Roger Gary’s statement on the entry of Gov. Gary Johnson into the race for the Libertarian Party presidential nomination

“While most Libertarians, including myself, would disagree with Gov. Johnson on some of the issues, he, like Representative Ron Paul, has distinguished himself from the “politics-as-usual” Republicans running for that party’s presidential nomination.

“The refusal by the Republican establishment to include Gov. Johnson in presidential debates and straw polls shows how hostile that establishment is to the concept of small and limited government. This is also shown by their treatment of Dr. Paul Likewise, their treatment of Gov. Roemer shows that they are hostile toward a candidate who, while not as committed to small government as Gary Johnson and Ron Paul, has a record of refusing to “go along to get along”.

“Now that Gov. Johnson has entered the Libertarian presidential race, I will welcome the chance to compare platforms as we meet potential delegates across America. His entry will certainly make it more difficult for the Establishment media to pretend no alternative exists to the two wings of The Beltway Party.

“That said, however, let us remember that nominating candidates whose previous political history has been with other parties has never come close to achieving the breakthrough that supporters of such candidates keep claiming such a move will achieve.”

———————————–

See the original article here.

Three candidates have paid the $2,500 filing fee to appear on the Texas Democratic presidential primary. Besides President Obama, they are Darcy Richardson of Florida, and Bob Ely of Illinois.

The web page for Richardson is darcy2012.com. The web page for Ely is workmorekeepless.com.

It is possible others will qualify, because the deadline is not until Monday, December 19.

Darcy Richardson was already on the ballot in Oklahoma, Missouri, Louisiana, and New Hampshire. Richardson has been involved in third parties in the past, especially The Consumer Party.

The district Mack is running in has been represented by Republican Lamar Smith since 1987.

            On June 1, 1954, Congress passed a law which officially changed the annual November 11 holiday from Armistice Day to Veterans Day.  The Korean War had ended less than a year earlier, and according to President Eisenhower’s Proclamation 3071, Congress changed the name of the holiday “in order that a grateful Nation might pay homage to the veterans of all its wars who have contributed so much to the preservation of this Nation.”

Holidays are important events for society.  They not only commemorate significant events in history, they also indicate what society’s values are.  So for example, Thanksgiving Day is about far more than the Wampanoag Indians rescuing a few Pilgrims from starvation.  Rather, Americans take the opportunity to reflect on the many things for which we can be grateful.  Likewise, Martin Luther King Day is not just a celebration of the man’s life, but also of the values which he symbolizes: racial tolerance, equal opportunity, and brotherhood across ethnic lines.

These holidays also provide opportunities for learning.  By observing them, we show new members of American society (children and immigrants) that we place a high value on those things that we celebrate: an attitude of thanksgiving, our national independence, the memory of those who have died in the armed services, etc., etc.  Holidays also subconsciously reinforce those values for the rest of us.

Surely, it is a good thing to pay tribute to those brave men and women who honestly place their lives at risk to protect our safety and our freedom.  However, when Congress changed Armistice Day to Veterans Day, it set the Law of Unintended Consequences into motion.

You see, Armistice Day celebrated the end of a war.  In fact, it was the only holiday we had that was dedicated to peace.  We have several holidays to celebrate our soldiers: Memorial Day, Independence Day, even Pearl Harbor Day (which is always recognized in the news media, even though it is not a legal holiday).  But when Congress changed Armistice Day to Veterans Day, it denied Americans of our only holiday devoted to peace.

Of course, this was not Congress’s intent.  In fact, Eisenhower’s proclamation urges us to “reconsecrate ourselves to the task of promoting an enduring peace so that their efforts [i.e., those of the fallen soldiers] shall not have been in vain.”  However, with the passage of time, the idea of peace has faded from our public ceremonies.  When was the last time Cindy Sheehan or Howard Zinn was invited to speak at City Hall on Veterans Day?  How would the crowd react if the Boston Pops played “Give Peace a Chance” or “Peace Train” at the park?  And yet, that would not be out of character with the original legislation at all.

It’s like those bumper stickers that say, “Support Our Troops,” where the words “support” and “troops” are written in red, but the word “our” is in blue, all on a white background.  As the colors fade, the blue fades first, leaving a message which is very different from the original one.

So, now we have three holidays (plus D-Day and Pearl Harbor Day) to celebrate and honor the war-making institutions of our country.  But since Dr. Martin Luther King’s opposition to the Vietnam War is always carefully avoided in the Martin Luther King Day observances, we don’t have any holidays to celebrate peace.

Maybe this actually gives a more accurate picture of America’s values today.  After all, we have been involved in an endless series of wars against some vague, ill-defined “terror” groups for a decade.  And both the Bush and Obama administrations have seemed intent on implementing the Project for a New American Century’s 2000 policy document, Rebuilding America’s Defenses, complete with its “two-war” standard.

But is that really the vision of America that we want?  Do we really want to transmit the emphasis on war-making to our descendants, or do we want to balance it with a vision of peace, as well?

No, it’s time for Veteran’s Day to find another date.  As Americans, it’s time for us to “reconsecrate ourselves to the task of promoting an enduring peace,” and reclaim our celebration of stopping one of the worst episodes of mass murder in Earth’s history.

It’s time for us to reclaim Armistice Day.

