate further down…

More recently, I was made privy to an IAP communique which indicated a party building plan that included targeting states to organize in which already have Constitution Party state affiliates. The plan indicated that part of the IAP strategy for obtaining ballot access in those states consisted of courting the support of some existing Constitution Party state leaders.

If these things are true (some of which I’ve seen with my own eyes), then the IAP would appear to be acting in a very subversive manner and putting its own aggrandizement ahead of the cause of restoring Constitutional governance through working together with a pre-existing, Constitutionally-committed, national political party that already has state affiliates and ballot access. If these indictments against the Independent American Party are false, then I urge the leadership of the IAP to open a dialog with the leaders of the Constitution Party in order to clear the air.

Yes they are false, yet with the arrogance and animosity expressed by the leaders of the CP in regards to the National IAP, and to the CCTUC at the Baltimore meeting, and elsewhere, along with how this author has received threats of physical violence on his person, and fromrecognized leaders of the CP, in addition- then not only is this author jumping ship for the National IAP, but dialogue on the subject of simply giving up and joining the CP, is very much unrealistic at this point.

Originally, in my peaceful dialogue with the National IAP I did try to talk them out of attempting to get on the ballot in states where the CP was already on; for the sake of trying to have them work with the CP, instead of competing with them- which was one of the original goals of the CCTUC. And I nearly succeeded in having the IAP cease it’s ballot access efforts, that is until the events in Baltimore happened, along with the fallout that came afterward- so in reality, I was also helping the CP at the same time then, and things might have gone differently if the events at Baltimore didn’t happen the way they did.

So congratulations Mr. Peck & Company; you guys have screwed up the possibility of the IAP closely cooperating, and eventually having a merger with the CP in due time, as would have the other parties, by their eventual consent and agreement, would have also done, of course.

Yet now, what was done cannot be unchanged, and the road of unifying these parties together as one must now take a different path.

The bottom line when it comes to unification is that the Constitution Party has been seeking to unify God honoring, Constitution upholding patriots since 1992.

Then why, after twenty years, are there no CP’ers in major offices, and along with competing national parties and ex-state affiliates which are on the ballot and run their own presidential candidates? And why is the CCTUC in existence in the first place then?

The door is open – come on in and join us!

I did a long time ago, and you dropped the ball, sir.

MUSLIMS SCREAMING “ALLAHU AKBAR” BEHEAD BRITISH SOLDIER ON PUBLIC STREET IN LONDON!!!

We are at war with Islam and we need to wake up to that fact.

Comments on the post:

• Ian Francikiewicz These are not real muslims… they don’t practice the faith

  Nie lubię · Odpowiedz · 2 · około godziny temu

  • 

    Constitution Party of Illinois These are the real Muslims, the ones who don’t hate Christians are the fake. I have a friend who is Bangladesh muslim but she is very american. She says she does not practice true Islam.

    Lubię to! · 1 · 38 minut(y) temu

• Jake Usalis can’t blame the majority for the actions of the minority. We are not at war with Islam. there are crazies in every faction.

  Nie lubię · Odpowiedz · 1 · około godziny temu przez: telefon komórkowy

  • 

    Constitution Party of Illinois Not all Japanese hated the US, does that mean we were not at war with Japan?

    Lubię to! · 40 minut(y) temu

• Thelma Taylor that is a lie i hear what was going ona it is another lets hate the arabs Get real The arabs are noat oura enemies but i can tell you who is if you want to talk about it

  Lubię to! · Odpowiedz · 3 godz. temu

  • 

    Constitution Party of Illinois I said nothing about Arabs but Islam.

    Lubię to! · 3 godz. temu

  • 

    Constitution Party of Illinois And if you know anything about this story as you claim, the men who committed this act of terror were Somali not Arab. But i’m sure to you the true enemy are Jews and no one else can ever be at fault.

