I prefer to imagine a world in which governments allow you to educate your children as you see fit, without interference. A world in which governments allow you to start and run your own business and create jobs without interference from bureaucrats. A world where you are allowed to purchase energy from any number of sources or companies that do not have special government privilege, or supply your own energy from wind or solar and be able to share the excess with your neighbors without government regulation. A world where you are able to use the currency of your choice without threat of violating a legal tender law. Such a world would have an economy built to last, where hard work pays off, and responsibility is rewarded.

The President also said “We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well, while a growing number of Americans barely get by. Or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules.”

If the President were serious about having an economy where everyone plays by the same set of rules; he would immediately ask Congress to revoke all government contracts, abolish the IRS, abolish the Federal Reserve which serves to protect the large banking institutions, and work with the Governors of the 50 States to abolish the use of eminent domain, abolish special privilege given to “corporations,” repeal zoning laws & abolish welfare and licensing laws which do little more than stifle the free market. A world without government interference would be a world where everyone gets a “fair shot.”

President Obama additionally said that he will “fight obstruction” in Congress. As long as bills that create more laws, continue funding the military occupation of foreign nations, take away more rights of the people and increase spending are being proposed, I believe that obstruction is the only admirable action that any member of Congress could commit.

In closing, the President says “[m]illions of Americans who work hard and play by the rules every day deserve a government and a financial system that does the same.” I am curious what President Obama means by this statement. I doubt that he intends to remove the special privilege given to the Federal Reserve System. I doubt he will remove government contracts and privatize all government agencies. I doubt he will ask Congress to abolish the postal monopoly that prohibits competition on delivery of first class mail. I also doubt that President Obama will request the repeal of “sovereign immunity” which protects governments from civil suits when a government (or government employee) violates someone’s rights.

As long as there is a central bank (whether private or government run) there will be “phony financial profits” and “bad debt;” two things Obama says he wants to eliminate. If the President were serious about moving forward with a blueprint for an economy built to last; he would heed the advice I’ve already mentioned. The only way forward, is to remove the obstacles – placed by government at all levels – from the road.

–
In Peace, Freedom, Love & Liberty,

Darryl W. Perry
Chair Boston Tea Party National Committee

Owner/Managing Editor Free Patriot Press

2016 candidate for President of the United States of America

Invisible Hands: A Q&A with Tiffany Briscoe, Presidential Nominee of the Boston Tea Party

In continuing coverage of the many different candidates in the 2012 presidential election, I was fortunate enough to conduct a question and answer session with Ms. Tiffany Briscoe of the Boston Tea Party. Tiffany Briscoe is a small business owner and philanthropist from the state of Maryland.

The Boston Tea Party, formed in 2006, supports reducing the size, scope and power of government at all levels and on all issues, and opposes increasing the size, scope and power of government at any level, for any purpose. Following their December 21st nominating Convention, Tiffany Briscoe of Maryland and Kimberly Barrick (née Johnson) of Arizona now represent the party going into 2012. In 2008, their presidential nominee, Charles Jay, appeared on the ballot in three states and was a recognized write-in candidate in a dozen more.
Ms. Briscoe’s site can be located here.

Evans:
Thank you for taking the time to do this with me, it’s very appreciated.
Before we get into this, I just want you to know that there’s no rush and answers can be as long or as short as you’d like.
I’m also okay if you want to add links in with your answers. If it helps your message or if you answer something but there’s still somewhere where you have it in more detail for anyone curious, I encourage it.
Starting off with formalities, tell us about yourself.
Who are you and why are you seeking the Presidency of the United States?

Briscoe:
I am a small businesswoman. What else can I say? I respect my community, work for my local church and nursery and I am the proud owner of two small businesses that have been acknowledged in the past. These are the three facts that I like people to remember. But I am also a concerned citizen, shocked by the level of the federal government’s involvement in our private lives and voluntary associations. Never has the government been so large in the United States, an union that was based on decentralization. This is why I am running for the highest office in the United States: to bring back the White House to the reality of the 21st century and the need for Washington to get away the road to success that our economy desperately needs to take.

Evans:
What kinds of businesses do you manage and what challenges have you faced with this economy?  Do you see a background in business as a vital plank in a Briscoe Presidency?

Briscoe:
I manage a small retail store. However, punitive taxation is hurting me, especially in times such as this one. Meanwhile, safety regulations – which are costly and pointless in my case – are trying to put me on a downside. But we are surviving and with the profits I make, I invested to make a private dancing class as well as a charity organizations to take care of local cancer patients. And surely enough, I have a front seat as a witness of how excessive regulation and taxation are destroying not only our economy, but also the global market on a long-term perspective. This is why I believe it is important to have had a past in the private community to truly understand the situation in the competitive market. Life-long politicians do not even seem to understand the core problems of corporate welfare and public-private partnerships, as very often the so-called “champions of liberty” in Congress are the biggest earmark distributors in the legislature.

Evans:
First, thank you for your charity and generosity within the community.
When you say that Congress fails to understand “corporate welfare” and “public-private partnerships”, I envision images of the Tea Party and the Occupy Wall Street movements.
Do you believe the Tea Party and Occupy movements are a positive step towards addressing some of those problems? Furthermore, why do you believe the politicians’ fail to understand those same problems and, in your personal opinion, do you see that failure as deliberate or ignorant?

Briscoe:
Of course they are. Any sort of movement challenging the Establishment and asking for radical changes in society is a sign that people are awakening in the face of an ever-increasing government. Now, both the Tea Party and the Occupy Movement have certain groups within that do not prescribe the correct solutions to our problems, but their diagnosis is right most of the time: our lives are over-regulated, government is too coercive, and corruption has become an inherent part of central authorities.
But does this mean all politicians are bad? I’d like to believe not so. While there might be a few people that get into power just because of special interests or for the love of power, most politicians are caring members of society that want to change the system their own way. The problem, though, is that they do not understand that individuals are too different and too genuine for uniform policies to be applied to every one of them. And this is the root of most problems in our world.

Evans:
How much longer do you see these movements lasting? Will they eventually be absorbed into a mainstream party or will they simply expire?
Switching over to the topic of political parties, why run on the Boston Tea Party ticket? It’s clear that the rights of the individual are extremely important to you, so why that one over all of the other different parties that claim to represent them?

Briscoe:
Well, there is a clear threat represented by mainstream politicians trying to use populist movements at their advantage. And I do believe the Establishment will be able to shut these specific voices down on the short-term. However, their ideas won’t fade away, for the ideas of freedom have never failed humanity. The Boston Tea Party is one of those parties that envision a liberalized America, with freedom as core principle. Of course, other similar groups include the Constitution Party or the Libertarian Party, but both of these have recently been moving to the Right of the political spectrum, with one supporting conservative ideals and the other adopting tax reform policies such as the FairTax in their ideology. The [Boston Tea Party] is the last true individualist political party in the United States, and I am more than proud to have received its nomination, which I believe confirms that it will not compromise on libertarian principles.