The Texans running for President also include Ron Paul (himself a former Libertarian presidential candidate in 1988) as well as current Republican frontrunner Rick Perry and several much lesser known Republicans, and one perennial Democratic candidate.

The eventual Republican, Democratic and Libertarian nominees will be on the ballot in Texas and other states (although the Libertarian may or may not fail to make the ballot in a small handful of other states). The Independent, Eco-Green and Madisonian Federalist candidates are far less likely to appear on the ballot due to
discriminatory ballot access laws. There is also a Green Party currently qualified for the ballot in Texas and a number of other states, but that is not the same as the Eco-Greens, who are not currently on the ballot in any state that I know of. To my knowledge, the Madisonian Federalists are not on any state ballots either.

In addition to Paul, the Libertarians ran Texan Michael Badnarik for President in 2004. Texas resident Mary Ruwart was a close second for the Libertarian nomination in 2008. Republicans and Democrats have also run and elected a number of Texans for President, most recently two Bushes for the Republicans and Lyndon Johnson for the Democrats.

Among Independent candidates, Texan H. Ross Perot was the last to break into double digits in a Presidential race.

-Paulie

Last Saturday, Texas Governor Rick Perry unofficially launched his 2012 Presidential candidacy in Houston (in my opinion). Speculation is he will officially announce his intentions this weekend in South Carolina. If he does declare his candidacy, many election-watchers say Perry will become the GOP frontrunner, due to an extremely weak field of declared candidates. If Perry does declare his candidacy, everyone will know that the Houston event was staged for the purpose of launching his Presidential bid, rhetoric to the contrary notwithstanding.

If Perry declares his candidacy (and I’m confident he will), people should also realize that the Houston event was a precursor to the type of campaign that Perry will use throughout the Republican primary season. As a fellow Texan, it was not lost on Rick Perry how George W. Bush obtained the Republican nomination–and eventually the White House. In short, Rick Perry is going to use the G.W. Bush model to win a Presidential election.

Think about it: G.W. Bush won the White House after an extremely unpopular liberal Democrat had been President. Barack Obama’s popularity is even lower than Bill Clinton’s was–and Clinton was only the second President in US history to ever be impeached! Bush’s campaign boss, Karl Rove, brilliantly painted G.W. Bush as being a wholesome “born again Christian,” which played very well with a Christian electorate that was tired of being embarrassed by a lying, philandering reprobate living in the White House.

In 2012, the American electorate, especially the Christian electorate, is totally fed up with an incumbent President whom everyone knows to be extremely sympathetic to Muslim and Marxist ideologies. Plus, a sizeable percentage of the American people truly suspect that Obama was NOT born in the United States and is, therefore, not even qualified to be President. This is the stage upon which Rick Perry appears. It is a stage very similar to the one George W. Bush stepped onto in 2000. And just as Bush played the “born again Christian” card to the max in the 2000 Presidential campaign, so Rick Perry appears to be ready to do in 2012. That is what the Houston event was all about last Saturday.

Billed as “A Day of Prayer and Fasting,” the event solidified Perry’s preferred status among evangelical Christians. With the help of the American Family Association (which reportedly contributed up to a million dollars to the event), James Dobson’s Focus on the Family, and Cornerstone Church’s (San Antonio) Pastor John Hagee, Perry is all but assured of cornering the “born again” vote, just as G.W. Bush did in 2000.

One would like to think that America’s Christians learned something from the two GWB administrations, but it doesn’t appear that they have. I think it is safe to say that Dobson, Hagee, et al, would endorse ANYONE nominated by the Republican Party. They have already proven that, have they not? James Dobson went so far as to humiliate himself by endorsing big government John McCain in the 2008 general elections, even after vowing publicly that he would “NEVER” support McCain. During the primaries, however, the Republican candidate who can “talk the Bible” the best can expect the support of these clueless evangelical leaders. And this time around, it appears that Rick Perry is that man. You can rest assured if Perry doesn’t win the nomination, Dobson and Hagee will be right there for whoever does.

For the record, I invite anyone out there who still labors under the delusion that George W. Bush presided over some kind of “born again” Christian administration to check out the vast amounts of information I have compiled on my web site that exposes Bush as being just another big government elitist, who did as much (or more) to strip America of its God-given liberties as any other President in history. See the record here.

Furthermore, even cursory research will uncover the fact that the Bush and Clinton families have long collaborated together in criminal activity on a massive scale–activity that, in all likelihood, continues to this very day. (I still say, don’t be surprised if Obama dumps Joe Biden as his Vice President and puts Hillary Clinton on the ticket before next year’s elections.)

Of course, G.W. Bush was never held accountable by evangelical Christian voters for his unconstitutional conduct. All they cared about was Bush’s Christian rhetoric. And it does appear that is all they care about today. As a result, Rick Perry will prove to be a formidable candidate in the GOP primaries.

I have said over and over again that I would rather vote for an unbeliever who would preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, than vote for a believer who would NOT preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States! The pious rhetoric of political candidates means nothing!

If I hire a plumber to fix a drainage problem at my house, I am not interested so much in where he goes to church, or whether he teaches Sunday School, or what denomination he claims. I am hiring him to fix my plumbing! We sign a contract, he and I. I promise to pay him “X” amount of dollars, and he promises that when he’s finished, my toilets will flush. Christian or not, I expect him to honor the terms of his contract.

