Muddy Thoughts

In Memoriam, Surf, 2003-2011

2011-06-29T12:01:00.001-07:00

Surf, aka Slim Strider, went to the Rainbow Bridge this morning, to run free forever. He joins his love Bluebird there.

Surf came into our lives as Bluebird was exiting. She was terminal with cancer, after it had taken her leg and then her life. Her last task was to pick a new dog for us, and she picked him, coming through like the champion she truly was, picking a worthy successor for this family. For three days they laid on the sofa, nose to nose. I don't know what all she told him, but after she died, he gave us 4 1/2 years of love and devotion. He was so like her that occassionally we called him Bluebird by mistake. He didn't seem to mind.

When we got him, we were told he was a bounce from a previous owner and that he had raced at the Tijuana track. We never knew why he bounced, but over the years we've speculated that his previous owner died on him, away from him, went out, never came back, because Surf was always a Velcro dog, wanting to be near us, afraid to let us out of his sight. He would get paranoid when I'd go to work, but I always came home. We've also speculated that he had a hip injury at the track because he would not sit like other dogs--his hips would not let him do it. We never worried about it, but we wondered.

In the past week, Surf was suffering. He refused some food, was drinking water by the gallon, and was vomiting. A trip to the vet two days ago found a tumor the size of a small melon in his lower abdomen, bulging the sides, blocking the intenstinal tract and putting pressure on the grand aorta. We couldn't tell if it was in the intestine or on it, but it didn't matter. This tumor grew in about a week's time, the fastest I've ever seen, and that's scary in its own way. Surgery like that could kill him, and the odds were against it being recoverable. He was terminal, maybe a couple of weeks at most. But he had less time than that. We decided to make him as comfortable as we could, but it didn't help. Last night was his worst night, and he gave us "the look." It was time. This morning I took him back to the vet and held him and told him we loved him as his last moments in this plane passed. I bawled my eyes out. We all loved him. As it should be done, his collar, his bond to us, stayed on until after it was over. If it came off before that he'd feel abandoned. It went on him when we adopted him, and he knew what it meant then--they always do. It would not have been right to remove it before he was gone.

He's free of the pain now, but I'm not. I've done this too damned many times, and it always hurts. So I'm writing this to try to cope.

Surf is survived at home by Molly, another greyhound, and Apollo, a whippet, who he was very tight with and was bascially brothers with. How Apollo will cope remains to be seen. The humans are in grief right now.

Surf was dearly loved and will be dearly missed. He was a gentleman through and through, never a complaint, never anything but a pure sweetheart. He gave us all a lot of love, and like all dogs, he taught us, too.

The plague of cancer continues to haunt greyhounds; up to 1 in every 4 of these wonderful dogs will get it. We knew this was a possibility and we accepted the risk. We didn't anticipate that it would hit at age 7, but later. Both Bluebird and Slim were 11 when they went to the Rainbow Bridge.

The pain of the loss is hard to take, but as pet owners we accept it as part of the package deal with the love they give us. Death helps us to appreciate life; suffering helps to appreicate health; sorrow helps to appreicate joy; that's the balance of life, nature, and existence. The bad times like this truly suck, but they make us appreciate what good times we have.

Life is precious--all life, be it the pet of the sofa, the baby in the womb, even the idiot murderer on death row who doesn't understand it at all. Life teaches us all by example, even the bad ones, and the best we can do is to learn and grow and become better people from it all. Surf's time with us was shorter than Bluebird or Slim's, but that time was quality for all of us. He was in his Forever Home.

That's Surf's legacy--teaching. He taught us about Velcro dogs. He taught us about legacies. He taught us about brotherhood with Apollo. He helped me cope with stress in levels that I've never had to deal with before this year--when he laid on my legs, he helped relieve it through his weight, warmth, and love. He gave us all so much.

His photo of his last days joins Bluebird and Slim on the mantle, and a candle there is lit in his memory. Tonight we will toast his memory, his legacy, and his life, celebrate it, while mourning our loss. But he's free of the suffering, the pain, and the stress. He's with Bluebird, and Slim, and maybe even has met his previous owner at the Bridge. But he's always in our hearts and minds. The collar is now empty, hearts are broken but will heal, but the love and memories remain.

Farewell, Slim Strider. Loved, missed, but never forgotten. Run free forever.

For Libertarians, on the Borders

2010-04-18T07:41:00.000-07:00

The long-accepted libertarian position on immigration has been to allow peaceful people to cross political borders freely and openly, which implies to most people an open borders policy. Some libertarians have taken that idea to even mean that the borders should be either abolished entirely, or at least the barriers on those borders such as fences be eliminated.

That position is at least partially incorrect, because such a view ignores the property rights of those people on the border who merely own the property but are not transiting the border. Consideration of those rights complicates the issue, and it must be addressed within the issue.

Note also that the discussion here presumes a few things. First, it presumes that land can and in fact is owned by persons legally and legitimately—the premise of “nobody owns land” is rejected, and that argument is outside the scope of this discussion. Second, it presumes the government is either the owner of public property or its proxy controller, as determined by the people through delegated power and republican means, and as such has the power to determine the privilege of whom may or may not make use of the public property—again, the argument of whether such ownership or proxy is legal or legitimate is outside the scope of this discussion. The reality of now states that those presumptions are in play and accurate, and they are treated as such here. Third, an argument for a closed border, Berlin-style, is not entertained here, because it isn’t libertarian to being with. Fourth, “government” used here means the federal government.

In transiting a political border, one must either do so by traversing public property, private property, or some combination thereof. The term “public property” is referred to herein the common vernacular, that as being public use property owned by government, such as a road, building, sidewalk, etc. Equivalently, “private property” is also referred to in the common vernacular, that as being property owned by private individuals, or groups of individuals, including businesses, but not the government.

When a person transits a political border, one of four combinations must occur:

1. They move from public property on one side to public property on the other side.
2. They move from public property on one side to private property on the other side.
3. They move from private property on one side to public property on the other side.
4. They move from private property on one side to private property on the other side.

In simple terms, for a person to transit a political border and be considered peaceable, where it involves moving between properties, there must first be permission obtained from the property owner to be present on a property at first, and then to transit onto a property. The absence of such consent constitutes a violation of the property rights of the property owners who did not give such consent and is considered trespass, and as such being considered peaceable cannot be resumed—in fact, the presumption must be the opposite, that of hostility. In the case of such a trespass, the property owner is justified in defending his property from intrusion, even to the point of lethal self-defense. This principle has been applied under the law for both private property and public property, and in fact is the underlying basis of most immigration laws. In a state of war, the principle is used to justify repelling invasions. (Yet for some reasons, it is not considered justified when the intrusion is by government, but that’s a different discussion.)

This is where the broad libertarian argument fails: While it is correct to state that peaceable persons should be allowed to cross borders freely, those persons cease to be peaceable once they violate the rights of others. This is rarely emphasized in the argument, and in fact is commonly ignored, when it should not be. Commonly, critics of the argument will state that by crossing the border illegally, those persons automatically are not peaceable. They technically are correct, and the broad argument has no answer for it, which results in the common point of view that libertarians are wrong on immigration.

The counteraction for that point of view lies in a more nuanced understanding of the position and the ability to explain it as has been done above.

So what, then, is the correct libertarian immigration argument? In the broad sense, it could be stated simply:

“Good fences make good neighbors.”

Public border entry points where peaceable, law-abiding persons may transit freely (and safely), combined with a proper respect and safeguarding of property rights along said border is the only possible way for a border policy to accommodate the libertarian argument of peaceable persons transiting freely while simultaneously not undermining its own core libertarianism by disregarding property rights. That is essentially the current implementation of border security operations, albeit with large room for improvement. It is also consistent with the principle of the property owner giving consent to transit onto their property as applied to public property by the public property owner (or its proxy), the government.

Yet one are remains unanswered: Can a private property owner consent to persons transiting across the border onto their private property? If a private property is actually contiguous with the border, the libertarian position is that they certainly may do so, but lacking such consent beyond that private property limits the transient’s options, and the practicality of doing such. The private property owner may not substitute their consent for that of other property owners, either—including public property. In reality, the government claims easements or public property strips along the border for their purposes of border enforcement, eliminating the entire question as moot, because that strip is public property and therefore under government control along with the border barrier.

In conclusion, the proper libertarian position on immigration and borders is neither one of pure open borders, nor one of pure closed borders, but one of limited openings to allow peaceful people to transit freely while still respecting the property rights of others. Since the first (and only) duty of government is to secure the rights of the people from all violations, the government has a duty to provide for private property protection from trespass from border transients in the same way it has a duty to do so within domestic boundaries. To fulfill that duty, the government is delegated the power to operate those limited openings on public property.

A REAL "Equality of Marriage Act"

2009-06-12T15:22:00.000-07:00

Section 1.

Article 1, Section 7.5 of the Constitution of the State of California is repealed.

Section 2.

Article 1, Section 32 is added to the Constitution of the State of California, to read:

Section 32.
(a) Marriage shall in this State consist of a private contract.
(b) The State shall not infringe upon, legislate, regulate, license, prohibit, or restrict any private contract of Marriage in this State, including on the basis of race, religion, creed, gender, color, national origin, age, or sexual orientation, except for the following:
(1) All such contracts shall only be voluntary and between two unrelated and competent consenting adults or emancipated minors;
(2) No competent consenting adult or emancipated minor may enter into any such contract more than once at any given time;
(3) To preserve the free exercise of religion, no church, no religious institution, or no religious organization shall be required to recognize, solemnize, enact, bear witness to, commemorate, celebrate, or enforce any private contract of Marriage in this State;
(4) All marriages previously licensed by this State or other States shall be considered valid and enforceable private contracts of Marriage in this State;
(5) All laws, rights and privileges associated with marriages previously licensed by this State shall be considered valid and enforceable as part of all private contracts of Marriages in this State;
(6) All such contracts shall be considered as licenses for the purposes of recognition by other States.
(c) No contract of Marriage shall override or supersede any prenuptial agreement unless specifically stated in the contract of Marriage.
(d) This Section enumerates a fundamental right of the People of California.
(e) All other constitutional or statutory provisions found to be in conflict with this Section shall be null and void only in relation to the provisions of this Section.

Section 3.

All references in the California Codes that refer to “husband” or “wife” or their respective genders (“his,” “he”, “him,” “hers,” “she,” “her,” etc.) shall be legally construed to be gender-neutral.

Section 4.

Should any other initiative be on the ballot concurrent with this initiative, this initiative shall supersede and the others shall be null and void.

Section 5.

This Section shall be effective immediately upon ratification by the People of California.

Timeline of Duesgate

2009-05-28T22:51:00.000-07:00

November 2008:
Redpath reads the Bylaws, calls Starr to determine the membership status of all LNC members. This predates the December LNC meeting that became the kangaroo trial of Angela Keaton. Starr calls Kraus, who gives Starr a list of members and their sustaining expiration dates. (Source: Bill Redpath email, below)

December 7, 2008:
Wrights publicly questions Starr’s budget processes in the LNC Meeting. This continues long after the meeting and up to April 2009, including the next LNC meeting in Charleston in February 2009. Both meetings are broadcast live over the web. Haugh is terminated as LP Political Director due to budget cuts and allegedly his association with Wrights and Keaton. Kraus replaces him. Wrights defends Keaton, who resigns December 8 from the LNC for health reasons. (Source: LNC webcasts et al.)