    May 21st post:

    

Adrian Wyllie, current Libertarian Party of Florida chairman

Website: http://wyllieforgovernor.com/

Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/WyllieForGovernor?fref=ts

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Wyllie

John Wayne Smith, perennial candidate and Boston Tea Party 2008  vice-presidential nominee in Florida

Website: http://www.johnwaynesmith.com/

 *Note: Joe Wendt is running for Lieutenant Governor as Smith’s running mate. Wendt is the treasurer of the Libertarian Party of Hillsborough County and was a 2008 precinct captain for Ron Paul and also presidential elector for independent candidate Alan Keyes in the general election.

In addition, political consultant and former “GOP hitman” Roger Stone is exploring a run. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Stone).

The following was published on theglobaldispatch.com on May 8th: 

Libertarian Candidates Adrian Wyllie,  John Wayne Smith Offer Sharp Contrast For Florida Governor

The May Libertarian Party of Hillsborough County (LPHC) Monthly Meetup offered a great look ahead to Libertarian candidates in Florida and the goals of certain candidatesalready running for office.

During the May 8 event, gubernatorial candidates John Wayne Smith and Adrian Wyllie headlined a list of candidates who spoke and met attendees at the event.

“I’m not a nice guy, but I’m fair,” Smith said as he called out improvements and concerns in the LP. “I’m really disappointed in last year and I think it’s been a disaster.”

Wyllie chose a different tone, discussing financialgoals, volunteers and petition updates. “We are on a path to victory,” he said as he asked for libertarians to “take a stand” and run for office.

Many of the speakers detailed their backgrounds and qualifications.

Here’s the full of list speakers at the event:

Governor: John Wayne Smith and Adrian Wyllie

Chairperson, LPF: Dana Moxley Cummings and Char-lez Braden

Vice Chairperson, LPF: Alex Snitker

Region Two Rep., LPF: Michael Malterer

Soil and Water Conversation Board: Joseph Wendt (also LPHC Treasurer)

Director at Large, Position Three, LPF: David Hester (also LPHC Chairman)

LPF Treasurer Danielle Alexandre and Orange County Chairperson and current Region Three Representative Vicki Kirkland were also in attendance.

For further details about the LPHC and LPF, visit the LPHC website and Facebook page, and the LPF website and Facebook page.

May 8th post on the Wyllie for Governor Facebook page: 

The Wyllie For Governor Team has hit a new milestone. We now have over 500 volunteer staffers out there getting petitions signed and spreading the word. We’re on track to hit our goal of at least one volunteer in each of Florida’s 6,000 precincts. Thank you to everyone who is out there working hard for liberty. Keep up the great work!

On May 12th, Wyllie released a 7 point economic plan on his campaign website: 

I have a seven-point economic plan to restore and grow our economy.

In order to invigorate the state economy and create the right conditions for prosperity and job growth, we first have to identify the root causes of the economic problem, and then implement a comprehensive plan to fix it.   Most of the problems we face originate from too much government intervention.  Government spends far too much of our money.  To feed their spending habit, government over-taxes us, which stifles free enterprise and individual prosperity.  Government over-regulates us, placing barricades in the path of small business growth.  Government plays favorites by providing subsidies or tax breaks to some businesses, giving them a competitive advantage over all others.  And finally, government sometimes even turns a blind eye when large corporate interests flaunt the law and defraud the people.

First, we will dramatically cut the size of the state budget. Gov. Scott seeks to increase the state budget to $74.5 billion. That is absolutely ridiculous.  My staff and I have been combing through the state budget searching for waste and inefficiency.   No more pork projects for legislators and special interest groups.  After an initial review, I believe that we can cut the state budget by over 30% without negatively impacting critical government services.  The less money government spends, the more money the people get to keep, spend and invest.