Ladies and gentlemen, when we elect a civil magistrate (at any level), we are entering into a contract with the one we elected. We gave them our support, which allowed them to obtain public office, and they promise (before Almighty God) to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. They do not promise to be “good Christians.” They do not promise to be “good Republicans.” They do not promise to be “good conservatives.” They take an oath before God (they sign a contract with the American people) to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. And it is our job as citizens to hold our civil magistrates to their oath! In fact, if any elected office holder were a TRUE Christian, he or she would take their oath even more seriously, would they not?

Instead of being excited about a candidate claiming to be a Christian, or claiming to pray and read his or her Bible, we need to get excited about a candidate who is serious about preserving the liberties of the American people, and who makes a commitment to protect and preserve the principles enshrined in our Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, and US Constitution!

Before we talk about Rick Perry’s commitment to prayer and fasting, let’s find out if Rick Perry believes that there must be a Declaration of War before America begins invading, bombing, and occupying foreign countries. Let’s find out if he believes he has the authority as President to use US military forces against American citizens. Let’s find out if he believes he has the authority to give billions and trillions of dollars away to foreign countries. Let’s find out if he plans to commit US military forces to the whims of the United Nations Security Council. Let’s find out if he supports the Military Commissions Act. Let’s find out if he supports the Patriot Act. Let’s find out if he believes the US government has the authority to use super-computers and advanced technology to continue to turn the United States into a giant surveillance-society. Let’s find out how serious he is about closing that southern border: speaking of which, what did Rick Perry do as governor of the border State of Texas to stop illegal immigration? And while we are on the subject of Border States, what did Rick Perry do to stop the NAFTA superhighway? Before we get excited about Rick Perry being a “good Christian,” let’s find out if he supports the Council of Governors, or the North American Union, or the Continuity of Government, or Agenda 21. Let’s find out if Perry will launch a Justice Department investigation into the ATF’s (under Barack Obama and Eric Holder) clandestine operation of providing firearms to Mexican drug gangs. We could go on and on with these kinds of questions.

The sad truth is, our illustrious evangelical leaders on the right are just as culpable in the dismantling and deterioration of the American republic as are those on the political or religious left! Both sides are willing to give their favored politicos a pass on constitutional governance. And ladies and gentlemen, that is why it hasn’t mattered to a tinker’s dam whether a Democrat or Republican, “liberal” or “conservative” is in the White House! And that’s why it won’t matter in 2012.

Besides, if James Dobson and John Hagee were truly interested in protecting and preserving the principles enshrined in our Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, and US Constitution, they would be promoting the candidacy of Ron Paul. But, unfortunately, they wouldn’t do it in 2008, and they won’t do it in 2012. They lack both the courage and the sagacity.

We don’t need another George W. Bush in the White House. For that matter, we don’t need another Jimmy Carter in the White House. What we need is a President (governor, mayor, sheriff, etc.) who will preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States!

Sent to IPR by Ryan Brennan, editor & webmaster of www.ThirdPartyPolitics.us

AUSTIN, TEXAS – Within hours of Rep. Ron Paul’s announcement that he will not seek re-election to Congress to focus on his bid for the Republican nomination for President, three Libertarians announced their intent to seek the Libertarian Party of Texas nomination for the seat.

Beaumont real estate agent Amy Jacobellis, 54, serves currently as Chair of the Jefferson County LP affiliate. She said the 2011 Texas legislature’s congressional redistricting expanded Texas-14 east to include all of Jefferson County. “I’m a resident of this newly-drawn Congressional District, and I’m really pleased to compete for the opportunity to represent the district held by Dr. Paul for more than two decades.” 409.291.2270 or amyjacobelli@gmail.com

Bob Smither, 66, a fifth-generation Texan, holds a Ph.D in electrical engineering from the University of Houston. In 2006 he was the Libertarian Party of Texas’ candidate in the special election to replace former U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay, capturing 6% of the vote. A self-employed engineering consultant, Dr. Smither chairs the Galveston County LP affiliate. 713.443.0130 or bob@smither.net

Dallas attorney Eugene Flynn, 62, serves on the Texas State Libertarian Executive Committee, following terms in 2002-03 and 2008-10 on the body. He was admitted to the Texas Bar in 1980 and is certified in the area of Immigration and Nationality Law by the Board of Legal Specialization of the State Bar of Texas. In 2002 Mr. Flynn was the Libertarian Party’s candidate for Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court. He garnered 80,185 votes. 214.821.1661 or ejflynnlaw@gmail.com

Said Libertarian Party of Texas Chair Pat Dixon, “Dr. Paul has served honorably for 12 terms as ‘the Libertarian’ representative in Congress. The Libertarian Party is proud to offer the voters of District 14 a representative in Congress who will continue to uphold the same principles to which Dr. Paul has remained committed, and that are completely absent in the Republican and Democratic parties.”

The Libertarian Party is the third-largest political party in Texas, and stands for constitutional government, free markets, civil liberties and peace.

You can find more information on the Libertarian Party of Texas at www.lptexas.org.

Note: According to the Libertarian Party, an earlier version of this article incorrectly stated that Bob Smither received 18% of the vote in 2006. The correct number is 6%.

Dallas Texas, for immediate release:

Something must be up in Deep Ellum because just as Drowning Pool bassist Steve Benton leases the Boiler Room location, former Deep Ellum musician John Jay Myers will be reopening Sol’s Taco Lounge as “The Free Man”.