December 10, 2008:
Wrights publishes an article written by Haugh detailing allegations of sexual harassment by Carling in 2004, Redpath’s awareness of it, and Redpath’s lack of sense displayed in the Keaton situation. (Source: http://www.libertyforall.net/?p=1679)

December 13, 2008:
Wrights publishes a follow-up article written by Haugh, which criticizes the due process followed in the Keaton situation, reiterating the points of the previous article about Carling and Redpath. (Source: http://www.libertyforall.net/?p=1707)

April 6, 2009:
Starr suddenly remembers that Wrights’ sustaining membership expires soon, and calls Kraus, who informs Starr that Wrights’ membership expires in two days. (Source: Bill Redpath email)

April 7, 2009:
Starr calls Redpath and informs him of the pending expiration. (Source: Bill Redpath email)

April 8, 2009:
Wrights’ sustaining membership expires. Sullentrup informed by someone (Starr? Kraus?) that the membership had expired. (Source: Bill Redpath email)

April 14, 2009:
Sullentrup notifies Wrights that Wrights is no longer an LNC member, citing Article 8, Section 4 of the Bylaws, but conveniently ignoring Article 8, Section 5, which details the removal process. Sullentrup bounces him off the LNC-discuss list, and removes his picture and contact info from lp.org. Sullentrup confirms that Kraus informed him of the lapse. Word hits the membership an hour later. Wrights confirms that he never received the renewal mail notices or no notice via telephone or email. Redpath signs off on Sullentrup’s actions and announces the vacancy for the agenda for the July 18-19 LNC meeting in St. Louis. Fox and Ryan question the process, Porter calls for reinstatement and an apology. Wrights renews his membership. (Sources: Bill Redpath email, http://www.thedailyliberty.com/story/2009/4/14/23154/5807, http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2009/04/applicants-sought-for-lnc-vacancy/, http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2009/04/applicants-sought-for-lnc-vacancy/#comment-54731, http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2009/04/applicants-sought-for-lnc-vacancy/#comment-54750, http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2009/04/applicants-sought-for-lnc-vacancy/#comment-54769)

April 15, 2009:
Lark weighs in, backing the interpretation of Starr, Sullentrup, Redpath, and Kraus. Later in the same day it is also mentioned that he would support reappointing Wrights and that a Bylaws change to address the situation would be in order. Knapp and Seebeck explain the correct Bylaws reasoning, including the necessary differentiation between membership in the LP and membership on the LNC. (Sources: http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2009/04/applicants-sought-for-lnc-vacancy/#comment-55007, http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2009/04/applicants-sought-for-lnc-vacancy/#comment-55041, http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2009/04/applicants-sought-for-lnc-vacancy/#comment-55081, http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2009/04/applicants-sought-for-lnc-vacancy/#comment-55138)

April 17, 2009:
Porter moved to retain Wrights on the LNC and restore his access as a member, backed by Ryan, Fox, Hawkridge, and Ruwart. Redpath rules the motion out of order. Ruwart appeals the ruling of the Chair. (Source: http://www.thedailyliberty.com/story/2009/4/17/212215/732)

April 18, 2009:
Wrights appeals to the Judicial Committee. (Source: http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2009/04/removal-of-lee-wrights-from-libertarian-national-committee-appealed-to-judicial-committee/)

April 19, 2009:
According to Eades, Flood defends Sullentrup and Redpath. (Source: http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2009/04/removal-of-lee-wrights-from-libertarian-national-committee-appealed-to-judicial-committee/#comment-56259)

April 21, 2009:
Starr issues a detailed memo. According to the memo, Haugh paid Wrights’ sustaining membership dues in April 2008; FEC regulations prohibit contributions to a party on behalf of another; etc. Starr also claims that he didn’t know when Sullentrup was first aware of the membership lapse, meaning that he didn’t tell Sullentrup, confirming Kraus by implication. Starr also claims he asked Kraus to detail Wrights’s past dues record and attempts to claim that as LNC Vice-Chair, Wrights had dues lapse previously as well, and therefore he was not actually elected. (Source: http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/2009-04-21-lee-wrights.pdf, and http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2009/04/lnc-memo-wrights-was-not-member-when-elected/)

April 23, 2009:
Party membership launches dual petitions to Judicial Committee appealing the actions of the involved Party Officers. The petitions reach the minimum threshold on April 29 and are submitted to the Judicial Committee.

The donation form on lp.org is changed to reflect the claims of the Starr memo, as confirmed by Hogarth. (Source: http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2009/04/removal-of-lee-wrights-from-libertarian-national-committee-appealed-to-judicial-committee/#comment-57963)

Wrights publishes an article written by Seebeck debunking Starr’s FEC claims. (Source: http://www.libertyforall.net/?p=2441#more-2441)

Wrights publishes an article written by Haugh in which Haugh explains that improper recordkeeping is the cause of the mess, and that in fact the 2008 dues payment on Wrights’ behalf by Haugh was in fact repaying Wrights for a debt owed and reinforces the point that there is a vast difference between campaign donations and membership dues. (Source: http://www.libertyforall.net/?p=2433)

April 24, 2009:
Redpath issues an email giving his side of the story, including the explanation that he felt he didn’t need to tell Wrights about the expiration since Wrights did not deserve the courtesy since Wrights has been “rude” to LNC members and on the APRC email list (later debunked by Ruwart). Alleged rudeness to LNC members included the aforementioned commentaries written by Haugh. Redpath makes the same Bylaws allegations as Starr and Sullentrup, which have been by this time thoroughly debunked by the membership on April 14. (Source: Bill Redpath email)

April 25, 2009
Starr’s FEC claims are further debunked by a Michigan campaign finance attorney and LPMI member Leonard Schwartz. (Source: http://www.libertyforall.net/?p=2441#comment-204534)

Wrights speaks at LPTN convention and tells his side of the story, including the allegations of previous lapsed memberships. (Source: http://knappster.blogspot.com/2009/04/speechifying-r-lee-wrights-in-knoxville.html)

April 26, 2009:
Wrights’ ex-wife weighs in and informs that she had his mail and that no renewal notices ever came in the mail. (Source: http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2009/04/petitions-of-denver-libertarian-national-convention-delegates-and-sustaining-members-against-the-removal-of-lee-wrights-from-the-lnc/#comment-58437)

April 27, 2009:
Hawkridge informs Starr via email that she talked with the FEC and they don’t care who the credit for the contribution goes to, so long as it is properly recorded. FEC says it was NOT an illegal contribution by Haugh on behalf of Wrights. This completely repudiates Starr’s FEC claims. Hawkridge follows up the email with a phone message. (Source: Anonymous from LNC email list, below)

April 28, 2009:
Starr returns Hawkridge’s call and denies any efforts to go through past records go and issue refunds, in direct contradiction to what he claimed in his FEC memo that he was required to do. (Source: Anonymous from LNC email list)

April 29, 2009
Ruwart debunks Redpath’s APRC email list claim of April 24 and offers comprehensive evidence to counter Redpath’s claim. (Source: Anonymous from LNC email list, via Phillies, below).

April 30, 2009
The Judicial Committee releases a statement that a LNC member can only be removed by consecutive absences or for cause by 2/3 vote of the, per the Bylaws, and that Wrights is in fact still a member of the LNC. This confirms the interpretations of Seebeck and Knapp. (Source: http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2009/04/statement-from-the-lp-judicial-committee-regarding-wrights/)

Wrights publishes an article by Seebeck that purports to expose the full plan by Redpath, Starr, Carling, Sullentrup, Kraus, et al. to purge “undesirables” from the LP. (Source: http://www.libertyforall.net/?p=2473 .)

May 2, 2009
The LNC votes 10-5 to sustain the ruling of the Chair regarding the Porter motion being ruled out of order. Voting to sustain: Jingozian, Starr, Sullentrup, Dixon, Colley, Mattson, Sink-Burris, Flood, Lark, Karlan. Voting to overrule: Ruwart, Ryan, Hinkle, Fox, Hawkridge. Not voting: Redpath. (Source: Anonymous from LNC email list, below.)

The LNC votes 12-0 to reappoint Wrights to the LNC, with Starr, Mattson, Sink-Burris, and Karlan not voting. Wrights name, picture, and contact info are restored to the LP.org website. This vote also has the unintended impact of validating Sullentrup’s actions. (Source: Anonymous from LNC email list, below.)

May 8, 2009
The Judicial Committee issues a statement on the Wrights appeal in which says the Committee lacks jurisdiction to decide if a lapse in sustaining membership constitutes a resignation as claimed by Sullentrup, by a 4-3 vote (Bennett, Hacker, Sarwark, Stevens no, Cobb, Nolan, Nicks yes). It also agreed by a 6-1 vote (Bennett, Cobb, Hacker, Nicks, Nolan, Sarwark yes, Stevens no) that they do have jurisdiction to interpret the question of whether a dues lapse is a “for cause” removal under the Bylaws. The Committee then voted 5-2 (Bennett, Cobb, Nicks, Nolan, Sarwark yes, Hacker and Stevens no) to accept the Wrights appeal on that one question, with responses or briefs sent to the Committee NLT 5PM PDT May 15. (Source: Judicial Committee statement, below)

The Judicial Committee issues a statement on the delegates appeal in which says the Committee by a 6-1 vote (Bennett, Cobb, Hacker, Nicks, Nolan, Sarwark yes, Stevens no) has jurisdiction, but by a 5-2 vote (Bennett, Cobb, Hacker, Nolan, Stevens no, Nicks and Sarwark yes) decline to accept the petition, claiming that because the relief requested was reinstatement of Wrights that the appeal is moot. (Source: Judicial Committee statement, below)

May 9, 2009
Seebeck issues a statement to the Judicial Committee explaining that the Committee’s decision on the delegates appeal is in error because the Committee is required per the Bylaws to accept the delegates appeal, and that the issue is not moot because the relief requested included not only reinstatement instead of reappointment but also overturning the actions of the Secretary and subsequent reappointment as invalid, and that request was ignored, leaving the precedent to stand and undermining the integrity of the LNC. (Source: email statement, below)

The Judicial Committee agrees to consider the Seebeck statement within 10 days. (Source, email statement, below)

May 17, 2009
The Judicial Committee receives a brief from eight members of the LNC regarding the case. (Source: http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/2009-05-17-response-to-the-appeal-of-r-lee-wrights.pdf)

Seebeck issues an amicus curiae brief to the Judicial Committee in support of Wrights. (Source: email statement, below)

Seebeck submits this chronology, updated to this point, to the Judicial Committee.

May 18, 2009
The Judicial Committee, without stating a reason why, responds to the Seebeck statement regarding the delegate petition by declining to reconsider their decision. This violates the Bylaws, and Seebeck requests an explanation. (Source: email statement, below)

May 20, 2009
Judicial Committee Chair Bennett publishes the hearing rules and schedule for the Wrights hearing, scheduled for May 22, 6PM. (Source: email statement, below)

May 22, 2009
Lark submits a brief to the Judicial Committee regarding the case. (Source: http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2009/05/memo-to-libertarian-party-judicial-committee/)

The Judicial Committee hears the appeal. Presenting for Wrights are Ruwart, Seebeck, and Wrights. Presenting for the LNC is Mattson. Present are the Judicial Committee, Wall, Starr, Jingozian, Karlan, Hawkridge, Phillies, Keaton, Porter, Fox, Haugh, and possibly a couple of others. Decision is to be made within 30 days.

June 22, 2009
The Judicial Committee issues its opinion, ruling 4-3 that A) Wrights had standing to appeal, B) that twelve calendar months is twelve calendar months and not 365 days, C) there is no specific enforcement language in the Bylaws regarding membership lapses, D) the Secretary and Chair cannot act outside the LNC to remove a member without following the Bylaws, and E) the suspension is reversed. Voting in favor were Sarwark (author), Bennett, Cobb, and Nicks. Nolan dissented, claiming that a membership eligibility was not a “for cause” question. Hacker dissented separately, claiming that by making a “for cause” question out of membership eligibility, it could set up the inaction of the LNC on the question (which is true, but the ramifications of that are not in scope of the issue at hand). Stevens also dissented separately, also claiming that a membership eligibility was not a “for cause” question, agreeing with the position presented by Mattson in the hearing, in a more technical manner than Nolan.