Second, we will cut taxes. With a reduction in the state budget, we can allow Floridians to keep more of what they earn by reducing taxes. One of the first taxes that I plan to cut are “ad valorem” taxes, or taxes on tangible property. This takes many forms, from the property taxes you pay on your home, which are assessed and collected by your county government; to tangible taxes all businesses pay annually on their office equipment, machinery, tools, etc. Reducing the tangible tax burden on businesses will mean more capital available to them to expand their business and hire new workers. Capping, reducing, and eventually eliminating property tax will stimulate the real estate market, by making home purchases more affordable.  We will eliminate special favors, tax breaks and subsidies to a select few business, preferring instead to cut taxes equally across the board.

Third, we will reduce unnecessary regulation. Across the state, I’ve spoken with many small business owners, as well as people who would like to start a small business.  One of the most common reasons people tell me that they don’t expand or start their business is the difficulty in complying with government regulation, licensing, permitting, environmental impact, and the nightmare of bureaucracy one must deal with in order to comply.  Small business owners are forced to follow with volumes of sometimes idiotic regulations from State agencies like the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Department of Environmental Protection, Agency for Health Care Administration, Department of Revenue, Department of Economic Opportunity, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Corporations, etc., etc., etc. Many of these agencies are riddled with inefficiency, and sometimes even corruption.  The barriers to entry for small business start-ups are difficult to overcome.   This heavy-handed and unnecessary over-regulation costs Florida jobs.

Fourth, we will keep the federal government out of Florida’s economy. For decades, the federal government has exceeded its Constitutional authority under the Commerce Clause to regulate business occurring within state boundaries. I intend to champion legislation to exempt any product that is grown, manufactured, fabricated, distributed, sold and consumed within the State of Florida from any federal regulation whatsoever. Therefore, federal regulations would have no jurisdiction over any business providing a good or service exclusively within the State of Florida. This would include everything from firearms to hemp to medical services. My “Florida Intrastate Commerce Act” will create an economic boon not seen in a generation. The job creation and economic growth resulting from the influx of new businesses in Florida will be envy of the nation, and would become the model for other states to adopt.

Fifth, we will protect Floridians from a potential dollar crisis. I propose that we begin transacting state business in gold and silver as required by Article 1, Section 10 of the United States Constitution and introduce competing currencies legislation as Utah has already done, and other states are considering.  This will give the State of Florida the ability to protect the value of our holdings with sound money, and lay the groundwork for Floridians to conduct transactions in an alternative form of currency should the U.S. Dollar experience a decline in value.

Sixth, we will sell a portion of the state’s land holdings. Currently, the State of Florida owns 14% of all the land in Florida. That’s more land area than the entire state of New Jersey. The State continues to acquire more land every year. Only a fraction of that land is in the form of parks or recreation areas. The proceeds from the sale of state land could be used for a variety of purposes that would benefit all Floridians, or could simply be returned to the rightful owners — the people of Florida. We can do this without sacrificing a single acre of existing state park or recreation area land.

Seventh, we will prosecute fraud. There’s absolutely no doubt that fraud has been committed, and is still occurring, in the mortgage industry. Banks and lenders have defrauded investors through mortgage backed securities manipulation. They defrauded homeowners through “robo signing” and improper custody of promissory notes. In many cases, their fraudulent practices have been overlooked by Charlie Crist, Rick Scott, and all levels of government. In fact, government has seemingly gone out of their way to obfuscate and legitimize their illegal activities. The only way to prevent this from ever happening again is to prosecute those responsible, within the scope of state authority.

The following was posted on JWS campaign website April 17th: 

 John Wayne Demands Accountability in the LPF

“Dame these people make me sick.

I despise ignorant, stupid people who have no idea what they are doing and do not care.

3 months into the campaign and already Mr. Wyllie, his campaign treasurer and Lynn House have violated the law and are subject to fines and jail time because they do not know the law and do not care that there are rules when one is dealing with the state.

There is a total limit of campaign donations in the state of Florida of $500.00 for the whole campaign which in this case goes from Jan. 10 2013 to December 1 2014.

Ms. House has already donated $750.00 or maybe $1000.00 to the Wyllie campaign.

2 others have already reached the limit and several pushing the limit.