Some may know Myers from Dallas rock outfits such as Huge Peter (check with your parents or Zac Crain), Crash Vinyl (featuring members of Death Ray Davies), Happiness Factor (with Salim Nourallah), and even brief stints with Max Cady, and The Backsliders.

Others are going to know John Jay as the anti-war Libertarian candidate that ran against Pete Sessions and the outspoken activist against the Dallas city-owned hotel. But Myers is putting politics aside to focus on getting this venue on its feet.

“Our primary goal of “The Free Man” is to serve delicious Cajun food” says Myers, he has enlisted former Pittsburgh Steelers player-turned-chef Ricky Sutton to get the recipes just right.

“Think of it as a twist on Stubbs,” says Myers, “Cajun food with an alt/rock venue in the evenings.” The bar is located next to the truly unique Adair’s Saloon which is the side-by-side sister building to Myers’ new venue.

“I will be putting in a stage,” says Myers, “and during the evening we will have dinner shows, like jazz trios and piano players, but after 10:00 it will turn into a showcase venue for small alternative acts that attract from 80 to 150 people, it will be a treat for those who like their music up close and personal.”

The name comes from the fact that Deep Ellum was built by “Freed Men”, combined with Myers’ libertarian leanings and the idea that he was finally able to buy his first bar, so “the name just fit.”

The recipes and the August bookings are still “cooking”, but you can get a brief look at a possible menu and other info at www.freemandallas.com.

The grand opening will by Friday, August 5th, with special guest The Backsliders.

—————————-

For more information, contact John Jay Myers or call 469-939-7141.  “The Free Man Cajun restaurant and Lounge” in Deep Ellum, 2626 Commerce Street, Dallas TX 75226.  Or see the website at www.FreeManDallas.com .

By Wayne Allyn Root, Former Libertarian Vice Presidential Nominee and creator of ROOTforAmerica.com

The U.S. economy is crumbling. Businesses are collapsing in record numbers. Jobs have disappeared. Tax revenues are down dramatically. Coincidence?

Everything happening today under Obama resembles the storyline of Ayn Rand’s famous book, Atlas Shrugged, one of the most popular books of all time, selling over 7 million copies. Now, under President Obama, Atlas Shrugged has come to life. Rand prophesized a country dominated by socialists, Marxists and statists, where looters, free loaders and poverty promoters live off the productive class. To rationalize the fleecing of innovative business owners and job creators, the looter class demonized the wealthy, just as Obama and his socialist cabal are doing in real life today.

The central plot of Atlas Shrugged is that in response to being demonized, over-taxed, over-regulated, and punished for success, America’s business owners were disappearing — dropping off the grid, and refusing to work 16-hour days to support those unwilling to put in the same blood, sweat and tears. They were going on strike. Because of that the original proposed title of “Atlas Shrugged” was “The Strike.”

They were going on strike to teach that civilization cannot survive when people are slaves to government. That without a productive class of innovative business owners willing to risk their own money and work 16-hour days, weekends and holidays, there are no jobs and no taxes to pay for government. If you punish the wealthy, the risk-takers, the innovators, you kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. In Obama’s America, fiction is becoming fact.

The lesson of Atlas Shrugged is that without the $100,000+ earners paying into Social Security, there are no pensions for the poor and lower middle class. Without the wealthy owners of million-dollar mansions paying $25,000 and $50,000 annual property tax bills, there is no funding for public schools. Without the wealthy paying into Medicare, there is no “free” healthcare for the elderly. Without capitalists motivated by profit, there are no discoveries to eradicate polio or create miraculous cancer and AIDS drugs. Without capitalists motivated by profit, there are no jobs, period! That is what happens when the producers of society go on strike to protect themselves from the looters.

Ayn Rand was warning the looters that there are consequences to their overzealous actions. She was warning that if the productive classes felt used, demonized, ripped off, and taken for granted, they would go on strike — stop working, retire early, go underground, or move to places where achievement is celebrated and they feel appreciated.

The latest U.S. Census proves Ayn Rand right. Under Obama the wealthy are striking, voting with their feet. They are moving to low-tax red states in droves, escaping from high-tax blue states where they are being demonized and punished by the millions.

The Census proves that Obama’s tax and spend philosophy is a dismal failure, an economic disaster killing jobs. It is no coincidence that 1.9 million FEWER Americans are working than before Obama’s stimulus. It is no coincidence that jobs are not returning to the private sector. It is no coincidence that tax revenues have dropped dramatically and cannot support Obama’s bloated Big Brother government. The innovators, risk-takers, and wealthy he demonized and punished are on strike.

The high tech revolution has killed the progressive-liberal tax-and-spend dream. Because of the Internet, email, Facebook, Twitter, Skype, Satellite TV, I-phones, I-pads, and cell phones, business owners are no longer prisoners of Big Brother. Take a look at states where the latest Census shows Americans moved during the past decade: Nevada, Texas, Arizona, Florida, Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alaska, Virginia — all low- or no-tax red states, states that lead the USA in economic freedom.

Now look at states they escaped from: New York, New Jersey, California, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Illinois, Michigan. Taxpayers, business owners, jobs creators, retirees with assets are fleeing the high tax, big spending, Big Brother states — the states being run like Obama is running the nation.