Stevens also still claims no jurisdiction by the Judicial Committee, although that matter had been settled on May 8 (see above and below).

The net result is that Wrights is reinstated to the LNC as if the whole situation had never happened, and the subsequent removal and reappointment are null. This also sets the precedent that removal of a LNC member is a duty of the member of the LNC itself, as was argued by the Wrights team in the hearing. (Source: emailed decision and dissents, below.)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill Redpath’s memo as sent in email from Bob Sullentrup to Michael Seebeck

From: Bob Sullentrup rwsully@att.net
To: michael@seebeck.us
Date: 4/25/09 3:23PM
Subject: FW: [GrassrootsLibertarians] Bob Sullentrup's attempt to kick Lee Wrights off the LNC

Michael,

The Chair made this text public Friday evening. I think it sheds light on the Wrights issue you may have missed.

Bob Sullentrup
Secretary, Libertarian National Secretary

Text of e-mail from Bill Redpath dated 4-24-2009 9:09PM:

Several fellow Libertarian National Committee (LNC) members have asked for an explanation of events leading to the recent loss of Lee Wrights' eligibility to serve as a member of the LNC.

Here is the story, as I know it.

In November 2008, I was rereading the Bylaws and read Section 8, Article 4, which states, "A National Committee member shall be a sustaining member of the Party, and shall not be the candidate of any party except the Party or an affiliate."

I then called Aaron Starr about this, and asked him to ascertain whether all LNC members were sustaining members. I may have called Bob Sullentrup about this, as well, but I don't recall for sure.

Aaron contacted Robert Kraus at LPHQ, and it is my understanding that Robert produced a list for Aaron of LNC members and their sustaining membership expiration dates (unless that member was a life member). All LNC members were sustaining members, at that time, and Aaron so informed me.

I never saw this list with expiration dates, but Aaron did. He noticed that several LNC members had expiration dates in early 2009, including Lee Wrights, who Aaron saw had an expiration date in April. Aaron tells me that he forgot about this list until Monday, April 6, on which day it dawned on him that this was about the time of Lee Wrights' sustaining membership expiration.

He called Robert Kraus that day and learned that Lee Wrights' sustaining membership started on (I believe) April 8, 2008, and had not yet been renewed. Aaron called me on, I recall, the evening of Tuesday, April 7, and told me that Lee's sustaining membership was about to expire. It is my understanding that Bob Sullentrup was not informed of Lee's impending sustaining membership expiration until sometime on Wednesday, April 8.

I waited a week after Lee's expiration date to see if his sustaining membership renewal payment showed up in the mail. It did not. The Bylaws, in my opinion, plainly read that Lee was no longer eligible to serve on the LNC. The Bylaws don't allow exceptions to this. Bob Sullentrup notified the Committee of the new vacancy. I directed Robert Kraus to remove Lee from the LNC Discuss List, and to remove him from the list of LNC members on lp.org.

I have been asked why I didn't pickup the phone and call or email Lee Wrights to notify him of the impending expiration of his sustaining membership, and the implication of that for his membership on the LNC. I was in a quandary about what to do. Part of me did think that that was the most prudent course of action for both the Party and the LNC. But, in the end, I could not bring myself to do it.

First, it is not my job as Chairman to remind individual members to renew their sustaining memberships. So, for me to call Lee would have been a matter of courtesy. It was my judgment at that time that he did not deserve that, as he has shown a lack of courtesy through what at times has been egregiously rude behavior to his fellow members on this Committee, to LNC staff, and to me, particularly at the San Diego meeting and thereafter. (Although I am not on the APRC email list, I have been told he had behaved very uncivilly at times with his postings to that list.) For him to expect courtesy while treating others so badly is hypocritical.

In particular, it is my understanding that Lee posted a commentary by Sean Haugh to libertyforall.net on the day after the San Diego meeting that other people have told me they thought was defamatory to me. I certainly thought it was, and, in my opinion, to the best of my knowledge, it was also defamatory to M Carling, former LNC member and current LP parliamentarian.

Lee has told us that his failure to renew his sustaining membership before expiration was inadvertent. Maybe this is true, but based on the LNC's financial donation records, it appears that each of the three times that Lee has been on the LNC, either he ran for election when he was not eligible to do so, or he lost eligibility to serve on the LNC after his election. There is a pattern here that should not be ignored.

Lee has asserted to me that I am trying to "run the radicals off the LNC." That is not so. My problem with Lee Wrights has only to do with his behavior.

While I certainly admit that I am not an "LP Radical," I have striven to be fair in my role as Chair, as that is an important quality to have in that position. As a part of that fairness, non-life members of this LNC should note that, as long as I am Chairman, I will not be reminding them in any manner to maintain their sustaining memberships. That will ultimately be their responsibility.

I regret that what I consider a straightforward application of the Bylaws to Lee's failure to remain eligible has caused this controversy. Also, I apologize for the delay in getting this information to you. You have every right to know what happened. In addition to my work and LP matters, I have been preparing for a professional examination in the near future and dealing with the impending death of a long-time friend.

I know some of you think that I erred in not calling Lee as a courtesy to remind him about his expiring sustaining membership. Fair enough. I understand your position. If I had inadvertently failed to take care of a required task, I would want my colleagues to give me a heads-up, and I'd be hurt if they didn't give me one.

However, I hope you understand my position. I think Lee used up his ration of goodwill a long time ago. He has no right to complain about not receiving special courtesy when he fails to show basic courtesy to others.

If you decide to reelect him to the LNC, I will treat him in exactly the same way as any other LNC member. If he decides to act with courtesy, he will certainly receive the same courtesy from me.

Thank you very much.

William Redpath
LNC Chairman

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ruwart’s email to Redpath debunking the APRC claims, via Phillies

From: George Phillies
To: undisclosed-recipients
Date: 4/29/2009 1:41PM
Subject: [lnc-discuss] LeeWrights

The following [w]as not sent to me by Mary Ruwart. It provides some very interesting background material for understanding what is happening. It also shows something about Ruth Bennett's 2008 opponent.

On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 6:27 AM, Mary Ruwart > wrote on LNC-discuss:

Mr. Chair,

I have long been an admirer of yours for all that you have given to the LP. I honor your contributions and always will, in spite of what I write today. Because I do respect what you have done for the LP, this e-mail is one of the most difficult pieces that I have ever had to write.

I believe that you have made a grave error in the matter of Mr. Lee Wrights by not asking the LNC for the 2/3 vote required to unseat an At-Large Member “for cause.” Your decision to do so has unnecessarily angered members and created division in a time when we need unity the most. Hours of time that could have been spent going after renewals and new members has instead been spent in an effort to replace or reinstate an activist who has also given much to the cause of liberty.

After all is said and done, you have taken this course of action because you believe that Mr. Wrights has been “rude.” Although you admit that you haven’t seen the APRC posts, you’ve taken someone else’s word that he has been “uncivil.” I am a member of the APRC and have read every one of Mr. Wrights posts. I can’t recall a single one that was “uncivil.” Blunt, maybe. Straightforward certainly. “Uncivil”? No. If you wish, I will forward each and every post that Mr. Wrights has made so that you can make your own assessment rather than taking someone else’s word for it.

“Rude” is when you swear at someone at the top of your lungs, with liberal use of expletives and the “f” word. “Uncivil” is when your wife is pleading in the background for you to stop---and still you continue. “Rude” is when you give a long-term friend this treatment in your capacity as National Chair when they, in their capacity of campaign manager for a presidential candidate, inquire about a defamatory press release. “Uncivil” is when you lose your temper and are totally out of control. Indeed, at that level I would call the behavior “abusive.”

By now you probably recognize yourself, in your capacity of National Chair, verbally abusing my campaign manager, Mr. Wrights, in a telephone conversation that took place in late May, 2008. After that conversation, Mr. Wrights came to me in shock. “I can’t believe I’ve just lost a good friend over this,” he told me. His distress was so extreme that I made him repeat as much of the conversation as he could remember so that I could help him come to terms with it. I too was shocked and hurt. After all, you were really angry at me and simply lit into Mr. Wrights, who was acting as my representative.

Perhaps I should have lodged a formal complaint about your bad behavior. I can tell you that it was not a pleasant feeling walking into the Denver convention knowing that it’s Chair was not at all neutral, but highly prejudiced against me. It was especially difficult because of my admiration and respect for all that you’ve contributed to the LP over the years.

Yes, you apologized to Mr. Wrights a week or so after this incident. Mr. Wrights generously forgave you and quite literally welcomed you back as his friend with open arms. It never even occurred to Mr. Wrights to hold a grudge; he loves you too much for that.

Too bad for Mr. Wrights and the Libertarian Party that you don’t feel the same way.

You readily accepted Mr. Wrights’ forgiveness for your abusiveness. You then have the nerve to call HIM “uncivil” and write: “For him (Mr. Wrights) to expect courtesy while treating others so badly is hypocritical.” I’m sorry to have to point this out, Mr. Chair, but that’s like the pot calling the kettle black.

In the meantime, you have turned a deaf ear when certain members of staff and others on this Board have treated both Mr. Wrights and myself with disdain. Mr. Wrights made a formal complaint to you on this list; you never answered him. I pointed out the problem to you in a more confidential setting; you promised action, but never let me know if such action had been taken. It once again seems that your comments about courtesy are “rules for thee, but not for me.”

If you have issues with Mr. Wrights behavior, or what he publishes, the proper course is to speak to him about it. Disregarding the will of the delegates and violating the bylaws are not proper courses of action for your complaint.

As you justly point out, the Chair should not be expected to remind LNC members of their renewal status. In this particular case, however, you were honor-bound to do so because of your own past bad behavior as National Chair and the forgiveness extended to you by Mr. Wrights. Had you extended the same courtesy to Mr. Wrights that he extended to you, we would now be building the Party instead of tearing it down.

I invite you to demonstrate your integrity and compensate Mr. Wrights by publically voting “yes” on the motion to reinstate him. He has quite literally paid his dues. It’s time for you to pay yours.

*From:* lnc-discuss-bounces@hq.lp.org
[mailto:lnc-discuss-bounces@hq.lp.org ] *On Behalf Of *William Redpath
*Sent:* Friday, April 24, 2009 9:09 PM
*To:* LNC Discussion
*Subject:* [Lnc-discuss] Lee Wrights

(The rest is the same memo as above)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rachel Hawkridge email to LNC

From: Rachel H. for LPWA Communications
Date: Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 4:43 PM
Subject: Rules for Lee . . .
To: freedhwy@gmail.com, Rachel Hawkridge , jake@jakeporter.org, jfox1214@sbcglobal.net, Dankarlan@earthlink.net, berlie@etzel.us, jwlark@virginia.edu, Heatherscott01@hotmail.com, sff@ivo.net, jaxonusa@msn.com, rebecca sinkburris , scott73@earthlink.net, mark@garlic.com, freeutahns@yahoo.com, TRLeap@aol.com, mary@ruwart.com, agmattson@gmail.com, narwhal3@gmail.com, chair@lptexas.org, starrcpa@pacbell.net, michael@resetamerica.com, rwsully@att.net, Bill Redpath , rleewrights@gmail.com

Colleagues –

On Monday, I sent this eMail to our Treasurer . . .
After speaking to the FEC, I am here to report to you that . . .

So long as the money is reported to them accurately as to who it came from, they don't care who we give credit for money to internally. So long as we reported accurately to the FEC that Sean Haugh gave that $25 if we were required to, that is all that matters. (You, of course, know that if Sean's combined contributions do not total $200, no reporting is necessary.)