And then the LPF Treasurer has filed a waver for the party. 2 of them in a row. Do you mean to tell me that the LPF has not taken in any money in 5 months.

I hope that you people enjoy paying the fines and spending time in prison because I am going to put you there.”

— John Wayne Smith

Upcoming events, from the Wyllie for Governor website: 

Come out and support Adrian Wyllie and the Seminole County Campaign for Liberty.

Adrian will be there to discuss his run for governor and support the local Campaign for Liberty group.

The date is 6 June (Thursday) and the time is 7:00 pm.

This meeting will take place at the Imperial Dynasty Chinese Restaurant and Lounge, which is located at 2045 West State Road 434 in Longwood.

Adrian will be participating in the Libertarian Party of Orange County Gubernatorial debate with John Wayne Smith.

The date is 19 June (Wednesday) and the time is 7:00 pm

This debate will be in the meeting room off the lobby at East Central Condos located at 530 East Central Blvd, the highrise at the SW corner of East Central and Eola Drive in downtown Orlando.

Published on The Examiner on May 22, 2013

http://www.examiner.com/article/state-libertarian-leadership-visits-broward-county-tomorrow-night

Two candidate running to chair the Libertarian Party of Florida (LPF) will visit Broward County tomorrow night at the Libertarian Party of Broward County’s regular monthly meeting in Fort Lauderdale. LPF Vice Chair Char-Lez Braden and LPF Rules Committee chair Dana Moxley Cummings will both speak at the libertarian meeting tomorrow evening being held at 6:00 p.m. at Champps Americana at 6401 N. Andrews Avenue in Fort Lauderdale.

Char-Lez recently spoke at the Libertarian Party of Palm Beach County meeting this past Monday evening as he tours the state in his quest to become the next chair of the LPF. The current chair is Adrian Wyllie who is not running for another term so he can focus on his first run to be Florida’s next governor.

Dana Moxley-Cummings is a relative newcomer to the LPF who came over from the Ron Paul campaign and is now working on the Wyllie for Governor campaign.

The decision as to the next chairperson of the Libertarian Party of Florida will be decided in Naples, Florida this Saturday, May 25 at theLPF’s annual state convention. The convention weekend is full of notable speakers including the Libertarian Party’s national chairman, Geoffrey Neale and former Republican strategist Roger Stone. Stone has noted that he also may put his hat in the ring for Governor of Florida under the Libertarian Party’s banner and will make that decision later this year. If he did run for governor, it would cause the first-ever Libertarian Primary for the position. The convention will also elect two new At-Large Directors as well as the election of all new Regional Representatives.

Thanks to all my supporters and grassroots volunteers! It was a long road that finally ended with 5.41% of the vote. For a Libertarian, that is not bad, although I was hoping to break the double digit mark. Nevertheless, I would not have surpassed 1% were it not for the countless hours from my campaign volunteers as well as the financial backing from my friends, relatives and coworkers. Thank you all!

Results from PA Department of state (with 98.5% of precincts reporting)

Dan Miller – DEM – 5,635

Dan Remely – REP – 3,699

George Brown – LIB – 539

An article was recently posted at Independent Political Report featuring comments by Cody Quirk in regard to his effort to, as he puts it, “unify the Constitutionalist parties”. In the May 20 article titled “Cody Quirk: As an Independent” American, Mr. Quirk casts numerous aspersions on the Constitution Party. He makes statements that may cause some to believe that there are actually numerous national political parties of relatively equal strength that all hold the same Biblical and Constitutional values; that an organized effort is underway to unify those parties and that the Constitution Party refuses to take part in his unification effort due, in his words, to its being “petty,” “unscrupulous,” “sectarian,” “incompetent,” and made up of individuals who have demonstrated “sneering arrogance and haughty demeanor” and are “wolves in sheep’s clothing.” It should be noted that Mr. Quirk appears to have discovered the supposedly nefarious nature of the Constitution Party only after its choosing not to participate in his unification efforts.