Progressives be afraid, be very afraid. If Obama is re-elected, these valuable producers will pick up and leave America altogether. There is a big world out there begging them to come. Places like Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, Monte Carlo, Belize, Costa Rica, Panama, Bahamas, and Cayman Islands are low-tax havens that appreciate business owners and their sacrifices. They welcome wealthy ex-patriates. They celebrate individual achievement. They reward instead of punish business owners and financial risk-takers. They are wonderful places to live and are aggressively pursuing Americans.

I am just one small businessman, a third-party Libertarian political leader. Yet I personally have heard from thousands of fans, friends and supporters who have left America, are thinking of leaving America, are visiting other countries right now to decide where to go, or making preparations to leave in case Obama is re-elected. Just as Ayn Rand predicted, business owners are going on strike. Permanently.

The high tech revolution has freed them to run their businesses from anywhere in the world. The same high tech tools and toys that toppled a powerful and invincible 30-year dictator in Egypt and now threaten to topple powerful leaders throughout the Arab world, also offer mobility and freedom to U.S. taxpayers. Obama better learn the lesson of Mubarek before millions more business people decide they do not need to put up with looters, free loaders, and politicians who despise them.

Atlas is shrugging. Ayn Rand is saying “I told you so.”

And The Strike has begun.

Wayne Allyn Root is a former Libertarian vice presidential nominee. He now serves as Chairman of the Libertarian National Congressional Committee. He is the best-selling author of “The Conscience of a Libertarian: Empowering the Citizen Revolution with God, Guns, Gold & Tax Cuts.” His web site: www.ROOTforAmerica.com

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state.

SAN ANGELO, Texas — “They would suffer irreparable harm.” That is what federal Judge Fred Biery said would happen to members of the Schultz family if they attended their son’s graduation ceremony at Medina Valley ISD.

What was going to happen that would cause this harm? Were they threatened with violence? Were they going to be verbally accosted? Were there insufficient handicapped accommodations to allow them to view their son walking across the stage to receive his diploma? No, nothing like any of that.

Biery ruled that hearing other people pray would harm the Schultzes. Words not directed at them, but rather words directed to a supernatural being they do not believe exists would cause them harm.

It requires a degree of judicial imagination that exceeds the realm of reasonability to convince oneself that harm will occur in a situation where the potential for it does not exist. Of course, they wouldn’t be harmed. You know it, I know it, the Schultz family knows it and Judge Fred Biery knows it.

When his ruling is reviewed, it is plain that he ignored a concept that an eighth-grade civics student is expected to comprehend; there is nothing in the Constitution, written or implied, that protects a person from being in the presence of others who are exercising their rights under the First Amendment.

In essence, Biery circumvented Article V of the Constitution and amended it to include this right. Just in case you don’t know, that isn’t how it is supposed to work.

This is nothing more than world-class judicial activism. And for those who are unaware of what that means, a single human being has come to the conclusion that his personal views are more important than the law of the land.

And, contrary to what those who agree with Biery believe, he was not appointed to impose his personal views on the people under his jurisdiction. He was appointed to interpret the law as it exists.

We all see what is going on around us, in our state, in our nation and around the world. We are coming to recognize myriad threats to our sovereignty, our future and the future of freedom in general. It is, however, my humble opinion that the American people must come to recognize, and place the highest priority upon, the illegitimacy of judicial activism and its potential for detriment to our way of life.

Now, it certainly bears mentioning that on Friday, just in time for the graduation ceremony, a three-judge panel from the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Biery’s ruling. As a basis for their decision they declared the plaintiffs had not shown that the prayers were school-sponsored.

The prayers one hears at a public school commencement are part of the speech given by students who have earned the right to speak at the ceremony based on their academic performance. To tell them that they cannot offer a prayer as part of that speech violates not just the First Amendment itself, but also no less than two separate and individual rights protected by it — the right to the free exercise of religion and the right to free speech.

Many will say all’s well that ends well, and I, too, am glad that constitutional righteousness prevailed. But I, unlike so many others, am not willing to let it end there. This trend of judicial activism in defense of intolerance must be brought to an end.

The time has come for us to demand the U.S. Congress fulfill its obligation to us and review the “during good behavior” clause as it applies to federal judges. They must measure it against those who exploit their position and rule based on unsubstantiatable legal precedent as a means of imposing their personal views in place of an educated interpretation of the Constitution and previous legitimate rulings. Does, after all, ignoring the law, and the oath you swore, constitute good behavior?

In addition to the failure of those who have sworn to serve by upholding the Constitution above all else, there is another saddening trend marked by this incident. That is the ever-increasing level of retribution-inspired intolerance in this country.

We, as a nation, have a choice. We must look at ourselves in the mirror and ask if we, and more importantly our posterity, will be better served by vindictiveness and retribution. Or will giving as much tolerance as we expect, even when it strains our personal values, better enable our country to move forward productively, strengthening our sovereignty and ensuring the bright and prosperous future we all know we are capable of?

© by Ken Barton.  Published on IPR with the permission of the original author.

Ken Barton is a co-founder of the San Angelo Tea Party and vice chairman of the Libertarian Party of Tom Green County.  Contact him at ken@kenservative.com.

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

John Jay Myers, the Membership Director of the Libertarian Party talks about the Republican, Democratic and Libertarian Parties

By Betsy Turner & Job Eliazer

john myersQ: What is the Libertarian Party?