So, I'm asking you to drop the FEC stuff - stop any attempts to comb through past records and refund monies; then publicly acknowledge that you were wrong, and that Mr. Wrights was a member in good standing when he was elected at Denver.

I would prefer to have this exchange in writing, but I will call you in a few minute to make sure that you have received this. I would appreciate a reply as soon as possible.

Thank you.

I did call, and Mr. Starr returned my call the next morning. He said that he had not seen the eMail, and when I asked him to stop any attempts to go through past records and refund monies, he said that they never intended to do that.

Yet the memo (page 4, bottom of the page) says The FEC Policies and Procedures Manual for the Libertarian National Committee requires that we return payments that are clearly made from one party in the name of another.

Once again, here’s another case of Rules for Lee, but not for me. The idea that we would only do this for one member, but no others, seems to be just a tad biased. If we are doing it for one member, then we should do it for all.

Addressing the FEC implications, the remedial steps we are taking to deal with the past illegal contribution and prevent future improper contributions are as follows:

According to my conversation the FEC, and our Treasurer’s own admission, this was not an illegal contribution. If there was any impropriety, it seems to have been in the recording of this contribution. I would not say that the Treasurer was being intentionally misleading, yet he says that it was an illegal contribution even after he said “That said, I do want to make abundantly clear that I do not believe that Sean Haugh violated the law, nor do I believe that R. Lee Wrights violated the law.”� And then he goes on to call it an illegal contribution. While I cannot ascertain the Treasurer’s motives, and he assures us that he is scrupulously fair, his narrative would seem, again, biased.

1) Because we cannot legally accept a contribution in the name of another, on the advice of Paula Edwards, our FEC consultant, and with the affirmation of the Chair, I have instructed Robert Kraus to refund the $25 to Sean Haugh. I have attached a copy of the correspondence, the original check from Sean Haugh, and our refund check.

If this contribution was improper, as the Treasurer asserts, then we have any number of other problems. State affiliates have purchased memberships, spouses have paid dues for each other, some incredibly generous people have made contributions to the LP in the names of others. I have no idea how these contributions were recorded, but let’s start with the Haugh household. In that year, Sean Haugh wrote at least three checks to LNC, Inc; one was a $25 payment for Pam’s membership dues, another $25 that is the subject of this very detailed memo, and a third, for his own dues. There may have also been another $100 check that was earmarked for ballot access, all of which totaled $175. None of this was reported to the FEC; because it didn’t have to be. The FEC requires reporting of contributions in excess of $200, and could care less about how it’s spent or earmarked once it’s in-house, as long as we report to them what we are required to report to them.
If there was any impropriety, it seems to have been in the recording of this contribution in-house, and even that is not a violation because it was not a reportable event. I would not want to think that our Treasurer intends to lead us down the garden path, but this whole argument about illegal contributions seems to be politely couched speculation about non-issues.

I suspect that there will be those who will want to pretend that Article 5.5, which applies only to higher levels of contributions, should also apply to a basic $25 membership, but that would be a distortion of what the language actually states.

The Treasurer attributes much to both Article 5.5 and to this body. Article 5.3 says . . .

“Sustaining member”� is any Party member who has given at least $25 to the Party in the prior twelve months, or who is a life member.

Our Treasurer interprets this to mean that the contribution must come directly from the member, with no intermediary. I know of several families, and for that matter, Washington and other states, also individuals; all of whom have purchased memberships for others. As long as the contributions are legally reported, this is not a problem–we have done it for a decade or more, and per Michigan Attorney Mr. Leonard Schwartz, this is something we should continue to encourage.

My reading of the Article, as well as that of several Parliamentarian friends of mine outside of the LP, and Mr. Schwartz, reveal no such statement. The Bylaws do not specifically exclude this, and our Treasurer’s interpretation seems overly narrow.

And finally, the renewal call the other day illustrates just how bad our records actually are. Not only did most of us get calls (but not all, from what I understand), but pledgers, life members and non-members as well got them. Wes Benedict, who is, I believe, both pledger and Life Member got a call, as did IPR blogger Trent Hill. Mr. Hill has never been a member - he's a Green or Independent.

This entire incident is a case of “Rules for Lee, but not for me”. The lying in wait by several members; the Chair’s admission that he felt that Mr. Wrights had been discourteous, and that the Chair then had no obligation to treat Mr. Wrights with any courtesy, especially in light of the Chair’s tirade that Dr. Ruwart reported to us yesterday, all point to just that. One set of rules for some members of this committee, another set for others.

Act In Liberty,

Rachel Hawkridge
Chair, Libertarian Party of Washington
Libertarian National Committee
Region 7 Representative

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

LNC vote on appeal ruling of the Chair regarding Porter motion

From: Bob Sullentrup
Date: Sun, May 3, 2009 at 11:13 AM
Subject: [Lnc-discuss] Mail Ballots
To: LNC Discussion

Folks,

The ruling of the Chair is sustained 10-5

Voting with the chair:
Michael Jingozian
Bob Sullentrup
Aaron Starr
Michael Colley
Pat Dixon
Alicia Mattson
Rebecca Sink-Burris
Stewart Flood
Dan Karlan
James Lark

Against:
Mary Ruwart
Tony Ryan
Mark Hinkle
Julie Fox
Rachel Hawkridge

Meanwhile, with 44 minutes left on the ballot to reinstate Lee Wrights onto the LNC, it looks as if it will pass.

I have alerted Robert Kraus to enable Lee’s access to LNC-Discuss unless he hears otherwise from me. Welcome back, Lee. It’s time to heal.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

LNC Vote to reinstate Wrights

From: Robert Sullentrup
Date: Sun, May 3, 2009 at 11:58 AM
Subject: [Lnc-discuss] Lee Wrights returned to the LNC
To: LNC

Final vote 12=0

Bill Redpath
Michael Jingozian
Bob Sullentrup
Michael Colley
Pat Dixon
Mary Ruwart
Tony Ryan
Mark Hinkle
Stewart Flood
James Lark
Julie Fox
Rachel Hawkridge

Robert, please activate Lee’s e-mail access to LNC-Discuss and, if you know how and have access, update lp.org.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Statement from the Judicial Committee regarding the Wrights Appeal

The Judicial Committee decided to divide the question of jurisdiction into two questions. Does the Judicial Committee have jurisdiction over the first three questions asked in Mr. Wrights amended appeal: (1) Does a failure to maintain a sustaining membership constitute a resignation as claimed by the Secretary and Chair? (2) If Questions 1 is answered in the affirmative, how long is the grace period between the time when the membership fee becomes due and the supposed resignation? (3) If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, does the Secretary or Chair have the authority to decide if and when an effective resignation has taken place?

The Judicial Committee decided by a vote of four (Bennett, Hacker, Sarwark, Stevens) to three (Cobb, Nolan, Nicks) that we have no jurisdiction on these three questions.

The fourth question, "Does a lapse in dues require a ‘for cause’ removal described in Article 8, section 5?" is found to be within the Jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee by a vote of six (Bennett, Cobb, Hacker, Nicks, Nolan, Sarwark) to one (Stevens).

We then voted to accept Mr. Wrights appeal on that question alone by a vote of five (Bennett, Cobb, Nicks, Nolan, Sarwark) to two (Hacker, Stevens.)

A telephonic hearing will now be scheduled. Please have any responses or briefs to the Chair of the Judicial Committee by 5P (PDT) on Friday, May 15, 2009.
(BennettRuth@...)

Respectfully Submitted,

Ruth E. Bennett
Chair
Libertarian Party Judicial Committee

Ruth E. Bennett, Chair
Joe Cobb
Allen Hacker
Travis Nicks
David F. Nolan
Nick Sarwark
Tom Stevens

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Statement from the Judicial Committee regarding the delegates appeal

By a vote of six (Bennett, Cobb, Hacker, Nicks, Nolan, Sarwark) to one (Stevens) the Judicial Committee recognizes that we have jurisdiction in the matter of the Delegates’ Petition of April 30, 2009. We are, however, by a vote of five (Bennett, Cobb, Hacker, Nolan, Stevens) to two (Sarwark, Nicks) declining to accept the petition.
The relief requested in the Petition is reinstatement of R. Lee Wrights and as Mr. Wrights has been appointed to the National Committee, the appeal is moot.

Respectfully Submitted,

Ruth E. Bennett
Chair
Libertarian Party Judicial Committee

Judicial Committee Members

Ruth E. Bennett, Chair
Joe Cobb
Allen Hacker
Travis Nicks
David F. Nolan
Nick Sarwark
Tom Stevens

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Seebeck email to the Judicial Committee

To the Judicial Committee:

The Committee needs to revisit and reverse their erroneous rejection of the delegate petition as the Judicial Committee has no authority per the Bylaws to reject it. The rejection is made in direct contravention of the Bylaws.

Article 8, Section 11:

11. Upon appeal by ten percent of the delegates credentialed at the most recent Regular Convention or one percent of the Party sustaining members the Judicial Committee shall consider the question of whether or not a decision of the National Committee contravenes specified sections of the Bylaws. If the decision is vetoed by the Judicial Committee, it shall be declared null and void. […]. (emphasis added)

"Shall" does not mean "may".

Furthermore, the question is not made moot by the reappointment of Lee Wrights, because it lays out a precedent that the Secretary's unilateral actions of removal which led to the reappointment are validated, which is utterly in error by the plain reading of the Bylaws! The rejection ignores or misconstrues the first half of the requested relief, which is the request that such a precedent be overturned and not be validated, and that Lee Wrights is reinstated to his rightfully-elected position, not removed and reappointed, which is a vastly different issue.

To quote the petition itself:

I was a Delegate to the Libertarian Party 2008 National Convention. Pursuant to Article 8, Section 5, I find that the attempted removal of R. Lee Wrights, At-Large Member of the Libertarian National Committee, from the National Committee, without a 2/3 vote of the National Committee, contravenes Bylaws Article 8, Section 5. I affirm his position as an At-Large Representative and ask, per Article 8, Section 12 [11, sic], that the Judicial Committee overturn this attempted removal and direct that Wrights be recognized as an At-Large Member of the National Committee.(emphasis added)

A reappointment that is in question because the removal in the first place is considered suspect, hence both this delegates appeal and the appeal of the fourth Wrights question. Until the original question is resolved, the issue isn't moot because the reappointment follows directly from the removal. If the removal is found to be valid then the reappointment is valid; but also, if the removal is not valid then reappointment cannot be valid either (since then there was no vacant position to appoint to!). The relief requested is not just that Wrights be recognized as At-large BUT ALSO that the removal be overturned as well. There's two parts to the relief requested as well, and in rejecting the petition in error, the first part of the requested relief was ignored or misconstrued.

In summary, the Judicial Committee MUST hear the delegate petition, and the reasons for rejecting it are in contravention to both the Bylaws and common sense.

Respectfully submitted,

Michael Seebeck

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Response from Judicial Committee

Subject: Re: Delegate Petition rejection
Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 05:00:44 +0000 (UTC)
From: Ruth E. Bennett
To: Mike Seebeck
CC: David F. Nolan , statechair@lpcolorado.org, Joe Cobb , allen@lpty.net, DrTomStevens@aol.com, montgomery@md.lp.org

Mr. Seebeck,

We are in receipt of your request to reconsider our decision regarding the Delegated Petition. We will let you know our response within 10 days.

Ruth E. Bennett

Chair

Judicial Committee.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Seebeck amicus curiae brief to the Judicial Committee

Amicus Curiae Brief on the Wrights Case

To the Judicial Committee:

The question before the Judicial Committee in the appeal submitted by Mr. Wrights, as agreed to be heard by the Committee, is the following:

"Does a lapse in dues require a ‘for cause’ removal described in Article 8, section 5?"