This is not a rebuttal to Mr. Quirk; neither do I seek a debate, as he is entitled to his opinion. However, since Mr. Quirk’s statements have been made public, then the public deserves to know all the facts before forming an opinion.

On February 28 of this year, I was first made aware that something called the “Clarion Call to Unite Committee” (CCTUC) had been formed and was seeking “political unification of all constitutionalist parties,” according to a January 6, 2013 article at Independent Political Report. Mr. Quirk appears to head the CCTUC and I am aware of at least one other individual involved in the effort – there may or may not be others. The parties named in the January 6 article for which unification is sought, included the Constitution Party, National Independent American Party (not to be confused with the Constitution Party’s Nevada state affiliate by the same name), America First Party and the American Party.

Let’s take a quick look at each of the parties that CCTUC seeks to unite, indicating that by “joining forces” they can “turn the tide.”

The American Party, formed in 2006, only existed as a single state party in Florida and though the website is still up, they appear to have ceased operations in 2011 and are no longer listed with the Division of Elections.

According to Wikipedia, the America First Party was founded in 2002 and reached its high water mark that same year with 11 candidates nationwide and has never made ballot access in more than three states.

The Independent American Party was formed in 1998 and appears to have never had more than three organized state parties and in 2012 only had ballot access in one state.

In contrast, the Constitution Party, founded in 1992, has state party affiliates in nearly every state. Over the years, the party and its Presidential candidate have achieved ballot access in a minimum of 21 states and as many as 41. Constitution Party state affiliates have put as many as 50 candidates on the ballot in a single state.

I don’t mean to speak disparagingly of other political parties. I recognize what an achievement it is to organize and obtain ballot access in even one state. However, to suggest that the Constitution Party and its supporters should put on the line all that they have labored for and built by yielding it up to a merger with these other parties, some of which may not even be actual parties, is ludicrous.

The real issue is this – that the door to the Constitution Party has always been open to any and all who share its commitment to Biblical presuppositions and strict adherence to the plain text of the U.S. Constitution as interpreted according to the original intent of its framers.

Seeing that the Constitution Party was founded well in advance of the other parties that are being proposed for unification, one would be forced to assume that the other parties were formed either because they were not aware of the Constitution Party’s existence at the time, or because they hold sufficiently differing views so as to be incompatible with the Constitution Party’s platform.

The best statement that I’ve heard with regard to the CCTUC’s desire to unite like-minded, Constitutionally oriented parties, is that of Andrew Zuelke of the Constitution Party of Wisconsin, who commented in that party’s May 1, 2013 email campaign:

“I want to remind my fellow constitutionalists that the CCTUC is not breaking any new ground here. Members of the Constitution Party already answered the ‘clarion call’ to unite back in 1992 when ‘a coalition of independent state parties united to form the US Taxpayer’s Party’ which later became the Constitution Party. This idea isn’t new.”

The fact is that a similar endeavor at unification, which bore substantially the same name, was undertaken several years ago. The Constitution Party’s chairman attended a meeting of the “parties” involved – a meeting which he described as consisting of the America First Party and “one or two other tiny groups that put the word Party next to a name.” It quickly became apparent to him that the endeavor was merely a distraction and “a total waste of time.” The same appearing to be true of the current effort, the Constitution Party National Committee recently voted to abstain from participation in the CCTUC and instead stay focused on its primary tasks of recruiting members, fielding candidates and welcoming any individuals, groups or other parties who want to join their efforts to that of the Constitution Party.

Regarding the Independent American Party, the party that Mr. Quirk has been most focused on unifying with the Constitution Party and which he has now joined, in a Feb 22, 2013 article (you can find it here http://tinyurl.com/agn893m) Mr. Quirk states:

“So far the National IAP has officially expressed interest in working towards a merger of the parties, and, in fact, since the National IAP also wants to cooperate better and work closer with the CP, I am actively helping their party on a few matters of their own while still an official member of the CP.”