A: The Libertarian Party is the 3rd largest political party in the United States. One of the problems in America is the belief that we have a two party system and that keeps the people divided. For instance, I am an anti-war guy but I’m also a fiscal conservative. Well, where does that place me? Being anti-war will put me in the Democratic camp but being fiscally conservative will put me in the Republican camp. This means, I will never win a Republican primary or a Democratic primary. Libertarian Party gives people a choice, something other than what Republicans or Democrats offer them. Normally the American people are fiscally conservative but socially tolerant. They are described as people who just want their government to stop taking their money but they don’t mind what other people do.

Nowadays, we have seen so much of what the Republicans and Democrats have done. During the Republican administration we have had wars in Iraq and Afganistan. Obama has continued those wars and he has added more wars like the war in Libya. He has escalated troops over there. The Republicans talked about Medicaid and Medicare. They increased 20 trillion dollars worth of unfunded liabilities through the 2004 Medicare Part D plan. Yet, when Obama comes up with a healthcare bill they say we cannot have that. It is hypocritical for the Republicans to say that. And then there is the TARP Bailout. The Republicans say we cannot have these bailouts when they are fully responsible for the bailouts. Pete Sessions, John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan all voted for the bailouts. American people are blind. Both sides are the same at the top. Libertarians give people a choice and that choice is to say NO to what we have.

An English Philosopher G.K. Chesterton from the 30’s said that we are always getting divided into two because the progressives want to muck things up and bring money to their side whereas the conservatives just allow things to remain mucked up but they are always promising that they will do something about it.

Right now the way we handle money is we earn $22,000 and we spend $38,000 a year. That is what we do every year. People like Paul Krugman, American economist speak on television about how the economic theory works. Anyone with common sense knows that we need to stop spending money, The Republicans say that we need to stop spending money but not on the military. The Democrats say that we need to stop spending money but not on our welfare, entitlement states and the 70 trillion unfunded liabilities. My take on this is let us give up both and that is what the libertarian party stands for (Stop Spending Money).

Libertarians are basically little government people. Austrian philosophy points out that if the government gets involved it gets it wrong. If government gets involved it usually creates more problems and that is true. The way we can get America moving forward is by lessening the government in our lives, in particular the federal government and bring it close to local as possible. If I want to help the schools here why do I have to send money to Washington and they make a decision and send it back to me. We are right here; we can handle our own schools. The healthcare bill knows we are about to go through a recession and a huge depression in the country again. So the lobbyists for the insurance companies will make you buy their insurance so they will be fine. The same thing goes for the TARP bailout that is here to save us all. We will give a lot of money to the bank who knew the huge recession was coming up. So they will have the money when it actually has value and devalues the money in our pocket. The TARPs, wars in Libya and the rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan are politically influenced by the people who want us to spend a lot of money. For me, both the Republican and the Democratic parties are the same, they just pretend to be different.

It shouldn’t be the role of the government to be telling people what to do. You have the right to tell a person you should not be gay but you don’t have the right to use the government to do that. Regarding abortion, Republicans held the House, the Senate, the Presidency and the Supreme Court for six years during which time they never presented a bill on abortion. As soon as they lost power in 2006 a couple of people said “oh we need to pass this bill on abortion” but they knew that it will never pass. Republicans use this as an issue; they use it to vibe people. The democrats are glad that the Republicans have this as an issue because it helps them to divide the people. Neither one of them are for it. If you want to make abortion illegal you can never get a solution from the government. There are other ways outside of the political realm that could actually work. The libertarian Party will not pay for an abortion or support government to give money to a group that supports abortion, because we don’t believe that it is the government’s business. In the libertarian party there are people who are for abortion and people who are against abortion. We just don’t believe that the government should be involved. The government is not going to get rid of it. Even if they do get rid of abortion, it will be done illegally in the black market just like drugs.

If I had to make a new slogan for the libertarian party, it would be End the war, End corporatism, Live your life as you please.

Q: A lot of people don’t know about the libertarian party. How do you plan on educating the people?

A: The Libertarian party has 250 members and 20000 voters in Texas. We are trying to get the different counties setup and a county chair to head each county who will help the people get on the ballot. I am currently the Membership Director of the Texas libertarian party. In Texas out of 250 counties only 50 county chairs have been set up. My mission is to get a county chair in every county and a group underneath them. We need an organization in place for these people. We need an infrastructure set up in Texas. We are making five minutes activist videos to educate people about the libertarian party. We are doing everything to get the word out there that this party exists.

The other mission of the libertarian party is being a think tank, to influence other political parties. If the libertarian party gets 20% of the votes, the Republicans and the Democrats might start becoming like the Libertarian. For example, the Republicans might become anti-war or the Democrats might start putting the brakes on spending.

My original quote is I don’t believe that Barack Obama is singlehandedly destroying the country. I know that like the Republicans he is using both hands.

Read the article here

Even as Texas Governor and Republican Governors Association Chair Rick Perry encouraged Republican unity in the Kentucky gubernatorial race, saying that “there are those out there who will say 2010 was a fluke” and that Kentucky Republicans need to “send a strong message across this country that 2010 was real,” the Chair of the Kentucky GOP began threatening Tea Party-backed Republican candidates.

Phil Moffett and John T. Kemper III, Republican candidates for Governor and Auditor, respectively, had signed a petition which would allow Libertarian Party candidate for State Treasurer Ken Moellman a place on the ballot.