Evans:
Other than its ideological purity, the Boston Tea Party is also known for it’s on-line nomination process. From conducting debates to nominating a national ticket for the Presidency, the [Boston Tea Party] is definitely innovative. Could you describe your experience with running in such an unconventional process? Are you prepared to jump from digital to physical?

Briscoe:
The Internet is the new branch of society that is free of government interference. So it is interesting to find most of the Boston Tea Party’s base online. This is not only unconventional, it also revolutionary. For the first time in history, a political party is open to anybody with Internet access. Now, my campaign had a lot to do with the nominating process. We came up with the idea of the debate, and pulled up first political ads during the convention. At the end, I was chosen with some 65% of the votes as the party’s nominee for the 2012 election cycle.

This has helped me get some media attention. But clearly not enough, which is to be expected as the elections are just beginning. I’ll be going to Florida very soon, where I will officially kick-start the campaign at my campaign headquarters. From there, we will work heavily with people from Vermont, Colorado, Tennessee, and these other states wherein we will be present on the ballot. I had previously worked on several local campaigns in Maryland, so I know it’s not going to be easy. But success is possible. And to tell the truth, I am much more comfortable campaigning on land than online. I’ll let my supporters take care of the Internet front.

Evans:
That’s a very confident margin of victory. Meanwhile, your running-mate, Ms. Kimberly Barrick, required two rounds of voting before she was nominated. Are you content with the outcome and is your relationship with her a strong one, and for that matter, your relationships with all of your former fellow [Boston Tea Party] Presidential contenders?

Briscoe:
This victory was a clear sign that the Boston Tea Party is set to remain the most active proponent of small government principles in today’s political field. And the same can be said about the nomination of Mrs. Barrick as my running mate. She is a very intelligent, principled, active, and charismatic woman that understands the importance of campaigning and what her major role is in this bid for the highest offices in the land. I had already endorsed her during the convention and now, our campaigns have merged for a closer collaboration. Now, I also believe that our ticket can unify the small government circles of the United States, as I am an East-Coast libertarian and she is a Southwestern constitutionalist.

When it comes to my fellow [Boston Tea Party] friends that did not receive the party’s nomination back in December, I am happy to say that there is no grave conflict between us. One individual, Bob Milnes, decided to run against my platform but this time as a candidate for the Libertarian Party’s nomination, and this is not going to be anyhow relevant as we move on in this election cycle. The others have been cordial with me as I have shown due respect. The Boston Tea Party is now mainly unified behind a strong presidential ticket.

Evans:
I would say some of your opponents in November might wish their parties were as united as the [Boston Tea Party] is, furthermore, you can get right to focusing on November.
In keeping with looking forward though, what plans do you have? Are there any strategies you can share and what States do you plan on obtaining ballot access in?

Briscoe:
Indeed, the advantage of an early nomination is that we can focus on the general election sooner. We already know it’s not going to be an easy run. There are many well-funded candidates from the Establishment that already have the mainstream media’s support. This is why we are focusing on getting our message across as effectively as possible. Alternative media, such as the Internet, will be more than useful. In fact, we do have a campaign strategy focused on the weaknesses of the other candidacies when it comes to libertarian messages. By November, we will be in as much as 14 to 15 states, including Colorado, Louisiana, Vermont, and others.

For the SOPA and PIPA affair, I am simply shocked. Under the name of protecting the artificial notion of intellectual property, the government wants to start regulating the Internet in a manner that would restrict free expression. This is the State at its worst. We cannot seem to find the sources of these proposals, as intellectual property is neither a conservative nor a liberal principle, while copyright-owners do not have a large lobby in Washington. SOPA and PIPA are the government’s means to destroy free speech. So I do understand why so many websites have been blacking out. It’s none of my business to tell them how they should react, but I do realize the gravity of the situation.

Evans:
Switching gears again, I want to go over your platform.
Can you describe a summary of your platform? I know you’re a libertarian and for individual liberties, but what does that mean for someone who doesn’t know? Where do you stand on the usual issues that people tend to focus on first?

Briscoe:
My platform is based on reason and the Constitution. I have heard from many that my plan was a radical platform based on libertarianism, so I’d like to say so. In short, it is about empowering the individual, lowering the scope of the federal government, and promoting prosperity abroad. We have been over-regulated, over-legislated, and over-controlled by politicians that are wasting our and our children’s money, which is simply unacceptable. Now, I believe all the issues are very important because they all represent government action -or inaction- but it is clear that to the American people, what matters the most is an economy that is heading to crisis. My principled view is that the economy is too complex and important to be led or influenced by the government: more liberty can only do good.

Evans:
I’d like to run two scenarios by with you.
Worst case scenario. You lose in November. Who would you be the most comfortable with having in the White House? Who would be the least?
Best case scenario. You win in November. Is there any elected official, former or current and from any level of Government, who you would consider for any cabinet position?

Briscoe:
If I lose in November, there aren’t many individuals that I will trust to carry on common sense and constitutionalism to the White House. But I guarantee you than anybody can do a better job that Barack Obama. The truth is that among the two major parties’ front-runners, I can’t find anyone with true classical liberal principles of limited government and individual liberty. Now, many of our supporters have come from the Gary Johnson or Ron Paul crowds, which is interesting. Now, if I am elected in November, there might be some government officials that will deserve recognition. Congressmen Connie Mack and Dennis Kucinich are very good examples of elected officials that have fought for individual freedom in the past. But at the end of the day, it is very hard to find principled members of the government in this Establishment.

Evans:
Those are very interesting choices. I understand they may not reflect everything you believe in, but what qualities do they demonstrate that you appreciate?
I appreciate the time you’ve given me to ask you these questions and I’d like to give you the chance to get the last word. Is there anything you’d like to ask me, add, or say that I might not have given you the opportunity to?

Briscoe:
Of course, the examples I have given are far from being genuine. Across the country, there are dozens of individuals working in government, whether federal, state or local, to promote the American principles of peace, prosperity, and freedom. They fight on a daily basis against the Establishment and make decisions above party politics. I remember when Connie Mack was one of the few Republicans that voted against the Patriot Act, for instance.

But to finish up, I’d like to say this. Whatever the outcome of these elections will be, nobody should give up hope. Freedom is a natural part of life that society will obtain sooner or later. In many aspects, we are more free now than fifty years ago, a hundred years ago, two centuries ago. Freedom is powerful and no standing army, nor any monetary influence will be able to destroy it any time soon.

————

See the original article here.