I have only become aware of the existence of the Independent American Party within the past year or so. As a member of the Constitution Party National Committee, a state party chairman and the immediate past Western Area Co-Chairman, I am not aware of the Independent American Party ever making contact with or seeking interaction with the Constitution Party. Nevertheless, if they share the same goal as the Constitution Party, then I’ll repeat that “the door is open – come on in and join us.”

However, I find it disturbing that a few months ago I was informed that the IAP was working to obtain ballot access in a state where an organized, active and strong Constitution Party state affiliate already has ballot access. This does not agree with Mr. Quirk’s assertion of the IAP wanting to “cooperate better and work closer with the CP.”

More recently, I was made privy to an IAP communique which indicated a party building plan that included targeting states to organize in which already have Constitution Party state affiliates. The plan indicated that part of the IAP strategy for obtaining ballot access in those states consisted of courting the support of some existing Constitution Party state leaders.

If these things are true (some of which I’ve seen with my own eyes), then the IAP would appear to be acting in a very subversive manner and putting its own aggrandizement ahead of the cause of restoring Constitutional governance through working together with a pre-existing, Constitutionally-committed, national political party that already has state affiliates and ballot access. If these indictments against the Independent American Party are false, then I urge the leadership of the IAP to open a dialog with the leaders of the Constitution Party in order to clear the air.

The bottom line when it comes to unification is that the Constitution Party has been seeking to unify God honoring, Constitution upholding patriots since 1992.

The door is open – come on in and join us!
–
Robert W. Peck
Chairman, Constitution Party of Washington
Email: chairman@constitutionpartyofwa.com
Blog: bobpeck.wordpress.com
Video: vimeo.com/channels/constitutionparty
Website: www.constitutionpartyofwa.com

In January 2008 Paul shocked Republican audiences during the presidential debates by declaring: “We need to repeal the whole War on Drugs. It isn’t working. We don’t have to have more courts and more prisons. This has to change. …We need to come to our senses.”

In his wildest dreams Paul surely never imagined his words would become, of all things, a pop song — and that he’d be “singing” it in a music video along with other prominent Drug War critics, including New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and filmmaker Kevin Smith.

QUESTION: If some parents cannot take care of their own child, then should we have programs in place that allow the child to be cared for at the taxpayers’ expense without necessarily taking the child away from its parents? I know this flies in the face of libertarian ideals but I am not convinced the private sector has the ability to ensure that ALL children can gain equal access to this type of program.

MY SHORT ANSWER: Neither the public nor the private sector will ever be able to ensure that ALL children have equal access to any type of program. Life just doesn’t work that way. Perhaps a more realistic question is “What is likely to give children the most access to what they need?”

The program you describe is well-intentioned and sounds good in theory. In practice, however, parents will use the service as free day care or baby sitting if no questions are asked and will overwhelm the system. The truly needy child will be the exception rather than the rule and won’t get the attention that they need. Indeed, they might not even get accepted or well-treated, as middle-class parents are likely to tip the social workers generously (even if it’s illegal) so that their children get preferred treatment. This is how heavily socialized programs work: they are adopted to benefit the disadvantaged, but actually end up benefiting the advantaged.

For example, about 75% of the tax dollars that are targeted to welfare programs actually go to the middle-class administrators rather than the needy. In contrast, private programs give about 75% of donated dollars to the poor. Thus, the poor get more when charitable giving is private.

If parents can’t take care of their children for economic reasons, the best solution is to slash taxes, regulation, and government spending (on anything, including wasteful welfare). Why? Studies show that inefficient government spending (such as in the welfare example above) results in job destruction, especially jobs for the poor.

When government spends less, more jobs are created and the poor benefit most. More parents can take care of their children. (For examples of such studies, see my book, “Healing Our World,” especially chapters 11 and 12. You can download the 1992 version free at my website, www.ruwart.com, or buy a copy of the 2003 version there or from The Advocates.)

The few parents who can’t care for their children will be better served by the more efficient private sector. Inefficient spending means that fewer parents and their children will be helped. Diverting money to government to spend inefficiently actually makes the problem worse.