Republicans and Democrats do not need to collect signatures to appear on the ballot, but other parties must under Kentucky state law. “I don’t think that’s the right thing to do,” Moffett said. “We’re all Kentuckians. We’re all citizens. And we should all have equal access.”

Kentucky GOP Chair Steve Robertson has threatened to have both candidates removed from the ballot if they win the primary, using a provision of Kentucky election law. Candidates for election in a primary must sign a statement saying they “intend to support its principles and policies” of their party. Robertson alleges that signing a petition allowing another candidate to run for office violates this oath.

If upheld by the courts, his challenge would enable the second-place finisher to take the nomination. Should Moffett or Kemper win, the likely runners up would be candidates favored by party leaders such as Robertson.

“When it comes to competition, Mr. Robertson’s views appear closer to Karl Marx than Adam Smith,” said Free & Equal chair Christina Tobin. “How ironic that he would cite the principles of the Republican Party, while opposing a free market in ideas.”

###

Free & Equal is a nonpartisan, non-profit public-policy advocacy organization dedicated to election reform and improving ballot access laws in the United States.

Fellow North Texas Libertarians, yesterday the TXSLEC voted to bring me on board as the new Membership Director for the State of Texas!

http://lptexas.org/content/join-or-donate

My wife and our production manager will continue to run ClearSky24.com (my business) while I try to greatly increase the membership and activism in the state party. I will be traveling all over Texas on my own dime initially because unless we see great increases in membership or donations, I am working for free.

I hope to:

1. Increase awareness about what the state party is about, we are not just a political party, we are an activist community that keeps our eye on Washington and Austin, we will greatly increase our press releases and alerts in regards to “un-libertarian” bills sponsored by your Texas representatives.
2. JIncrease our membership.
3. Increase donations.
4. Increase our participating counties across Texas.

You may ask “what is the role of the Libertarian Party of Texas?” (compared to the LP or our county organization).  I see our role as:

1. Being an activist organization as described above.
2. Maintaining ballot access so our county organizations can continue to run candidates without over restrictive obstacles, these candidates are normally the best vehicle to carry our message and grow our ranks.
3. To assist counties in getting set up and running across Texas, right now we only have about 1/5 of our counties active. The county organizations are where the rubber meets the road, and can be vital in increasing our membership and our political power as an activist group.
4. To assist candidates in a number of ways during the elections. (see our policy manual for more info on that)
5. Increase outreach to people from all across Texas, even where we have no affiliates.
6. Marketing the party in a way that attracts new members, and in a fashion where the counties benefit from our positive message and research.
7. Maintaining a social media “face” for the state, via Facebook and our website,  as well as providing counties with template sites to help them get rolling.

I will be using every tool at my disposal to try to grow the party, I hope that you will take just a few minutes to join or renew your membership, and consider making a donation to the Libertarian Party of Texas, so I know you have my back!

http://lptexas.org/content/join-or-donate

Thank you so much!

John Jay Myers

So, here we go again. Another president is starting another war in another country that is no threat to us. And our mission will be limited because our goal is not to kill Gadhafi, only to stop him from killing the people who are trying to kill him. Oh yeah, this is going to go great.

Fake wars come in 2 flavors: Republicans will sell you a war based on the idea of protecting the security and safety of Americans, despite the lack of any immediate threat or even the military capability to harm the United States. Democrats sell their wars based on humanitarian reasons, despite humanitarian conditions and lack of freedom being far worse in many other countries that we consider our allies.

First, there is no threat to American security from Gadhafi. In fact, if Gadhafi’s “evil“ were charted on a graph, it would show a trend of diminishing greatly over time. Gadhafi was a very bad guy, but in the last few years he joined our coalition against terrorism, he got rid of his nuclear program, and has done nothing since to suggest he is a threat of any sort. But, Gadhafi has been pushing for nationalization of Libya’s oil industry since 2009. Could the “slaughter” of British Petroleum’s profits be the “inhumanity” we are there to prevent?

Furthermore, his son was in the United States working with our government military contractors. If Libya is such a threat, then why wasn’t Gadhafi’s son on the no fly list? I mean we have 10 year old Boy Scouts who inadvertently make it onto the no fly list, but not “the Butcher’s” son? Either “The Butcher” isn’t considered that bad of a guy, or we have the worst homeland security force ever… (okay I didn’t realize that statement would sound so ironic). I suppose you could make a case for bombing based on Gadhafi’s ties to the perennial economic threat and sponsor of dictators, the Federal Reserve, which gave Libya $26 billion during the financial crisis.

During his speech on March 28, President Obama imagines “mass graves” and an army threatening the “city of Benghazi, home to nearly 700,000 men, women and children who sought their freedom from fear.” But is this the reality? When they show the areas that were struck by Gadhafi, there are men with guns and tanks and/or anti aircraft guns. Something tells me Gadhafi does not consider them to be “his own people”. And Jon Lee Anderson reported that actual rebels number fewer than 1000. How many other humanitarian crises affecting 1000 people have we ignored? How many casualties will a war cause? It’s almost as if the rebels are just a small group of people who have been well armed and are paid to make a lot of noise in front of the media.