I don’t know if this is genuine to the Howard Community College or, in general, to community colleges, but the fact of the matter is that all graduates with a memorable mention at their graduation are offered a title as being part of the “Board of Trustees”. This is like a honorary title, if you want. I receive no pay, I get no voting rights, nor do I attend most meetings. But I do receive a newsletter, have a parking space, and get occasional e-mails on this address provided by HCC. It’s no big thing, as you can see. And I will proceed to the removal of this from my website since it is causing so much “controversy”.

A subsequent investigation by IPR’s William Saturn confirmed that Briscoe is in fact a current student, not a graduate, prompting Boston Tea Party national chair Darryl Perry to demand additional answers from Briscoe.

Briscoe‘s campaign has responded with the following statement posted on the website of her campaign manager Pierre Creveaux:

“In the past few days, many things have been said about the Briscoe candidacy. Allegations have been raised, questions asked, and answers sought. Many had claimed this was just the work of a few individuals trying to end our road to victory, but we wish to underline that we fully understand the background and seriousness of most of these questions.

“First of all, we want to make sure that everybody understands that this presidential ticket has no relation whatsoever with Russia, Donald Trump, or the Republican Party. Our campaign receives no funding, no publicity, nor any help of the sort from them, as was theorized by some. Moreover, we want to clarify that Chairman Perry has no contact with the Putin Government in Moscow, and our foreign policy platform is only based on peaceful and commercial bases and has no spécial interest included in it.

“This has been a ridiculous claim by some, in our opinion, and raising this issue may have led to a wrong portraying of both our candidacy and the Boston Tea Party’s legitimacy as a serious polical party. But it had to be answered as it was raised on the first place.

“Now, when it comes to the education credentials of Tiffany Briscoe, the problem is more legitimate. What started as a simple misunderstanding between campaign officials and the presidential candidate grew into a misrepresentation of the truth. Tiffany Briscoe did not receive her degree yet, even though she is able to receive it by now. She will complete her degree at Howard Community College in May.

“This being said, we need to say that Tiffany Briscoe apologizes for ignoring the importance of such a major detail in her background.

“But we have work to do. Souls to free, individuals to liberate, and a society to heal. Our campaign will go back to work as fully as possible, with both Tiffany and Kimberly working on their separate fronts. Our official platform will be released by the end of the month, while our ballot access campaigns in Colorado and Vermont will hopefully soon be materialized.”.

UPDATES:

* A slightly different version of the same statement written in the first person is on Tiffany Briscoe’s campaign site.

* BTP Chair Darryl Perry replied

On January 14, I requested that Tiffany Briscoe clarify whether or not she had falsely represented herself to the Party.

Two statements have been issued by her campaign; one of which was issued by someone on her behalf, the other re-written by Ms. Briscoe. She wrote, “What started as a simple misunderstanding… grew into a misrepresentation of the truth.
“… I want to say that I apologize for ignoring the importance of such a major detail in my background, as well as to Chairman Perry, who may have been accused wrongly for my wrongdoings.”

I want to thank Ms. Briscoe for clearing up this issue. I hope that we, as a Party, can put this issue behind us and move forward with this campaign.

In Peace, Freedom, Love & Liberty,
Darryl W. Perry
Chair Boston Tea Party National Committee
http://BostonTea.us

Ms. Briscoe,

This message is being copied to Pierre Crevaux and posted publicly online http://bostontea.us/node/1089. As you are aware, the issue of whether or not you were not completely honest in representing your credentials. Originally, the question of whether or not you were, in fact, part of the Board of Trustees of Howard Community College was brought up. Now, it seems you may have misrepresented whether or not you actually graduated from Howard CC – a contributor at Independent Political Report has sited that the College has said you have not graduated.

As Chair of the BTP, it is my responsibility to ensure the integrity of the Presidential nominating process. Even though the nominating convention is over, such accusations of misrepresentation are indeed affecting the integrity of the process. I request that within two weeks (not later than January 28, 2012) you either a) provide documentation to support your claims, b) post a public message stating that you misrepresented yourself and come clean with the truth, or c) post a message resigning your position as the Presidential nominee of the BTP.

If you do not comply with this request, I will consider your campaign within the BTP to be an act of fraud and will proceed with action to remove you from the BTP Presidential ticket.

–
In Peace, Freedom, Love & Liberty,
Darryl W. Perry
Chair Boston Tea Party National Committee
http://BostonTea.us

IPR note from Paulie: for background, see

Candidate defeated for Boston Tea Party presidential nomination accuses nominee of falsifying resume by Paulie

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

23 December 2011 – bostontea.us

The Boston Tea Party’s Presidential Nominating Convention concluded after 2 days with the Vice Presidential nomination going to a 2nd round of balloting.

Tiffany Briscoe (Maryland) was chosen as the Presidential nominee on the first round of voting. Kimberly Johnson (Arizona) was chosen as the Vice Presidential nominee on the 2nd round of voting.

BTP Chair, Darryl W. Perry says, “I would like to thank those of you who voted in the Presidential Nominating Convention. I would like to congratulate Tiffany Briscoe winning the BTP Presidential and Kimberly Johnson on winning the Vice Presidential nomination. You two ladies will represent the party well in the 2012 election.”

Additionally, it is estimated that the BTP will attempt to obtain ballot access in as many as 15 States and will attempt to have the Presidential ticket as a certified write-in candidate in the remaining States(excepting Oklahoma which does not allow write-in votes).

Ms. Briscoe’s website is http://tiffanybriscoe2012.weebly.com

The Boston Tea Party was founded in 2006 with a one sentence platform, “The Boston Tea Party supports reducing the size, scope and power of government at all levels and on all issues, and opposes increasing the size, scope and power of government at any level, for any purpose.”

In October 2008, the party’s National Convention adopted the four point program of the Campaign for Liberty. Their program calls for an end to overseas occupation, a restoration of privacy and other liberties, no increase in the national debt, and a thorough review of the Federal Reserve. During the 2010 convention the Party adopted a new program to End the Wars of Aggression, End the Fed, End the War on Drugs, End the Abuses of Liberty, End the Immigration Fiasco.

———

Briscoe was nominated by BTP member Pierre-Alexandre Crevaux. In his nomination statement, he said:

I would like to nominate Tiffany Briscoe (Maryland) to represent our party in 2012. Also running as a Democrat, she is a true libertarian that decided to run following Ron Paul’s conservative shift on abortion and immigration and Gary Johnson’s poor reform program based on the FairTax.

Mrs. Briscoe believes in a small government that allows businessmen, corporations, entrepreneurs, workers, individuals to prosper through the establishment of free markets in a society made up of thousands of beliefs, opinions, and dreams.

Were we to choose Tiffany Briscoe as candidate, she would represent the only libertarian with a concrete platform to change the country for the better.

Her 50-point plan plans not only to empower civil liberties, but also to reform education, health care, monetary policy, public works, etc.