Proponents Never Answer the Question

A brief submitted to the Committee by eight members of the LNC fails to answer that question, and instead reverts to attempting to ask and answer through strawmen and hyperbole two different questions, in a blatant attempt to reframe the issue away from the question at hand. The Committee should disregard that brief in its entirety in their deliberations, simply because it is irrelevant to the actual question.

Answer is “Yes”, and Judicial Committee Already Agrees

As for this brief, the answer to the question before the Committee, is simply, “Yes.” The Committee already knows this and agrees, as indicated by their statement of May 1, 2009. (See http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2009/04/statement-from-the-lp-judicial-committee-regarding-wrights/)

Status vs. Process

The fundamental problem underlying the question and the entirety of the events surrounding the controversy of Mr. Wrights can be boiled down to a simple resolution of status vs. process.

Those that attempted to remove Mr. Wrights based their claims on status alone and ignored the process. The question Mr. Wrights asks here is whether the process needs to be followed.

At issue here is two sets of statuses: membership within the Party, and eligibility for the LNC. Behind each status is a process, which involves creating the status, and what is done if the status changes.

The status of being a national sustaining member of the Party does play a role in determining eligibility on the LNC, and nobody disputes it. Prior to election to the LNC a candidate must be a sustaining member, else they cannot be elected. The process of becoming a sustaining member is simple: donate $25 to the national Party and sign the SOP/Pledge. Once that is done, the candidate can be elected to the LNC. Once elected, the question of sustaining membership continues as before, and as it does for every sustaining member. On that question of status there is also no dispute. If a regular sustaining member lapses, a renewal notice is sent out.

The problem that has arisen is the effect of a sustaining membership being lapsed on a person’s eligibility to be on the LNC. The people that attempted to remove Mr. Wrights make the presumption that the moment Mr. Wrights’ sustaining membership lapsed, that he was no longer eligible to be on the LNC and therefore automatically removed. They assume the process.

What Constitutes Automatic Removal and Due Process?

However, that is clearly not the case, and the process cannot be assumed. There are only two cases of automatic removal from the LNC: death and failure to attend 2 consecutive meetings. Death is rather obvious and beyond dispute, but a look at the attendance failure is illuminating. Up until the 2008 convention, failure to attend meetings was considered ground for automatic removal from the LNC, but they could appeal the removal to the Judicial Committee. (See pp. 15-16 of the 2008 Convention minutes) That section was amended to what is currently in the Bylaws, removing the appeals process and making the automatic removal be without any due process whatsoever. Prior to the amendment, even an automatic removal for attendance had a due process attached to it, indicating that the intention was that no matter the case to that point, some process was followed in cases of removal to effect removal properly, and a representative could have the ability to present their case to not be removed.

Lee Wrights was never given that proper opportunity in the proper forum of the LNC, hence his appeal to the Committee.

That brings up the process for mid-term removal from the LNC. Mentioned above were two of the four cases, death and attendance. The other two cases are resignation and removal for cause. It is obvious that Mr. Wrights did not resign, is most certainly alive, and has not missed any LNC meetings, so that leaves removal for cause as the only other possible way that Mr. Wrights could be removed from the LNC.

No “Without Cause” Removal in Bylaws

Said above was that the answer to the question before the Committee was, “Yes.” It is “yes” because it is the only other possible way for removal from the LNC. Those that attempted to remove him have attempted and failed to claim that there is a fifth way for removal, that being effectively “without cause” (a removal can be either “for cause” or “without cause”), through whatever verbal hopscotch they spin it as, but there is no such provision in the Bylaws, nor have any delegates ever voted on any such proposal to add that provision. Those proponents would allege that the Secretary refusing to credential a member is enough to call a vacancy, a removal “without cause.” That is a dangerous and improper position, especially if the Secretary’s actions cannot be overridden or the Secretary cannot be held accountable by removal by 2/3 vote of the LNC. Such is the case here.

However, the proponents ignore what a removal “for cause” actually means. “For cause” is a legal term that means there is a real and legitimate reason for the termination or removal, such as criminal activity or neglect of duty of the one terminated or removed. “Without cause”, however, means that there is no reason required by either party to the removal. “Without cause” is also known as “at-will” in employment realms, to which the LNC closely resembles. A failure to maintain eligibility is clearly a neglect of duty of the office, since part of the duty of an office is to maintain the eligibility for that office in the first place. Therefore failure to maintain eligibility is in fact a “for cause” condition.

In such a case, the “for cause” condition requires a 2/3 vote of the LNC for removal, and such a vote was never taken. The process was never followed.

Removal Types in Bylaws

In terms of the Bylaws, death and resignation are removals without cause, attendance failure is a removal for cause with no process, and there are removals for cause with a 2/3 LNC vote. That also clearly illustrates that an at-Large member’s departure from the LNC mid-term can only be effected by the member himself or 2/3 of the body—not the Secretary acting alone.

Conclusion and Remedies

It’s really that simple. Lee’s membership lapse was grounds for a removal “for cause” by the LNC, not a unilateral decision by the Secretary for removal “without cause”, for which he had no authority to do in the first place.

Therefore, the Committee must answer the question of Mr. Wrights’ appeal in the affirmative.

In fact, the Judicial Committee has already issued a statement to that effect on May 1, 2009.

What does that affirmation imply, then, in terms of remedies?

It means that the Secretary cannot unilaterally remove Mr. Wrights.
It means that Mr. Wrights was never removed in the first place in a proper manner.
It means that the LNC could, with a 2/3 vote, remove Mr. Wrights.
It means that the reappointment of Mr. Wrights is invalid since he cannot be reappointed to a seat he was never removed from in the first place.
It means that the proper process must be followed in all cases.

In summary, the proponents have no case, and the question before the Committee must be answered “Yes”, with the aforementioned remedies and results.

Respectfully Submitted,
Michael Seebeck

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Delegate Petition Reconsideration Declined

From: 'Ruth E. Bennett' bennettruth@comcast.net
Sent: Mon May 18 18:16
To: Michael Seebeck michael@seebeck.us
Cc: lpjc@yahoogroups.com
Priority: Normal
Subject: Request to reconsider decision on the Delegate Petition

Dear Mr. Seebeck,

The Judicial Committee declines to reconsider our decision on the Delegate Petition.

Ruth E. Bennett
Chair
Judicial Committee

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Judicial Committee hearing format statement

From: 'Ruth E. Bennett'
Sent: Wed May 20 18:16
To: Bill Redpath , Lee Wrights < ... Priority: Normal Cc: lpjc@yahoogroups.com Subject: Friday May 22 Judicial Hearing Format Dear Libertarians, This is the format the Judicial Committee has chosen. 15 min Mr Wrights or advocate 10 min questions by Judicial Committee 15 minutes by Mr. Redpath or advocate 10 minutes questions by Judicial Committee 5 minutes rebuttal/closing by Mr Wrights or advocate 5 minutes rebuttal/closing by Mr. Redpath or advocate At the discretion of the JudComm, we may ask a few follow up questions at this time. Twenty minutes for each side in total will be allowed. If one side takes more than 15 minutes initially, then that time will be taken from rebuttal/closing time. Time limits will be strictly enforced. Since there is no practical way to alert anyone of upcoming time limits, each speaker will be responsible for his/her own timing. When a total of 20 minutes is used, the speaker will be muted. Please advise the me of who will be speaking for your position. You may have multiple speakers, but the total elapsed time will still be 20 minutes. Only those whose names provided to the Chair in advance will be permitted to speak. All others calling in will be muted, so please let me know who will be speaking for you. If for some reason you need to be recognized, please state your name and then wait until acknowledged by the Chair. Please advise the Chair what phone number you will be calling from. Please remember not to use VOIP or a speaker as they cause unpleasant and distracting echoes for other participants. The entire hearing will be recorded and that recording will be made available within 30 days of the hearing. The phone number to call is (712) 432-3900) and the access code is 55674. Again, please do not use VOIP or a speaker phone. If you have any questions, please contact me. I look forward to a principled conclusion to this matter. Ruth E. Bennett Chair Judicial Committee

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judicial Committee Majority Ruling

Majority Opinion in the Matter of the Appeal of R. Lee Wrights

21 June 2009

Mr. Wrights Has Standing to Appeal His Removal From the LNC.

The Judicial Committee is empowered by the LP Bylaws to hear appeals of the "suspension of National Committee members-at-large." (LP Bylaws 9.2 (c)). The argument has been advanced that since Mr. Wrights was not suspended from the LNC through the procedures described in LP Bylaws 8.5, his removal is not actually a suspension and thus is not appealable to the Judicial Committee. We are not persuaded that removing an at-large committee member is not a suspension merely because it was done outside the established bylaws procedures. Following that argument would result in a situation where a suspension done according to established procedures can be appealed and potentially overturned, but one done without following established procedures would be unreviewable. Rather, we are persuaded that Mr. Wrights was suspended from the LNC, regardless of the words used by Mssrs. Sullentrup and Redpath to describe it, and thus has standing to appeal his suspension to the Judicial Committee.

There is Some Ambiguity in the Language of the Bylaws Regarding When a Sustaining Member's Dues Lapse.

LP Bylaws 5.3 defines "Sustaining member as "any Party member who has given at least $25 to the Party in the prior twelve months, or who is a life member." There is a dispute over whether "prior twelve months" indicates the twelve calendar months prior to the month where the dues are checked for a lapse or if it indicates the twelve months prior to the date of the alleged lapse. This question becomes important as Mr. Wrights sustaining membership had lapsed as of the date of Mr. Sullentrup's letter to him under the latter formulation, but not under the former. While it is not necessary to resolve this question here, since we conclude that the Secretary exceeded his discretion in removing Mr. Wrights regardless, there is a general principle in law that ambiguities should be resolved in favor of the accused, and under that principle, the former construction would be preferred.

There Are Situations in the Bylaws that Require the LNC Secretary to Recognize a Vacancy on the LNC.

LP Bylaws 8.5 says that "A National Committee member who fails to attend two consecutive regular meetings of the National Committee shall be deemed to have vacated his or her seat." This "shall be deemed" language can be read to mean that the LNC Secretary is required to recognize the vacancy of the National Committee member who missed the two consecutive meetings; recognizing the vacancy is not left to the discretion of the LNC Secretary. This specific mandatory language is the proverbial exception that proves the rule, i.e. if there is not specific mandatory language, the LNC Secretary retains some level of discretion in carrying out his/her duties.

The Eligibility Requirements of LP Bylaws 8.4 do not Contain Specific Enforcement Language.

LP Bylaws 8.4 reads, "A National Committee member shall be a sustaining member of the Party, and shall not be the candidate of any party except the Party or an affiliate." While there is dispute about whether this language specifically requires continuing sustaining membership and the effect of a lapse in that membership, there is no dispute about whether the Bylaw contains specific enforcement language. It does not.

It is clear from other sections of the Bylaws that when the delegates intend to make a provision mandatory, they are capable of enacting clear language to that effect. (See, e.g., the third paragraph of LP Bylaws 8.5 (requiring a member who misses two consecutive meetings to be removed)). It is also clear that the delegates are capable of writing language prohibiting action, such as LP Bylaws 8.7, constitute the subject region."

In Absence of a Specific Enforcement Procedure, Suspension of an At-Large Member Must be Done Through the General Procedures Contained in the LP Bylaws.

Given the lack of either kind of language in LP Bylaws 8.4, two possibilities exist. Either the Secretary and Chair are empowered to enforce the language as they see fit or the LNC has to act as a whole under the process given for suspension of an LNC member. We are not persuaded that the Secretary or Chair can suspend an at-large member of the LNC without a 2/3 vote of the LNC.