LEARN MORE: Suggestions by Liberator Online editor James W. Harris for further readings on this issue:

* “What about the Poor? What about Irresponsible Parents?” by the Alliance for the Separation of School and State.

EXCERPT: “There are already philanthropists and foundations that pay private school tuition for the poor. This would increase many-fold, in the form of scholarships and direct aid to schools so they could offer free tuition to needy students. There are also churches and charitable foundations that reach out to the poor and will branch out into the field of education with the extra money that will be available because government at all levels is no longer confiscating it for their own endeavors in the school field. …

“This is not a wishful scenario. There are already many people in the private sector working to help the children of irresponsible and of poor parents, but they’re up against the stranglehold the public schools have on the children. They are trying to undo damage as it continues to be done. Freeing the children would open endless windows of opportunity.”

* “What About the Poor?” by Chris Cardiff.

EXCERPT: “In various forms, the question ‘what do we do about the poor?’ outstrips all others as the most frequently asked question about separating school and state. The implicit assumption, only natural after 60 years of the welfare state and 150 years of government control of education, is that government is the only entity capable of looking out for the poor and educating them. Both the historical record and present conditions invalidate this assumption.”

May 21, 2013
Leah Bolger & Ben Manski

The following is a joint statement of Green Shadow Cabinet officers Leah Bolger, Secretary of Defense, and Ben Manski, Chief of Staff, regarding the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (2001 AUMF):

This past Thursday, Obama administration officials testifying before the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee verified what had been unspoken up until now: that the executive branch intends to continue waging war indefinitely, and claims the power and authority to do so.

The topic for the hearings was the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, or AUMF, which was passed in a rush to reaction mere days after the 9/11 attacks. Together with the Patriot Act, the 2001 AUMF defied both the U.S. Constitution and international law and dealt a series of blows to the separation of powers, civil liberties, and accepted legal norms. Because most Americans were so stunned and frightened by the attacks of 9/11, they hardly questioned the legality or constitutionality of the AUMF at the time.

In one respect, the 2001 AUMF was written in extremely broad, encompassing language, giving George W. Bush carte blanche to attack any country or any person he suspected of having ties to the 9/11 attacks. Broadly, the AUMF gave Bush the power to, “use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”

But in another respect the AUMF had specific boundaries. It defined the enemy specifically as those connected with and responsible for the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Over the past 12 years, this authorization has been redirected into giving the green light for military action, extraordinary rendition, and even assassination of anyone who is considered a significant threat to U.S. foreign policy objectives.

The testimony last Thursday of Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations, Michael Sheehan, and Robert Taylor, the acting General Counsel for the Department of Defense, made clear that the Obama administration has adopted and expanded the Bush doctrine of preemptive and endless war. Assistant Secretary Sheehan stunned some senators while gratifying others when he said that the military currently has the appropriate authority to put “boots on the ground” in Yemen or the Congo, or “any (battlefield) that the enemy chooses to make it,” as suggested by Senator Lindsey Graham.

The Bush and Obama administrations have relied on the 2001 AUMF to use military force in countries that had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks and against people who weren’t even born at the time. The AUMF is purportedly the authorization being used to justify drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia that have killed thousands of people, 98% of whom were not affiliated with al-Qaeda, according to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism. The Obama administration even believes that the 2001 AUMF authorizes the killing of American citizens, as in the case of Anwar al-Awlaqi and his 16-year old son, who were murdered by Hellfire missiles launched from drones. These actions were never specifically authorized by a vote of Congress, and they were not authorized even under the sweeping terms of the 2001 AUMF.

In its abuse of the directives of the 2001 AUMF, the Obama administration has made a mockery of Congress. Yet the truth remains that that authorization was itself unconstitutional from the beginning.

Congress may not delegate its war powers to the executive branch. The constitutional power to declare war and to authorize military action is that of Congress and Congress alone. To authorize the executive branch to take military action wherever, whenever, and against whomever it chooses is by definition to delegate all war power authority to the executive.