She is also the only candidate to present a concrete plan to privatize Social Security without dropping the millions of elderly people and workers soon entering the system.

Tiffany Briscoe is also the best candidate when it comes to comprehensive budget reform.

Her program can be read on her website.

The National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 1540) was recently passed through both Houses of Congress, and was signed into law by President Obama. Members of Congress from both factions of the Ruling Party (also known as the Repubicratic Duopoly) claim that the detainee provisions prohibit the military from indefinitely detaining American citizens. However, that doesn’t mean some other law enforcement agency, such as the FBI or CIA, couldn’t eternally jail citizens and resident aliens.

Section 1031(b)(2) “includ(es) ANY PERSON who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.”

Jim Babka of Downsize DC asks, “What is a belligerent act? There have been more than 40 cases of alleged terrorist plots that were little more than entrapment, and not actual threats to the American people. The way we read it ANY of these entrapped people, AS WELL AS completely innocent people associated with them, could potentially be imprisoned without due process because of the vagueness of Section 1031. And Section 1032 has NOTHING to do with this, because it only deals with military custody.“

I contend that every one of you should be impeached for violating your oath of office to uphold the Constitution of these United States of America for allowing this and many other pieces of legislation to become “law.”

Though it really isn’t your fault that such legislation passed. I mean, why would you oppose a 900 page bill that funds the military when such horrible provisions are included. I understand that your opponents would then say you hate the troops or some other statement that may not be to your advantage. However, if you would stop putting unrelated items into legislation you wouldn’t have this problem. And if you posted legislation online for at least 7 days before the vote and announced in advance when bills would be up for a vote you would be able to get feedback from the people you claim to represent. However, I realize you aren’t interested in hearing from your constituents; you prefer your constituents to remain clueless about what you’re doing.

I’m sure that many people will be silenced by the possibility of indefinite detention, especially when one considers that the FBI is working with Homeland Security, various State and municipal governments via Fusion Centers issuing “threat assessments” and “intelligent reports” listing people that speak out against the growing federal government as potential terrorists.

I remember growing up being told that this was a “free country” where people had the right to speak out against the government. I was also taught that these United States were founded on the idea of governments are to have the “consent of the governed.” I never consented to a damned thing that has been done by the federal government, EVER.

In closing, I kindly request that you resign your position of supposed authority, as I do not consent to any person or group of persons claiming to “govern” me.

In Peace, Freedom, Love & Liberty,
Darryl W. Perry
Chair Boston Tea Party National Committee

http://BostonTea.us

Owner/Managing Editor Free Patriot Press

http://FreePatriot-Press.com

2016 candidate for President of the United States of America

http://dwp2016.org

Permission is granted to send this letter unedited with my name attached

You can send the letter to your members of Congress here.

The 2009 winner, Ron Paul, was the overwhelming favorite, taking 52% of the vote. The 2010 was much closer with Adam Kokesh, Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW) and Private Bradley Manning receiving the 2010 Free Patriot Peace Prize.

Much like the 2010 award, the voting in 2011 was extremely close, and just like on 2010 the 2011 Free Patriot Peace Prize will have multiple winners.

Joining Dr. Paul, Adam Kokesh, IVAW and Bradley Manning as Free Patriot Peace Prize winners are a former member of the Libertarian National Committee (LNC) who is also a longtime outspoken critic of unjust, undeclared wars and a nonprofit foundation founded in 1995 in response to the Bosnian War.

The award presentation will take place the first weekend of December in Phoenix, Arizona. It is my pleasure and honor to name Angela Keaton and AntiWar.com winners of the 2011 Free Patriot Peace Prize.

In Peace, Freedom, Love & Liberty,
Darryl W. Perry
Chair Boston Tea Party National Committee
http://BostonTea.us
Owner/Managing Editor Free Patriot Press
http://FreePatriot-Press.com
2016 candidate for President of the United States of America
http://dwp2016.org

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

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

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

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

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

Several weeks ago a mass protest began in New York City with the intent to Occupy Wall Street. The group wants to remove influence of corporations from elections. On October 6, Occupy groups from across the nation began to “occupy” certain parts of their city.

Much like the “T(axed) E(nough) A(lready)” groups that formed in 2009, the Occupy groups are only seeing part of the problem. The “TEA parties” were only complaining about certain forms of taxation – the attendees and speakers were largely in favor of the “Fair Tax” and military intervention. I did attend one “TEA Party” and tried speaking to people about abolishing the IRS and Federal Reserve and was mostly ignored or put off, even by the “Fair Taxers” – who don’t seem to mind the spending so much as the form of taxation.

I attended parts of the first two days of Occupy San Antonio – not as an activist, but rather as an independent journalist. As such, and being in street clothes without a press badge, I was able to get candid interviews with protesters. Of the handful of attendees, most were just “there”; the vibe was that of people hanging out, not of a political protest. However, when asked why they were protesting they would give a lively answer about removing corporate interest from political campaigns, and to give the people a voice. When further questioned on the fact that corporations and dollars don’t vote, one protester said, “yes, but they buy lobbyists and influence members of Congress.” This will continue to happen, as long as the government is involved in the economy.

I asked one of the protesters, “who are you planning on petitioning or delivering your demands?” He didn’t know and said the group would vote on that.

Additionally, no one had a plan to call for every incumbent to be voted out of office, they just want corporate money out of politics, but they still want the government to be involved in the economy by adding more regulations to businesses. Most of the protesters seemed unaware that the big corporations are the ones lobbying for the regulations that are in place – the big businesses want to establish barriers to smaller competitors.

Another “demand” of the Occupy groups is the elimination of the Federal Reserve – something I’ve supported for years. However, there was no consensus on what they wanted to replace it with. Some want the Treasury to issue paper currency, other want to establish 49 more Central Banks at the State level – similar to what North Dakota has already done (except the Bank of North Dakota isn’t allowed to print currency) – and a few want a system of barter and voluntary currency.

All in all, the occupy protest in San Antonio seems very weak, without a firm plan and with several small factions each attempting to “take over” the protest to meet their objectives. The groups claim they will “occupy” their city until their demands are met. However, I believe the protests will fall apart no later than Thanksgiving.

–
In Peace, Freedom, Love & Liberty,
Darryl W. Perry
Chair Boston Tea Party National Committee

http://BostonTea.us

Owner/Managing Editor Free Patriot Press

http://FreePatriot-Press.com

2016 candidate for President of the United States of America

http://dwp2016.org

Darryl W. Perry is an Activist, Author, Poet & Statesman. Darryl writes a weekly article for the Mountaineer Jeffersonian, a monthly article for The Sovereign and has appeared on various alternative media talking about his books, political career and goals. Darryl is the Chairman of the Boston Tea Party National Committee and Owner/Managing Editor of Free Patriot Press.