This is not to say that the Secretary is required to allow an At-Large member who is lapsed all of the rights and privileges of a member in good standing. The Secretary could refuse to acknowledge the votes of an At-Large member he/she believes to be ineligible to hold the office. The Secretary and Chair could refuse to seat an At-Large member they determine to be ineligible. What they cannot do is suspend an At-Large member from the National Committee without following the procedures in the Bylaws. When, in this case, the Bylaws do not contain specific enforcement procedures related to a particular provision, the ambiguity is resolved in favor of the existing default procedures (those described in LP Bylaws 8.5), rather than allowing an ad hoc procedure to be undertaken by one or two officers of the National Committee.

Mr. Wrights Suspension Was Improper and Hereby Reversed.

After reviewing all of the facts in light of the LP Bylaws, we conclude that Mr. Wrights was improperly suspended from his position on the LNC. We reverse that suspension, effective as of the date of the original communication from Mr. Sullentrup to Mr. Wrights regarding his removal. We also recommend that the current LP Bylaws Committee consider changes that would bring greater clarity to these provisions.

Majority opinion written by Nick Sarwark and joined by Ruth E. Bennett, Joe Cobb and Travis Nicks

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Judicial Committee dissent by Nolan

A Minority Opinion in the Matter of R. Lee Wrights

While Article 8, Section 4 of the Bylaws was interpreted in an arbitrary and unreasonable manner in the case of Mr. Wrights, eligibility for membership on the LNC is not a "for cause" question, and thus does not require a vote for removal as specified in Article 8, Section 5. I strongly urge the 2010 Bylaws Committee to clarify the intent and terms of Article 8, Section 4 to prevent future misunderstandings and misinterpretation.

David F. Nolan

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Judicial Committee dissent by Hacker

In the Judicial Committee
Libertarian Party
Allen Hacker, Member

June 21, 2009

In the matter of the appeal of R. Lee Wrights of the recent situation vacating his At-Large Representative seat on the Libertarian National Committee pursuant to Bylaw 8, Section 4;

Decision in the Minority as Separate among Three such Minority Decisions:

The question in this case is a simple one: "Does a lapse in dues require a for cause removal under Section 8.5 of the bylaws?" This question arises from Bylaw 8.4 which requires that an LNC At- Large Representative be a Sustaining member as defined elsewhere in the bylaws.

The question only appears to become difficult if it is removed from the sense of the bylaws as a coherent body of law and then addressed only within the confines of the present appeal and its originating circumstances. However, any such difficulty is extraneous; the Judicial Committee should always decide any issue before it from a wholistic perspective, on the premise that decisions tailored to any set of particulars may well not function well in others. Deciding this question in that manner divorces all emotion and politics from the decision and is the best path to future party unity.

To decide this question in the affirmative by any logic would set up a paradox, or worse, within or respect to the bylaws. On the one side of that paradox is the undisputed fact that the LNC cannot ignore, suspend or alter a bylaw. Yet a Yes decision would seem to empower the LNC to do just that by either inaction or failing to carry a motion for suspension in the event of a member's failure to maintain the status required by bylaw 8.4. For that exception to be valid, the Judicial Committee would have to have an existing power to overturn the supreme law of the Party, and that power it does not have.

The only responsible decision is to answer the question in the negative. This prevents the creation of said paradox, and avoids the Judicial Committee stepping out of bounds. It also avoids the Judicial Committee assuming the role of janitor upon the discovery of ill-considered bylaws and/or their unintended consequences.

Therefore, without regard to the precipitating circumstances underlying the appeal before us, and without comment on anything beyond the question before us, I answer the question in the negative:

NO, a lapse of sustaining membership as required by Bylaw 8.4 does not require a for-cause motion, and the consequences of such a lapse cannot be decided under a for-cause vote, pursuant to Bylaw 8.5.

ss: Allen Hacker

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Judical Committee dissent by Stevens

Dissenting Opinion

The only question currently before the Judicial Committee is that portion of the R. Lee Wrights appeal seeking an advisory opinion on the following hypothetical question for which no relief was requested:

4. Does a lapse in dues require a "for cause" removal as described in Article 8, Section 5?

The short answer to that question is NO. A lapse in dues by a member-at-large of the LNC does not require a “for cause” removal as described in Article 8, Section 5 of the Libertarian Party Bylaws.

Article 8, Section 4 and Article 5, Section 6 contain provisions dealing with the eligibility of LP members to serve on the National Committee and to hold National Party office.

Article 8, Section 4 reads as follows:

A National Committee member shall be a sustaining member of the Party, and shall not be the candidate of any party except the Party or an affiliate.

The relevant portion of Article 5, Section 6 reads as follows:

Only sustaining members shall be eligible to hold National Party office or be a candidate for President or Vice-President.

The wording in Article 8, Section 4 that “A National Committee member SHALL (emphasis added) be a sustaining member of the Party” is clear enough and is reinforced by the wording in Article 5, Section 6 that “only sustaining members shall be eligible to HOLD (emphasis added) National Party office”. It is evident that “National Party office” refers at least to all members of the Libertarian National Committee and not just to the “Officers” mentioned in Article 7, Section 1 of the bylaws.

If a lapse in “sustaining membership dues” did require a “for cause” suspension under Article 8, Section 5 of the Libertarian Party Bylaws, inaction by the LNC or a vote against suspension of a member whose sustaining membership dues lapsed would enable that person to continue to attend and vote at LNC meetings even though ineligible to serve under the LP Bylaws. Since the LNC has no power to suspend or ignore the provisions set forth in the Libertarian Party Bylaws, the conclusion must be drawn that a lapse in dues cannot require a “for cause” suspension under Article 8, Section 5 of the LP Bylaws.

One other point is worth making. What exactly does “for cause” mean and can it reasonably encompass a “lapse in dues”? Article 13 of the Libertarian Party Bylaws (entitled “Parliamentary Authority”) reads as follows:

The rules contained in the current edition of Robert’s Rules of Order, Newly Revised shall govern the Party in all cases to which they are applicable and in which they are not inconsistent with these bylaws and any special rules of order adopted by the Party.

It is therefore proper for this Judicial Committee to look to Robert’s Rules of Order, Newly Revised for guidance on exactly what the phrase “for cause” means. That guidance is found in Chapter XX entitled “Disciplinary Procedures” specifically in the section entitled “Remedies Against Misconduct or Dereliction of Duty in Office”. On page 642, the following passage can be found:

Except as the bylaws may provide otherwise, any regularly elected officer of a permanent society can be deposed from office for cause – that is, misconduct or neglect of duty in office…

The phrase “that is” is equivalent to “i.e.” which means that the exact definition of “for cause” is “misconduct or neglect of duty in office”. Since a lapse in paying dues is neither “misconduct” nor a “neglect of duty in office”, a lapse in dues cannot require a “for cause” removal under Article 8, Section 5 of the Libertarian Party Bylaws.

That having been said, it is our position that the Judicial Committee does not have “subject matter jurisdiction” to hear this appeal. The Judicial Committee is not a Court of General Jurisdiction. Our “subject matter jurisdiction” is explicitly set forth in the Libertarian Party Bylaws. When we receive an appeal, the Judicial Committee must determine whether the issue appealed is within our “subject matter jurisdiction”. The Judicial Committee cannot point to subsequent actions or decisions of the LNC for which we might have jurisdiction and then bootstrap that back to the original appeal, which we did not have the power to hear in the first place.

The “subject matter jurisdiction” of the Judicial Committee is set forth in two sections of the Libertarian Party Bylaws. The first section is Article 8, Section 12 and the second section is Article 9, Section 2. Each provides independent grounds for “subject matter jurisdiction”.

The relevant portion of Article 8, Section 12 reads as follows:

Upon appeal by ten percent of the delegates credentialed at the most recent Regular Convention or one percent of the Party sustaining members the Judicial Committee shall consider the question of whether or not a decision of the National Committee contravenes specified sections of the Bylaws. If the decision is vetoed by the Judicial Committee, it shall be declared null and void.

The appeal currently before the Judicial Committee does not arise under Article 8, Section 12. It is not an appeal by “ten percent of the delegates credentialed at the most recent Regular Convention” nor is it an appeal by “one percent of the Party sustaining members”. It is instead an appeal by one individual and therefore the Judicial Committee cannot claim Article 8, Section 12 as the grounds for having “subject matter jurisdiction” over the R. Lee Wrights appeal, it cannot cite “a decision of the National Committee” as grounds for accepting the Wrights appeal, and it has no power to declare any “decision of the National Committee” null and void.

The only section of the Libertarian Party Bylaws that is relevant to whether the Judicial Committee has “subject matter jurisdiction” over the R. Lee Wrights appeal is Article 9, Section 2.

Article 9, Section 2 reads as follows:

2. The subject matter jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee is limited to consideration of only those matters expressly identified as follows:
a. suspension of affiliate parties (Article 6, Section 6),
b. suspension of officers (Article 7, Section 8),
c. suspension of National Committee members-at-large (Article 8, Section 5),
d. voiding of National Committee decisions (Article 8, Section 11),
e. challenges to platform planks (Rule 7, Section 9),
f. challenges to Resolutions (Rule 8, Section 2), and
g. suspension of Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates (Article 12, Section 5).

It is pretty clear that the delegates who adopted the above language meant it when they stated the subject matter jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee is LIMITED (emphasis added) to consideration of ONLY THOSE MATTERS EXPRESSLY IDENTIFIED (emphasis added) and then went on to state the exact sections of the bylaws and convention rules under which the Judicial Committee has the power to exercise that subject matter jurisdiction.

The only possible stated grounds under which the Judicial Committee can take "subject matter jurisdiction" over the amended appeal of R. Lee Wrights is Article 9, Section 2, Sub-Section c dealing with suspension of National Committee members-at-large under Article 8, Section 5.

The relevant portion of Article 8, Section 5 reads as follows:

The National Committee may, for cause, suspend any member-at-large by a vote of 2/3 of the entire National Committee. The suspended member-at-large may challenge the suspension by an appeal in writing to the Judicial Committee within seven days of receipt of a notice of suspension. Failure to appeal within seven days shall confirm the suspension and bar any later challenge or appeal...At the hearing the burden of persuasion shall rest upon the appellant. The Judicial Committee shall either affirm the National Committee’s suspension of the member-at-large or order reinstatement of the member-at-large within 30 days of the hearing.

In the circumstances that gave rise to the R. Lee Wrights appeal, the National Committee did not by a 2/3 vote of the entire LNC suspend R. Lee Wrights "for cause" and did not send him a notice of suspension. Hence, the Judicial Committee lacks "subject matter jurisdiction" over his appeal. Had he been suspended "for cause" by a 2/3 vote of the entire LNC, that action would be within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee, and if in such a situation, we found in his favor, we could order reinstatement. However, in this case, Mr. Wrights' sustaining membership dues lapsed and his seat was declared vacant. He was not "suspended" under the provisions of Article 8, Section 5. Therefore, it is clear that the Judicial Committee has no jurisdiction in this matter.

The amended appeal submitted to the Judicial Committee by R. Lee Wrights was as follows:

To: Libertarian Party Judicial Committee From: R. Lee Wrights On April 17, I appealed my suspension from the LNC. After further consideration, I want to clarify exactly what I am asking for in my appeal. I respectfully request the Committee to rule on the following:
1. Does a failure to maintain a sustaining membership constitute a resignation as claimed by the Secretary and Chair?
2. If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, how long is the grace period between the time when the membership fee becomes due and the supposed resignation?
3. If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, does the Secretary or Chair have the authority to decide if and when an effective resignation has taken place?
4. Does a lapse in dues require a "for cause" removal as described in Article 8, Section 5?
Respectfully submitted by, R. Lee Wrights, At-large

It is true that in the original appeal submitted by R. Lee Wrights, he appealed his “suspension” from the LNC. Perhaps upon realizing he had not been “suspended” from the LNC, he submitted the above amended appeal asking the Judicial Committee to “rule on” the questions posed.