That only one member of Congress – Representative Barbara Lee – stood up in 2001 to vote against the AUMF, says much about the lack of integrity and courage among those sitting in Congress at that time. But it does nothing to change the fact that even with a unanimous vote the AUMF would have been unconstitutional. A Congress of cowards does not constitutionalize an imperial presidency.

Either the AUMF of 2001 was as broad as the Obama administration claims, in which case it was and remains unconstitutional, or that AUMF was limited, in which case the Obama administration has violated it hundreds if not thousands of times already.

In the 12 years since 2001, the federal government has killed hundreds of thousands of people, captured tens of thousands, made refugees out of millions, and injured or otherwise harmed uncountable numbers in the “Global War on Terror.”

This kind of unending and unchecked war is the very thing the Revolutionaries of 1776 sought to prevent when they limited the power of the presidency and of the U.S. military. They called standing armies “the bane of liberty” and a threat to the promise of the new American states.

Instead, today, the President pursues a foreign policy that creates enemies through the murder of the innocent, aggressive wars of choice, and the flouting of international law. There seems no other explanation for these policies except that the Global War on Terror by its very design is intended to go on forever.

It is time for the American people, the courts, and Congress to strike down the 2001 AUMF. And because Congress and the courts have so far failed us, it is time for the people themselves to take up the question of who decides about war. To do so, we must hold accountable President Obama, his administration and Congress for violating their oaths of office. And we must move the war declaring power from Congress to a referendum of the American people, as proposed by Senator Ludlow in the 1930s and Congressman Dellums in the 1970s.

A true champion of liberty passed away yesterday, May 13, 2013 — far too young!

Hardy Macia was my HERO — a modern-day Paul Revere, a true light of LIBERTY, a good man, a kind and gentle spirit.

He made invaluable contributions to the entire libertarian movement, including the Advocates, where he was a member of our Board of Directors until just a few weeks ago, when he resigned because of his failing health. He created the mobile app for the World’s Smallest Political Quiz, among other projects for the Advocates.

He was an activist’s activist — a shining example to all who love liberty. We will strive to keep his light alive by encouraging others to be inspired by and follow his example.

Born June 16, 1969, Hardy spent his lifetime working for liberty, right up to the end. He ran for Vermont Governor in 2004, and Congress in New Hampshire’s Congressional District 2 in 2012. Despite a cancer diagnosis, he continued that run for Congress, hoping to wake a few more people up to the cause of freedom.

He worked tirelessly for Gary Johnson’s campaign for president.

Even in his last days, he took action from his hospital bed, confronting NH Governor Maggie Hassan to do the right thing and focus on people over politics. You can read about this heroic act and see the video at the Huffington Post.

There is an outpouring of eloquent tributes all over the Internet. Here are a few that I found particularly moving and would like to share with you:

“We will continue your fight for liberty, Hardy. If by chance you get to meet our Founders, I’m sure they will gladly shake your hand and thank you for your passion, dedication and endless fight for freedom.” (Teshia Dawn Roy)

“A great soul passed away today. Hardy was one of the brightest candles in God’s creation, and the actions he took while on this earth will continue to create positive ripples in history.” (Guy McLendon)

“Thank you for being such an inspiration. Thank you for packing 200 human years of passion into your 43 years here. Your spirit will live on in every person you touched because no one was merely brushed by your presence. Everyone who met you was engaged by your friendship, your heroism, your character, your strength and your kindness. Everyone who met you is a better person because of you.” (Jo Ann Vaccarino)

“Hardy’s vision for the future was inspirational to me and i am going to do what i can to continue to strive to bring Liberty back in his memory.” (Marlee Randol Hughes)
You will be inspired by reading more of these tributes at his Facebook page.

Read the nice article in his hometown newspaper.

Hardy, we love and miss you! Yet your legacy will never die. Thank you for all you did for the great cause of LIBERTY!