To schedule an interview with Darryl please send an email to editor@freepatriot-press.com or call 202 709 4377

The Presidential & Vice Presidential nominees will be held beginning December 22, 2011 and lasting as many days as needed to chose the nominees.

[...]

All candidates who are nominated by two or more Party members, who meet the qualifications of office listed in the Constitution of the United States of America, and who affirm their support for the Party’s platform and their willingness to accept the Party’s nomination to the presidency and/or vice-presidency of the United States, shall be considered eligible nominees, any affiliations they may have with other political parties notwithstanding. All nominations and candidate affirmations must be received prior to the opening of that year’s regular convention. The Chair shall take official notice of any candidate affirmations which may be fraudulent, and shall investigate, and issue a ruling as to the legitimacy of, such affirmations.

[...]

Please make nominations via comment to this thread (p: at BTP website, not IPR thread).

The following candidates are eligible nominees for the Presidential nomination:

Phil Davison
Robert Milnes
Jason Gatties has withdrawn from the race

The following candidates have been nominated & seconded for the Presidential nomination (P: these include people who may not be interested in accepting the nomination, haven’t responded as to whether they are interested, or have not affirmed support for the platform):

Chris Bennett, Dan Kilo, Angela Keaton, Kimberly Johnson, Jim Burns, George Phillies, R. Lee Wrights & Dave Hollist (not listed are candidates that the Chair doesn’t believe to be “serious” nominees)

The following candidates are eligible nominees for the Vice Presidential nomination:

Kimberly Johnson
Steven R Linnabary

The following candidates have been nominated & seconded for the Vice Presidential nomination (P: same as with Presidential nomination above):

George Phillies & Michelle Shinghal (not listed are candidates that the Chair doesn’t believe to be “serious” nominees)

Ben Bernanke,
It has come to my attention that you will be compiling a list of people that post derogatory/negative comments about the Federal Reserve. I’d like to ask the following questions:

• What keywords are you looking for?
• What do you intend to do with the information you receive?
• Why do you wish to revoke the first amendment rights of people you disagree with?
• Will you send federal agents to the houses of these people to “convince them” to not oppose the policies of the Fed?
• Will you arrest people that oppose you and your policies? If so, under what authority?
• Will you open your books and allow an audit?
• Will you stop inflating the currency?
• Do you and your associates intend to inflate the currency to the point that it becomes worthless and must be replaced by a regional or world-wide currency?
• In your opinion, how is it moral/ethical to have a monetary system based on forced compliance?

I know you’re upset that people don’t like you. But stifling dissent will not help your image.

Before ending, I’d like to add that while some people are opposed to the Federal Reserve because it is a private – as opposed to government owned – central bank; my objection is to the fact that the you operate under a system of forced compliance with a government granted monopoly on the issuance of currency. Not to mention the fact that you print a currency that is not backed by any thing of value.

Your strong-arm tactics and threats to silence critics do not scare me. I will continue to speak out against the Federal Reserve and will continue encouraging people to use commodity-backed currencies (such as gold, silver and copper) and barter.

I doubt you or anyone on your behalf will respond to this letter, however if you do, your reply will be made public.

In Peace, Freedom, Love and Liberty,
Darryl W. Perry

–
In Peace, Freedom, Love & Liberty,
Darryl W. Perry
Chair Boston Tea Party National Committee

http://BostonTea.us

Owner/Managing Editor Free Patriot Press

http://FreePatriot-Press.com

2016 candidate for President of the United States of America

http://dwp2016.org

Darryl W. Perry is an Activist, Author, Poet & Statesman. Darryl writes a weekly article for the Mountaineer Jeffersonian, a monthly article for The Sovereign and has appeared on various alternative media talking about his books, political career and goals. Darryl is the Chairman of the Boston Tea Party National Committee and Owner/Managing Editor of Free Patriot Press.

To schedule an interview with Darryl please send an email to editor@freepatriot-press.com or call 202 709 4377

The ten-term Congressman and three-time Presidential candidate from Texas wrote, “Darryl Perry has produced a comprehensive examination of the ways in which ballot access laws, campaign finance ‘reform’, gerrymandering, and other restrictions limited participation in the electoral process. I recommend this to anyone interested in learning how the political monopoly arose and what we might do to open the process to new candidates promoting the old idea of liberty both inside and outside the major parties.”

In addition, one of the reviewers suggested that “the book be read by every Political Science student, State Legislator & Congressman. I’m hoping that people get on board with the suggestion and send a copy to their State Rep., State Senator & 3 members of Congress (1 US Rep. & 2 US Senators)”.

Additionally, Free Patriot Press is announcing a special limited time offer. For anyone (in the U.S.A. or Canada) who pre-orders Duopoly by Monday (Oct. 3, 2011) will pay no added shipping charges! Pre-order link http://tiny.cc/duopoly

Duopoly, by Darryl W. Perry, published by Free Patriot Press, will be available October 4, 2011 from duopoly.freepatriot-press.com, Amazon.com and all major book stores.

###

Free Patriot Press is an independent alternative media / publishing company, founded by Darryl W. Perry in June 2009, with the mission of “ensuring a FREE PRESS for the FREEDOM MOVEMENT” and to also give new authors an avenue for publishing freedom oriented material.” FPP welcomes any author committed to the Freedom Movement.

For more information on the Boston Tea Party, see http://BostonTea.us

With the representatives of the Palestinian territory pressuring the United Nations for full recognition, questions have been raised about the future of Israel. Some argue that U.N. recognition of a Palestinian State will cause the demise of Israel. However, 127 U.N. members already recognize the State of Palestine as an independent nation.

Few people are even asking, or answering, why a nation must be represented at the U.N. Switzerland, best known for its neutrality, was not a full member of the U.N. until September 10, 2002. I seriously doubt anyone questioned the independence of Switzerland before the nation became full member of the U.N.

In 1998, Christian Hillgruber, of the European Journal of International Law, wrote, “Recognition of a new state is an act that confers a status; as a result of recognition, the recognized entity acquires the legal status of a state under International law. In this sense, a (new) state is not born, but chosen as a subject of international law. Only when the new state has been recognized does it become a subject of international law, and this initially only with respect to the existing states recognizing it. On admission as a member of the United Nations, the new state then becomes part of the globally organized community of states by way of co-optation. After the decision has been taken to admit a state to the United Nations, its statehood cannot be called into question with the effect of contesting the validity of mutual rights and obligations arising from co-membership.”