On the first three questions raised by R. Lee Wrights in his amended appeal, the Judicial Committee voted 4 to 3 against it having "subject matter jurisdiction". All three questions dealt with asking the Judicial Committee to issue an advisory opinion on a matter dealing with what Mr. Wrights refers to as a "resignation", a "supposed resignation" and an "effective resignation". It does not deal with a "suspension" having taken place under Article 8, Section 5 of the bylaws. Ruth E. Bennett, Allen Hacker, Nick Sarwark & Dr. Tom Stevens voted against the Judicial Committee having subject matter jurisdiction on these questions. Joe Cobb, David F. Nolan and Travis Nicks voted in favor of the Judicial Committee having jurisdiction so the vote was 4 to 3 against jurisdiction.

The fourth question posed by R. Lee Wrights was the following:

4. Does a lapse in dues require a "for cause" removal as described in Article 8, Section 5?

There are problems obviously with the wording of the question itself since Article 8, Section 5, speaks of a "suspension" "for cause" and not a removal but that aside, the Judicial Committee voted it had “subject matter jurisdiction” over this hypothetical question even though no relief was sought by the appellant, no “suspension” under Article 8, Section 5 had taken place, and no relief could be granted since “reinstatement” was impossible since no “suspension” had taken place. Ruth E. Bennett, Joe Cobb, Allen Hacker, Travis Nicks, David F. Nolan & Nick Sarwark voted the Judicial Committee had jurisdiction over Question 4 of the R. Lee Wrights appeal. Only Dr. Tom Stevens voted against the Judicial Committee having “subject matter jurisdiction”. On whether to accept Question 4 of the R. Lee Wrights appeal for the purposes of holding a hearing, (Ruth E. Bennett, Joe Cobb, Travis Nicks, David F. Nolan & Nick Sarwark voted to hear the appeal on Question 4. Allen Hacker & Dr. Tom Stevens voted against hearing the appeal.

To reiterate, since the National Committee did not “suspend” R. Lee Wrights under Article 8, Section 5 of the Libertarian Party Bylaws, the Judicial Committee does not have “subject matter jurisdiction” over his appeal. In addition, R. Lee Wrights seeks no relief when he asks the Judicial Committee to “rule on” a hypothetical question and to issue an advisory opinion. Finally, the only relief that could be granted under Article 8, Section 5 is the ordered “reinstatement of the member-at-large” but since R. Lee Wrights was never suspended, his reinstatement cannot be ordered.

While it is clear that a lapse in dues does not require a “for cause” removal under Article 8, Section 5 of the Libertarian Party Bylaws, it is also true that Article 8, Section 4 does not contain explicit language describing a process for declaring a member-at-large’s seat vacant upon that member-at-large’s sustaining membership dues lapsing. However, the absence of such language does not imply that there is no automatic removal for failure to satisfy the eligibility requirements. The Bylaws Committee needs to address this issue and to recommend a process that can be followed when it is discovered that a member-at-large or any other person holding National Party office is found to be in violation of the eligibility requirements for that office. The proposed amendment might make the loss of eligibility result in an automatic removal from office, or it may state that the person holding National Party office be given 30 days to pay the lapsed dues or to resign as the candidate of another political party before being removal. Ultimately that decision will be and should be in the hands of the credentialed delegates meeting at the next Libertarian Party National Convention.

Respectfully submitted,

Dr. Tom Stevens
Judicial Committee Member

Anatomy of a Coup

2009-04-30T19:01:00.000-07:00

Most Libertarians who follow or take an interest in the goings on in the LP are aware of the current Lee Wrights situation. To summarize, Lee is on the LNC, and his dues lapsed, and rather than properly notify Lee of the problem, the Secretary decided to act unilaterally (and in violation of the Bylaws) and inform Lee that because his dues lapsed, he was removed from the LNC—never mind that such a decision mid-term lies with the LNC by voting him off, or with Lee himself, and neither occurred.

But I have news for you—Lee just happens to be a convenient pawn in a much larger game, and Lee’s outspokenness has been a thorn in the side of certain persons on the LNC who seem to be obsessed not with being the biggest fish in the LP pond, but with being the only fish.

Well, the picture has become much clearer now, and the attempts to accomplish that objective have been exposed, piece by piece, over the last couple of years. Here I detail what that plan is, and how it has been set about.

In simple terms, the plan has had several parts:

Limit national membership to pay-to-play.
Bamboozle, confuse, and confound the remaining members.
Purge the dissenters by any loophole or means possible, valid or not, ethical or not.
Stretch out the process so that members forget what happened.

Karl Rove would be impressed.

Let’s break this down.

1. Limit national membership to pay-to-play. It’s no secret that the national LP is losing money, and the Barr fiasco only seemed to amplify the problem. Almost half of the membership was completely alienated by that nomination in Denver, and that half were not only right to be upset, but they voted with their feet and wallets. Even Barr’s own running mate, Wayne Allen Root, threw Barr under the bus after the election. Root aside, the effect of the Barr nomination not only led to the eventual exodus of the LNC’s best fundraiser in Angela Keaton (the same weekend that Root threw Barr under the bus, BTW), but led to a slump in donations to the national LP that is still happening. The result is a staff lacking a competent Executive Director and doing the beck and call of the people running this plan.

Their answer has been to have the current LP Political Director put out grade-school-level fundraising pleas on the LP blog instead of doing it right by admitting that they screwed up and apologizing, and simply saying, “We’re asking for donations to be earmarked to do task X.”

Then there’s the California situation. This past weekend in Visalia (April 24-26) was the California state convention. On Friday (April 24) the Bylaws Committee had their annual meeting to complete any last-minute tweaks to the Bylaws Report, which was heard by the delegates the next day. I was there, and a proposal was dropped from the Report, submitted by the LP parliamentarian, and a former California Bylaws Committee member (when I was Chair of the committee) and Chair and national Bylaws Committee regular—a person who should know better. The short form is that the proposal would have added language to the California Bylaws that would have required California’s delegates to the national convention by both national sustaining members and state central committee members. The only problem is that such a “both” requirement comes into direct conflict with the “either-or” requirement of the national Bylaws on the same subject. The only reason that makes any sense is to limit California’s representation at the national convention, with the alternative being that the national party would milk an extra $25 per delegate out of the membership of the largest state affiliate—pay-to-play. (You can read the proposal here, page 3)

Fortunately, the proposal was unanimously dropped when the committee dropped its support and I pointed out the Bylaws violation. More on this later.

That’s good because there is a proposal in the national Bylaws report to readjust the delegate totals downward, under the guise of cutting convention room costs, which is just hogwash. Any good caterer knows they will take the expected turnout for an event and add 20% and they’ll usually get it right. If the convention is planned incorrectly—which can happen unless BetteRose Ryan is running it brilliantly as she always does—then the room is too large, but a planning error like that does not justify reducing delegate counts. Cutting down the votes to the selected few, OTOH, does fit this plan. Drop the number of delegates, make them sustaining national members only, all through Bylaws changes…and you’re on your way to elitism and Party destruction.

The Bylaws are the keys to the kingdom in the LP, folks. I cannot emphasize that enough! If one can control the Bylaws and engineer changes to suit their own agenda, they can take over the Party. The superficial justifications to members that don’t follow the situation closely are a mere tool to bamboozle the members and hide the real agenda.

Just take a second look at the current national Bylaws report. You’ll see a proposal to limit Bylaws votes and Presidential and Vice-Presidential votes to certain delegates (but not Platform, Officer elections, or resolutions?) under the excuse of a potential outside takeover based on a 5% vote that just is not on the radar screen. The takeover is internal, no 5% needed, and the ones doing the caterwauling about an external takeover are the ones doing the internal takeover under its cover! What this really does is create one set of delegates for Bylaws and national office nominations, and another for the perpetual Platform bickering and the national officer elections. Why? Because the LNC selects all of the Bylaws Committee, and only part of the Platform committee. The membership selects the rest of the Platform Committee as we all know, plus the LNC members and officers. One would think that would be enough of a check to stop this lunacy, right? Think again! The way around that one is a coordinated effort to…

2. Bamboozle, confuse, and confound the remaining members. The fastest way to do that is to take simple things and make them complicated. Here again, we see the national Bylaws Report come into play, in this case multiple times:

A proposal to change the Party officer elections from the current round-elimination system to an inverse IRV system, which most Party members just don’t understand. The current system is easily understood: for a round of voting, if a candidate gets 50% +1 votes, they win, and a vote producing no majority eliminates the lowest non-NOTA vote-getter, then lather, rinse, and repeat. It isn’t broke, and delegates understand it, so why change it? To confuse the issue to their advantage, of course, and to get their own specific people into these positions (and dictate how meetings and operations are done as well!)
A proposal to change the LNC At-Large elections from the current vote-for-up-to-X candidates to a confusing and needless “single-transferrable voting” process which relies on a mathematical formula that doesn’t even make any sense! What better way to stack the deck than to claim voting “reform” and create a method that the average delegate won’t understand?
A proposal to allow an electronic voting system to replace state-by-state voting tabulations. They claim it’s because of time consumption and prone to error, implicitly calling the larger states incompetent to do their own tabulation. As a witness to California’s tabulation process in Denver, I can emphatically state that such a claim is not only unfounded, but decisively false. As Diebold has shown, electronic tabulation does not produce better results. See also every libertarian’s favorite Stalin quote about who counts the votes. Again, the idea is to confuse the members, and in this case use an electronic means to cover it up.
A proposal to do mail ballots on Bylaws proposals prior to the convention. The excuse is that a lot time is spent by delegates considering Bylaws proposals at the convention and this would speed it up. But hidden in there is a requirement that the only eligible mail voters are national sustaining members. Remember pay-to-play? Here it is again. Proposals can be submitted to national sustaining members by mail or to regular delegates at the convention, but not both. They get their own pay-to-players in place, and guess where the proposals are going? Go directly to mail, do not pass the convention floor, do not collect proper votes. This is also where the failure of the California proposal above comes into play—if this idea passes, Bylaws changes bypasses the largest voting bloc in favor of their own people. (It would be ludicrously egotistical of me to claim that this proposal was made to short-circuit my own influence on Bylaws within the California LP, and while I understand them better than most, and I am most definitely a thorn in the side of the conspirators, this would be a piss-poor means to do that, so I tend to discount the idea on it surface.) Plus there is always the “lost in the mail” factor. Lee Wrights’ dues renewal notices got lost in the mail, too, (assuming they were ever sent, but his ex-wife says they weren’t in his mail) and they used that to claim he was no longer a member. There is no reason that mail ballots to undesirable national sustaining members could get lost in a similar fashion—or claimed they were sent when they really weren’t. Instead of the Bylaws being put out for full delegate consumption as they are now, they become limited to a select group, with that group conveniently being their own pay-to-play crowd.
A proposal to strike the Credentials Reporting Requirement and the clear language of each delegate being eligible to vote, in favor of relying on Robert’s Rules. There is no faster way to confuse members than by delving into the arcane, inane, and intricate details of the procedural mess known as Robert’s Rules. Well, guess what, this one would do exactly that, forcing a reliance on the Parliamentarian to decide things for the members instead of the clear language of the Bylaws. With that in mind, the loopholes are opened considerably to not only deny members their votes, but also to purge them and to dictate who can vote and who can’t, to a preordained result.
A proposal to require NOTA to get tokened up (in contrast to toked up, which is a different thing!) like the people candidates, when the convention body already nominates NOTA by default anyway. The net result of this is to draw tokens away from candidates that might be seen as disagreeable, diluting the process. Delegates will be confused that their tokens can go to a non-person automatic candidate instead of a person candidate that needs the tokens to qualify for nomination.
A proposal to require up to 20 secondings of a motion from the floor, which would include seating delegates. A motion could die from a lack of a second when in fact there was one, which further confuses (and eventually alienates) delegates—assuming they can get seated in the first place.