So that leads us to believe these wars must be about oil and resources, and once we became locked into this nightmare we are told that there are only 1000 soldiers fighting against Gadhafi, in a country of 6,000,000 people. I would have hoped that our commanders knew that tidbit prior to launching the first missile, and it’s odd that the media correspondents embedded with the rebels didn’t mention this earlier. And who are these people that we are supporting? Do we know anything about them or what they stand for? It seems like we might want to distribute some questionnaires and get a little insight. There are only 1000 of them, so it’s not like we have to poll half the country.

And what about the civilians that actually support Gadhafi? We act as if we are up against this one man, but it appears that is not the case. The rebels are being run out of towns by other citizens carrying guns. Once Gadahfi is taken out, are there not going to be countless dead people (citizens) on the other side? What about their lives? What about the people caught in the crossfire? Is it not humanitarian to try to save them?

But why do the Republicans not just join in with the Democrats so they can continue their wars for oil in bliss? Because that is the rub. They have to take different sides to maintain the illusion that Americans have a choice between two completely different ideologies. Then if the country gets completely fed up, the people will just vote for the other guy. If voters understood both sides were the same they would have to find someone else to vote for. They don’t want you going off and voting for a third party so they pretend they are different.

This latest war shows a lot about our own leadership. Fake wars come in two flavors. This one is the humanitarian variety. Could you tell the difference? If any of the selfless reasons offered by the president had any merit, then this country never would have sponsored puppet dictators nor removed democratically elected leaders elsewhere in the world. Both Republican and Democratic presidents have started wars for the same resources, placated the public with the same false humanitarian rhetoric, and demonized the enemy in the same way to focus the people’s hate. The fake wars may have two fake varieties, but the people behind them are all the same. So much for change.

The bad thing about the web is you get a lot of articles written by people who normally are not associated with a news source, and they say a lot about things they don’t know.

I suppose that would be the main reason why we have major news sources, because we want to be able to trust them, so we can have a constant source of information without having to wonder… “is this guy full of shit?”

You have to wonder, what is the point of having a source if what they are saying is biased or omits the facts? If I wanted that I would just use facebook as a news source.

For example CNN and FOX originally reported on Libya with one common theme, that Gadhafi was “slaughtering” his people and dropping bombs on “innocents”. This statement would be true if I we were allowed to say that the United States is slaughtering people in Iraq, or dropping bombs on innocents. We are actually not allowed to say that, but I just did.

Those types of things happen in a civil war, or any war, (that’s why wars suck) and when CNN shows pictures of where bombs landed, and you can see tanks in the background or Anti Aircraft guns, you have to wonder “Why are those things there?” You wonder that because as the purveyor of information the existence of this type of equipment does not fit the narrative they are selling you. Which makes you wonder “Why are they selling me a narrative?”

The fact that this is a civil war involving two sides in a foreign country that has nothing to do with us and has not attacked us, and is no threat to us, is not the narrative that the major news sources want to share. At least until we are knee deep in the muck….like for instance now.

If I had a tank and was threatening to take over Washington, I am reasonably certain there would be a bomb in my future.

How can our news sources be so ignorant of information? When I saw those tanks and anti aircraft guns the first thing that I thought was, “well apparently he is not bombing “his own people” he is bombing people that have obviously risen up against him for whatever reason.”

The point being, I don’t know the reason. But that is a step ahead of our major news sources which did not know this other side existed, even though they were standing in the background of their shot.

Tanks and Anti Air Craft guns do not materialize out of thin air, well, unless Libya has the most liberal 2nd Amendment interpretation I have ever heard of, if so, I like it.

Is it too much to ask that our news sources stop acting like complete morons waiting to be fed a story from our government and actually do research and report to us what is going on? Is that really too much to ask?

Freedom of the press was another guard against tyranical government not a protector of it. Certainly we should be able to count on companies that make millions of dollars to pay someone to actually find out what’s going on, instead we have to use underfunded sources like Antiwar.com and Lewrockwell.com to make heads or tails of our problems.

Are there any true investigative journalists whatsoever in the major media?

HB 418 withdrawn by bill author Berman

AUSTIN- In a victory for The Libertarian Party of Texas, State Representative Leo Berman (R -District 6) withdrew HB 418 on Monday. The bill would have imposed filing fees on third-party and independent candidates, resulting in an intimidating burden for these candidates on future ballots.

The party testified in opposition to the bill at the March 7 elections committee hearing and sent out a call to action on March 14 asking its members to contact representatives on the elections committee to state their opposition. Later that day, Rep. Berman’s office informed the party that HB 418 had been withdrawn.

“I am pleased with the support our membership gave us on this effort, and I appreciate Rep. Berman’s decision to withdraw this bill,” said Pat Dixon, Libertarian Party State Chair. “I welcome any future opportunities to meet with legislators to address problems in the election code or other policies.”

The Libertarian Party of Texas, always ready to work with those that share common principles, formed an impressive coalition effort to defeat this bill with the Green and Constitution Parties. Additionally, Andy Wilson of Public Citizen, Linda Curtis of Independent Texans and activist Rob Morrow joined in support.

Dixon added “Our effort to form a coalition with groups and individuals outside of our party on common ground issues such as voter choice is something we would like to do more of.” The Libertarian Party of Texas thanks its members for its continued support. The successful conclusion to the debate surrounding HB 418 serves as a reminder that informed citizens willing to take action can defend liberty.

See previous IPR story here

For more about the parade, see Dallas Libertarians participate in parade with 100,000 attendees, offer customizable video to other local LPs