I wonder if some people are “worried” that recognition of the State of Palestine would lead to the recognition of Kosovo’s independence. Maybe more nations will recognize the independence of Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh, Somaliland, South Ossetia, Transnistria, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, and/or Western Sahara. Maybe people (i.e. government representatives) fear recognizing the right of self-determination; that is the right of “determination by the people of a territorial unit of their own future political status.” Though there are no established guidelines regarding how a group of people exercise their right of self-determination. During the 1860′s several States attempted to leave the United States of America, several counties in these States took secession one step further and seceded from their seceding State. It was this act of self-determination that allowed West Virginia to become a State, it also led to several “Free State’s” throughout the Confederacy.

The United States of America was founded on the principles of self-determination. Not only has the U.S. government violated the self-determination rights of the Native Americans, but also the people of Hawai’i, Guam, Puerto Rico and many other people who have become dependent on the U.S. government, but it now violates the right of self-determination of people over whom it has no recognized authority (i.e. Palestine).

–
In Peace, Freedom, Love & Liberty,
Darryl W. Perry
Chair Boston Tea Party National Committee

http://BostonTea.us

Owner/Managing Editor Free Patriot Press

http://FreePatriot-Press.com

2016 candidate for President of the United States of America

http://dwp2016.org

Darryl W. Perry is an Activist, Author, Poet & Statesman. Darryl writes a weekly article for the Mountaineer Jeffersonian, a monthly article for The Sovereign and has appeared on various alternative media talking about his books, political career and goals. Darryl is the Chairman of the Boston Tea Party National Committee and Owner/Managing Editor of Free Patriot Press.

To schedule an interview with Darryl please send an email to editor@freepatriot-press.com or call 202 709 4377

When one hears the term wiretapping, normally one thinks of secretly recording phone calls of others; some may have thoughts of Watergate. However, under some crafty interpretations of the legal definition of wiretapping, several people have found themselves as suspects of this offense for filming their encounters with public officials. Most people familiar with the Free State Project are aware that Pete Eyre and Adam Mueller (aka Ademo Freeman) were recently acquitted of the felony wiretapping charges in Massachusetts. Some people may even be aware that the 1st Circuit Court ruled that filming public officials while on duty is a “basic and well-established liberty safeguarded by the First Amendment.”

While the 1st Circuit Court ruling only applies to the States that are part of that Court’s jurisdiction, it was cited by a judge in Illinois as a “pervasive authority” for ruling on similar cases.

Specifically the case of an Illinois man, Michael Allison, who was recently convicted of five counts of felony eavesdropping and sentenced to 75 years in prison. The Illinois law makes it a felony to record a conversation without consent of ALL parties involved, regardless of the circumstances. Allison’s troubles began when he recorded his encounters with police who were seizing cars from his front yard. Allison then attempted to record his court appearance and was arrested for supposedly violating the Judge’s privacy.

There is good news for Mr. Allison — another Judge (David Frankland) dismissed the charges against Michael Allison and ruled, “A statute intended to prevent unwarranted intrusion into a citizen’s privacy cannot be used as a shield for public officials who cannot assert a comparable right to privacy in their public duties… Such action impedes the free flow of information concerning public officials and violates the First Amendment right to gather information.”

Additionally, the ACLU is challenging the Illinois law in the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, with the court expected to issue a decision in the next month. And a Chicago jury recently acquitted a woman for secretly recording a conversation with police regarding a sexual harassment complaint she was attempting to file against the department.

It seems police officers have no issues if they are filmed during parades or doing something good, such as getting a kitten out of a tree; it’s only when the officer is being “less than cordial” that it becomes an issue. Why should someone film a police encounter? Doing so, and presenting the film as evidence during his trial, helped Dave Ridley win an acquittal after being charged with trespassing — at a public event in New Hampshire.

It’s good to see courts, and juries, recognizing the fact that filming cops is not a crime. I encourage everyone to carry a camera (or two) just in case the need arises to film an encounter with a “public servant.” You may be able to hold them accountable, and possibly protect yourself from jail.

–
In Peace, Freedom, Love & Liberty,
Darryl W. Perry
Chair Boston Tea Party National Committee

http://BostonTea.us

Owner/Managing Editor Free Patriot Press

http://FreePatriot-Press.com

2016 candidate for President of the United States of America

http://dwp2016.org

Darryl W. Perry is an Activist, Author, Poet & Statesman. Darryl writes a weekly article for the Mountaineer Jeffersonian, a monthly article for The Sovereign and has appeared on various alternative media talking about his books, political career and goals. Darryl is the Chairman of the Boston Tea Party National Committee and Owner/Managing Editor of Free Patriot Press.

To schedule an interview with Darryl please send an email to editor@freepatriot-press.com or call 202 709 4377

Duopoly presents the history of the electoral system in the United States and explores the very real barriers faced by potential independent and “third-party” political candidates. Perry shows that the American system is rigged against voters and their rightful choices in favor of a two-party duopoly controlled by the Republican and Democratic parties, aka the Republicrats. The book has been called a must read for “every Political Science 101 student, every member of Congress, and every state legislator in the country.”

Duopoly is Perry’s fourth book and the seventh to be published by Free Patriot Press.

Perry’s literary achievements include:

Songs of Freedom: Tales From The Revolution:     One of four finalists in the Current Events: Political/Social category of The National “Best Books 2010″ Awards and August 2009 Book of the Month by Freedom Book Club.

The Anarcho Teachings of Yeshua:  2010   “Book of the Year” Freedom Book Club and 1st Annual LAVA Awards Charles Angrand (Artwork) Award.

Duopoly, by Darryl W. Perry, published by Free Patriot Press, will be available October 4, 2011 from Amazon.com and all major book stores.

###

Free Patriot Press is an independent alternative media / publishing company, founded by Darryl W. Perry in June 2009, with the mission of “ensuring a FREE PRESS for the FREEDOM MOVEMENT” and to also give new authors an avenue for publishing freedom oriented material.” FPP welcomes any author committed to the Freedom Movement.

To schedule an interview with Darryl please send an email to editor@freepatriot-press.com or call 202 709 4377

–

I was recently asked if Sarah Palin was a member of the BTP. This question arose from the fact that the former Alaska Governor has recently, one more than one occasion, quoted the BTP slogan, “party like it’s 1773!” Unlike other parties, BTP membership is confidential; I can neither confirm nor deny that Sarah Palin is a member of the BTP.

The BTP invites anyone to join the party, provided the individual agrees to the one sentence platform, “The Boston Tea Party supports reducing the size, scope and power of government at all levels and on all issues, and opposes increasing the size, scope and power of government at any level, for any purpose.”

The Boston Tea Party was founded in 2006 with a one sentence platform. In October 2008, the party’s National Convention adopted the four point program of the Campaign for Liberty. Their program calls for an end to overseas occupation, a restoration of privacy and other liberties, no increase in the national debt, and a thorough review of the Federal Reserve. During the 2010 convention the Party adopted a new program to End the Wars of Aggression, End the Fed, End the War on Drugs, End the Abuses of Liberty, End the Immigration Fiasco.

–
In Peace, Freedom, Love & Liberty,
Darryl W. Perry
Chair Boston Tea Party National Committee
http://BostonTea.us
Owner/Managing Editor Free Patriot Press
http://FreePatriot-Press.com
2016 candidate for President of the United States of America
http://dwp2016.org

Darryl W. Perry is an Activist, Author, Poet & Statesman. Darryl writes a weekly article for the Mountaineer Jeffersonian, a monthly article for The Sovereign and has appeared on various alternative media talking about his books, political career and goals. Darryl is the Chairman of the Boston Tea Party National Committee and Owner/Managing Editor of Free Patriot Press.

To schedule an interview with Darryl please send an email to editor@freepatriot-press.com or call 202 709 4377

Texas could become the first State to pass a bill criminalizing invasive pat-downs by agents of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). Near the end of the regular session HB 1937 passed the State House unanimously yet stalled in the State Senate after the Department of Justice (DOJ) threatened to ground all flights out of Texas. Some supporters of the bill are saying the federal government would essentially be creating a “no fly zone” over Texas. Similar legislation was introduced in New Hampshire, though that bill has been stalled in committee.

Currently, Texas Governor Rick Perry stands in the way of “round 2” for this bill. The Texas Legislature has been called into a “special session” and only the Governor can add bills to the “call” for the Legislature to consider during the special session. The special session was called, primarily, because the Legislature failed to pass a budget. They also failed to pass a Congressional redistricting plan; something that must be done since Texas gained four members of the US House.

Bill sponsor Rep. David Simpson told ABC News, “The attorney general’s letter claims we are stopping all searches. The bill just says you can’t touch privates without probable cause.” HB1937 would criminalize “as part of a search performed to grant access to a publicly accessible building or form of transportation, intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly: searches another person without probable cause to believe the person committed an offense; and touches the anus, sexual organ, or breasts of the other person, including touching through clothing, or touches the other person in a manner that would be offensive to a reasonable person.”

Opponents of this bill claim that such invasive searches are “needed” to protect the airlines. However, in August 2009 during an episode of 60 Minutes CBS reported,

“the question is: ‘is everything we go through at checkpoints actually making us safer?’ Security expert Bruce Schneier says no. He says much of it is just ‘security theater.’

‘It’s a phrase I coined for security measures that look good, but don’t actually do anything,’ he explained
Schneier, who has been an adviser to TSA but also its most persistent thorn-in-the-side, says there are too many silly rules.”

As for the latest tools of the TSA (backscatter X-ray machines and invasive groping) Sheier says, “it’s politics. You have to be seen as doing something, even if nothing is the smart thing to do. You can’t be seen as doing nothing… It won’t catch anybody.”

Other supporters of the TSA will say “you don’t have a right to fly.” The right to travel is a fundamental right, as is the right to not be subjected to invasive groping. The Articles of Confederation recognized the right to travel, “the people of each State shall have free ingress and regress to and from any other State.” Even the UN recognizes that “everyone has the right to freedom of movement.“ Not to mention, the US Supreme Court has recognized the right to travel. In U.S. v Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966), the Court noted, “It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized.” In fact, in Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), Justice Stewart noted in a concurring opinion that “it is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, … it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all.”

Since the TSA is “security theater” and individuals have a right to travel and a right to not be subjected to invasive searched without a warrant & probable cause; it should be clear that any government agent should be held accountable for their actions, when such actions violate common rights!

–
In Peace, Freedom, Love & Liberty,
Darryl W. Perry
Chair Boston Tea Party National Committee
http://BostonTea.us
Owner/Managing Editor Free Patriot Press
http://FreePatriot-Press.com
2016 candidate for President of the United States of America
http://dwp2016.org

Darryl W. Perry is an Activist, Author, Poet & Statesman. Darryl writes a weekly article for the Mountaineer Jeffersonian, a monthly article for The Sovereign and has appeared on various alternative media talking about his books, political career and goals. Darryl is the Chairman of the Boston Tea Party National Committee and Owner/Managing Editor of Free Patriot Press.

To schedule an interview with Darryl please send an email to editor@freepatriot-press.com or call 202 709 4377

Memorial Day has become the unofficial start of Summer, a time for businesses to hold sales and a time for family barbecues. It has also lost a lot of meaning in recent years, as people say “Memorial Day is a time to remember our men & women in uniform.” Memorial Day was first celebrated as “Decoration Day” when friends and family would decorate the graves of soldiers killed during the American Civil War. In 1971, Memorial Day became an official federal holiday and became a holiday to remember all victims of war.

Most people only think of soldiers, their families and civilian casualties as being “victims of war.” And most people think only of war as a military campaign using weapons. However, there are many more victims of war.

Millions of non-violent men and women are being held captive by federal, State and municipal governments as prisoners of the “drug war.” Aside from the 1/2 million inmates across the country at any given time and the 1.7 million people arrested for drug offenses (over 80% for simple possession), there are many more victims of the drug war. Victims such as 28 years old Rev. Jonathan Ayers who was killed by undercover officers in September, 2009 after meeting with a member of his congregation who happened to be under surveillance by drug cops. Baptist missionary Veronica Bowers and her 7 month old daughter Charity Bowers, who were killed by drug the Peruvian Air Force after the CIA gave Peru bad information. Many other victims of the drug war have been killed by simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time, or because the police performed a “no knock” raid on the wrong house and the home owner was attempting to defend himself (or herself) from who they perceived to be intruders.

There are millions of families that are “trapped” in housing developments and neighborhoods they have little or no way to escape as prisoners of the “war on poverty.” The war on poverty has created a catch-22, or what Mary Ruwart calls “the poverty trap” – people can’t find jobs due to living in a poor neighborhood, and can’t leave the poor neighborhood because they have no job. The Urban Institute writes, “Place reinforces poverty. High-poverty neighborhoods can weigh down families trying to earn a living and raise kids. High crime, low-performing schools, and scarce job opportunities often plague poor communities—undermining families’ struggles to improve their lives.” Is it any wonder that people in these bad neighborhoods turn to black-market activities? Mary Ruwart writes, “Many individuals are capable of creating wealth but are excluded from the job market by minimum wage and licensing laws. Much poverty can be alleviated by allowing people to create wealth at whatever level they can and ‘work their way up.’”

In addition to the “drug war” and “war on poverty” countless men and women that are being watched, tracked and databased for being a “potential threat” as part of the “war on terror” according to one or more government agencies, for such things as: displaying certain bumper stickers, opposing the IRS & Federal Reserve, or simply believing that the government isn’t wonderful. We have lost our “right” to travel, our “right” to not be subjected to warrantless searches, our “right” to live without government interference.

This Memorial Day, remember not only the men, women & children that have been killed during war; I ask that you also remember the other victims of the governments wars on freedom & family.

In Peace, Freedom, Love & Liberty,
Darryl W. Perry
Chair Boston Tea Party National Committee
BostonTeaUS

Last week President Obama said:

The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.

Wayne Allyn Root claims:

“For the first time in history an American President has chosen to abandon our great friend and ally, Israel, in favor of radical Muslims led by the terrorist group Hamas.”

It seems Root missed the part of the speech where Obama said, “Palestinian leaders will not achieve peace or prosperity if Hamas insists on a path of terror and rejection. And Palestinians will never realize their independence by denying the right of Israel to exist.”

However, since President Obama wants to redraw borders to achieve peace; I’m curious if the President will also call upon a return to the United Kingdom’s pre-1920 borders – that should help achieve peace in Northern Ireland by unifying Ireland. Maybe China should return to pre-1950 borders to allow for an independent Tibet. Maybe all of Europe should again be under Rome’s control. Or, maybe the United States should not be involved in policy making that does not directly affect the United States. President Obama hinted at this – though it is doubtful he will not continue to involve the United States. “Ultimately, it is up to Israelis and Palestinians to take action. No peace can be imposed upon them, nor can endless delay make the problem go away. But what America and the international community can do is state frankly what everyone knows: a lasting peace will involve two states for two peoples. Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people; each state enjoying self-determination, mutual recognition, and peace.”

The President further stated, “There must be no doubt that the United States of America welcomes change that advances self-determination and opportunity… We support a set of universal rights. Those rights include free speech; the freedom of peaceful assembly; freedom of religion; equality for men and women under the rule of law; and the right to choose your own leaders.”

If the President really supported self-determination, as he claims, he would urge Congress to allow American territories a vote on independence. Or does he only support self-determination for people that aren’t “his subjects”?

If the President truly supported free speech & free assembly, he would not have allowed the use of military as “crowd control” during the 2009 G-20 summit in Pittsburgh. Or does he only support free speech & free assembly when it is others that are being criticized?

American foreign policy should be: no foreign aid to any nation, no military base in any nation, and as Thomas Jefferson suggested “peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none.”

Obama also states,“the United States of America was founded on the belief that people should govern themselves.” What about those that do not wish to be governed? Can we “exempt” ourselves and/or form voluntaryist communities? Or does he believe that only non-Americans should govern themselves?

–
In Peace, Freedom, Love & Liberty,
Darryl W. Perry
Chair Boston Tea Party National Committee
http://BostonTea.us
Owner/Managing Editor Free Patriot Press
http://FreePatriot-Press.com
2016 candidate for President of the United States of America
http://dwp2016.org

Darryl W. Perry is an Activist, Author, Poet & Statesman. Darryl writes a weekly article for the Mountaineer Jeffersonian, a monthly article for The Sovereign and has appeared on various alternative media talking about his books, political career and goals. Darryl is the Chairman of the Boston Tea Party National Committee and Owner/Managing Editor of Free Patriot Press.

To schedule an interview with Darryl please send an email to editor@freepatriot-press.com or call 202 709 4377

On Friday May 13, two people announced their intentions to run for President. Jason Gatties announced that he will seek the nomination of the Boston Tea Party, “I want to ensure the BTP members have a true liberty minded candidate to consider for the nomination when we all come together and vote in December.”[BTP] Though Ron Paul’s announcement that he will seek the Republican Presidential nomination garnered much more media atention. Paul said “Time has come around to the point where the people are agreeing with much of what I’ve been saying for 30 years the time is right.” When asked why he would not run as an independent candidate Paul said, “Running as an Independent here is just about impossible unless you’re a billionaire like Ross Perot. You don’t get on debates. If I was an independent George, you would not have me on this program (Good Morning America) this morning.” He continued by saying that he is a Republican and has been “all these years” except for 1 year and that he will “nudge Republicans to stick to their guns on fiscal conservatism.”

Ron Paul is partially correct, he likely wouldn’t get into debates if he were an independent or “minor party” candidate. Though to say it’s “impossible” to run as an independent is not true. It is difficult, though not impossible to obtain ballot access in enough States to theoretically win a majority of the Electoral College votes. In fact, in each of the last 5 Presidential elections,at least 3 candidates that were not members of the Republicratic Duopoly were on enough ballots to theoretically win the Presidential election. In 2008, Ron Paul even held a press conference inviting the four “minor party”/independent Presidential candidates that could have theoretically won the election. Only three of the candidates attended – Constitution Party Chuck Baldwin, a Baptist minister; Green Party nominee Cynthia McKinney, a former Congresswoman from Georgia; and Independent Ralph Nader – united in agreement and support of a four-point platform on foreign policy, privacy, the national debt, and the Federal Reserve. Bob Barr opted not to attend claiming it would be a “waste of time” to attend since Paul was not going to endorse anyone for president. During the press conference Ron Paul called upon voters to reject Democrat Barak Obama and Republican John McCain and cast their ballots in November for one of the four third-party candidates instead.

“This (election) system is driven by the conviction that only a major party candidate can win,” said Paul. “Voters become convinced that any other vote is a wasted vote. It’s time for that conclusion to be challenged and to recognize that the only way not to waste one’s vote is to reject the two establishment candidates and join the majority (of Americans), once called silent, and allow the voices of the people to be heard.”

I’m curious if Ron Paul will once again call upon voters to reject the Republican & Democratic parties if he doesn’t win the GOP nomination. If Ron Paul does win the GOP nomination, will he agree to debate his “minor party” opponents? I for one, would like to see a debate between Ron Paul, Ralph Nader and the nominees of several minor parties. However, that debate can only happen if the GOP allows Ron Paul to become their nominee AND Ron Paul is allowed by the GOP to debate a candidate not named Barack Obama.

I will not discourage anyone from campaigning for Ron Paul or any other candidate seeking any party’s nomination. That being said, instead I will focus my energy on building the Boston Tea Party, ensuring the party nominates the best candidate possible and obtaining ballot access in as many states as possible.

–
In Peace, Freedom, Love & Liberty,
Darryl W. Perry
Chair Boston Tea Party National Committee
http://BostonTea.us
Owner/Managing Editor Free Patriot Press
http://FreePatriot-Press.com
2016 candidate for President of the United States of America
http://dwp2016.org

Darryl W. Perry is an Activist, Author, Poet & Statesman. Darryl writes a weekly article for the Mountaineer Jeffersonian, a monthly article for The Sovereign and has appeared on various alternative media talking about his books, political career and goals. Darryl is the Chairman of the Boston Tea Party National Committee and Owner/Managing Editor of Free Patriot Press.

To schedule an interview with Darryl please send an email to editor@freepatriot-press.com or call 202 709 4377