Makes sense, doesn’t it? Confuse the heck out of the delegates so they have no idea what or who they are voting on or have voted on, while stacking the deck against the membership. And those like me that expose the situation get subjected to the purge.

3. Purge the dissenters by any means possible. You’ve seen one method, which is to confuse and frustrate them so they leave. You’ve seen some attempts to winnow down who has a say in national Party affairs to a select few.

But wait, there’s more!

They want to have delegates give them direct power to disaffiliate states and expel members:

A proposal to disaffiliate states who nominate Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates other than the convention nominees (the “Phillies Rule One”). This was brought about because New Hampshire nominated George Phillies in advance of the 20098 national convention to satisfy ballot requirements, and then could not replace him with Barr per state law, which resulted in the ongoing lawsuit that LPNH wanted no part of.

Right now, states can be disaffiliated if they violate the national Bylaws and the LNC votes ¾ to do so. Remember the LP California Bylaws proposal I mentioned above? That would have been a violation, and you can bet a push for disaffiliation would have followed. Had that failed, the delegates would have been limited as explained above. Purging the largest state affiliate from the ranks would have only solidified their power play immensely, especially since there is little love lost between the two.

The table was set for this one in 2008 under the guise of the Bylaws proposal to cover an alleged loophole in licensing state affiliates. At that time they made a planned mistake to ask for the moon in wanting control over local affiliates (below state level), as a calculated move to get what they really wanted, which was the language change for state affiliates. Had they gotten both, it would have been mere gravy. Delegates then didn’t see the real story for the cover story, including me, and it was passed after the language referring to local affiliates was stricken, as planned.

A proposal to expel members that circulate ballot petitions for Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates other than the convention nominees (the “Phillies Rule Two”). They don’t want members putting anyone on the ballot other than their people. Never mind the obvious workaround that non-member petition circulators are not covered.
A proposal to expel Party officers or state party officers who sign any papers supporting Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates other than the convention nominees (the “Phillies Rule Three”). Ironically enough, this rule would have caused the LNC to be expelled over offering Dr. Paul the LP nomination had it been in effect when that happened.
A proposal to block out members of or people who support other parties (the “Barr/Keaton Rule”, named because Barr gave money to GOP candidates running against LP candidates while in the LP, and because Keaton was photographed modeling a Boston Tea Party tank top, even though she’s not in the BTP as of this writing). The proposal is written so that such a person may not be a “committee member” in a broad sense. That can easily be interpreted as including a state central committee member of ANY state. Purge of the Ron Paul R3VOLution, anyone?

The moment they try to interfere directly in the affairs of the state Parties by dictating to them on membership is the moment they have shown their hand and are royally screwed, because the states won’t stand for it.

But that’s not enough either. They also want to…

5. Stretch out the process so that members forget what happened. They’re relying on the idea that in today’s Short Attention Span Theater, people easily forget what happened in the past. Unfortunately, that’s a generally true observation. But they seek to foster that to their advantage by a Bylaws proposal to stretch out the time between conventions from every two years to every four years, allegedly to save on costs, but really to create more time to enact their plans and get members to forget about it and keeping them in power.

That’s their plan: limit, confuse, purge, and forget.

So what can be done about it?

There are three things to do:

Throw the bums out! By that I mean Redpath, Starr, Sullentrup, Karlan, Flood, and Mattson. Replace them with better leadership that is more concerned with Party growth and not concerned with internal power plays and attempts to establish fiefdoms. That also means firing M Carling, and Robert Kraus.
Get involved. The world truly is run by those that show up. The opponents of the LP are well-organized and have a plan, even if their execution is clumsy. But even clumsy, they’ll get away with it if they are allowed to. There’s plenty of talent and people but not the involvement, and that involvement is what is needed.
Call them out on their shenanigans! The Lee Wrights affair is unraveling on them as this is written, thanks to the activity of dedicated and PISSED-OFF members who have stepped up for our friend and representative. But that will not stop them from their plans unless we continue to expose them.

So the Coup is planned, and some people will claim this is nothing more than conspiracy theory and connecting disjointed dots. To them I simply ask then, if I’m wrong, and this all a bunch of coincidences, then why do those things exist in the first place?

More on Universal Health Care

2009-04-19T00:29:00.000-07:00

(Follow-up to http://muddythoughts.blogspot.com/2007/01/universal-health-care-insurance-doesnt.html)

Universal Health-Care Insurance–The Wrong Health Debate

It seems that health care is the domestic hot topic this campaign season, with all of the focus being on rising costs of service and providers dictating what they will and will not pay for and how much in patient treatments.

There is no doubt that all of that is a large issue. But it is getting the cart far before the horse. That issue of health insurance is just a symptom of a larger health care problem. Other symptoms include obesity, the flood of pharmaceuticals, pollution, overwhelmed emergency rooms, the growing controversy over vaccines, and a slew of others.

The problem I’m talking about, and the problem that our aspiring political candidates *should* be talking about, is our general health.

After all, common sense dictates that if we as a nation are healthier then our need for the comprehensive health insurance that everyone is talking about becomes less and less.

First, a disclaimer up front. I have health insurance. I have good health insurance provided by my employer. But it doesn’t make me healthy. All it does is make me better able to cover the costs of getting unhealthy.

I recently just got over a nasty cold. I didn’t go to the doctor and I didn’t go to the emergency room, and I didn’t use my health insurance to treat it. I used over-the-counter remedies, both allopathic and homeopathic as well as dietary.

And therein is the problem. Addressing health insurance problems doesn’t address true health promotion, but rather paying for *bad health*. It’s treating the illness rather than working to prevent it in the first place. And that’s where the *real* debate, and the real solutions, lie.

We own our bodies, our minds, and our souls, and we have a responsibility to ourselves and to those around us and close to our hearts to take care of ourselves and those around us. Our bodies are actually complex machines that require good maintenance and materials in order to operate efficiently and correctly. To be sure, our genetics have an influential role, but even more so do our actions. What we eat, drink, breathe, and do greatly influence how we live and how healthy we are.

Let’s assume government is the solution for the moment. It’s a lousy assumption, considering its past track record, but let’s run with it. If government wants to really address the health care problem, it needs to start at the sources of our health, or lack thereof, and work to improve those for our benefit.

Our air is polluted with smog and chemicals, and the technology exists to make it better. Government can help there by providing incentives to industries to clean the air by becoming more green, installing smokestack scrubbers (for example), and in general promoting less pollutive practices through tax credits while punishing more pollutive practices through tax penalties. Government can provide tax credits to consumers for being more green as well, be it by planting trees to clean the air, carpooling, and so on. Government can plan for and implement more open space as well, with green belts to help the trees.

Our water is much the same as the air. Water is our life and our future and we need to be careful with it now so we have that future. We don’t need hot- and cold-running sludge. Government can encourage preserving and restoring the wetlands that filter that water, plus helping to develop desalinization plants to add more water resources. Government can also encourage through tax credits better water treatment and penalize bad treatment.

Our food supply is in bad shape. Our soils are exhausted, their nutritive elements leached out by overuse and replaced by chemical fertilizers, resulting in inferior food products that need fortification with vitamins and minerals. GMO foods are not the answer and are an unknown health risk. Government can help by promoting soil replenishment and natural agricultural practices, crop rotation based on soil needs rather than market forces, a reduction in petroleum-based pesticides and herbicides (which can cause cancer) and fertilizers, and getting our meat out of the feedlot and back on the range. More certified organic food and unprocessed raw foods into consumer diets will help, but that means more time at home to cook, which means less time at work, which means more take-home pay and government can help that by cutting income taxes.

Our bodies can be improved with vitamin supplements, good nutrition, and boosts and balances to our immune systems. Alternative treatments such as Chinese medicine, herbalism, homeopathy, and naturopathy should be encouraged and promoted as a means to make us healthy, not derided. Vaccines are a poor attempt at homeopathy and wind up being nothing more than poisons.

Better yet, we can do all of this without government involvement, through informed choice and the free market.

We have the motivation and we ultimately have the power. In today’s age we have unprecedented access to the needed information to take the right steps. The rest is up to us getting off our fat butts, being responsible for ourselves, and making it happen.

So what are we waiting for?

Bong Hits for SCOTUS

2009-04-19T00:15:00.000-07:00

(This case was decided a while back, and I thought I had blogged it, but I can't find it. So I'm reproducing it.)

It appears that from today’s Frederick v. Morse ruling, the Supreme Court, led by the conservative branch, not only took leave of its senses, but overdosed on whatever medications they were on when they wrote this crock of a ruling.

Once again, the Supreme Court defies common sense.

The facts are simple: Student Frederick joined fellow students across the street for his high school in Juneau, Alaska, to watch the Olympic torch relay pass by. as it went by he unfurled a 14-foot banner that read” Bong Hits 4 Jesus”. Principal Morse saw the banner, crossed the street and tore down the sign and suspended Frederick for “promoting illegal drug use”.

The school upheld the suspension for those reasons. Frederick sued, lost at the circuit level, won by reversal at the 9th Circuit, and lost at the Supreme Court.

The problem with the ruling by Roberts for the Court is that it is based in fantasy.

First, they back the ludicrous claim by the school district that the message had to do with drug use. While it is certainly true that “Bong Hits” may have a drug connotation, it can also have a musical connotations, “Bong Hits” relating to ringing of a large bell. In fact within the context of this particular message it makes much more sense. Despite all that, Frederick himself stated that the message as meaningless and that he saw it on a snowboard. Obviously the school district and the Roberts Court know the state of Frederick’s mind better than Frederick himself.

Second, they claim the event was school-sponsored and school-sanctioned. That too is bogus. The event was sponsored by the United States Olympic Committee, not the Juneau School District. School sanctioning of an event is meaningless, because students attend events that schools do not sanction all of the time, without any restriction on students free speech. Political rallies, rock concerts, and professional sporting events come to mind immediately. The Court and the school district need to have this claim, however, in order to make their ruling: without the idea of school sponsorship or sanctioning they cannot claim ANY right to censor Frederick’s speech or suspend him.

Third, Frederick was not under any control of the school district at the time the event happened. Frederick had never arrived at school that day when the incident occurred and never even set foot one on the school grounds that day prior to the incident. He was as much of a passerby to the event as any non-student was that day. He was not in attendance at the school at that time, so his student status cannot apply in this situation. Because he never arrived at school prior to the banner being unfurled, the school had no control or custody over him; therefore they could not censor or suspend him at all. To imply otherwise would give the school district unfettered reign over a student in all places, from the home to the public square and everyplace in between. It’s a very simple concept the Court completely ignores, and is crucial to the case: was Frederick under school control at the time? Since he arrived at the event and not at school first, the answer is no, and therefore the school had no legitimate claim of control or jurisdiction over his actions.

Fourth, the Court claims, as does the school district, that the banner message was “speech or action that intrudes upon the work of the schools.” What is that work in this case? The school district claims that work is the education of students about the dangers of illegal drugs and their use. Despite the obvious crossing of the line from education into indoctrination that occurs in such a purpose (see more below), what does “Bong Hits” have to do with the Olympic Torch? This event had nothing to do with an educational setting, for starters, and was purely an extracurricular event. Whether it happened during school hours or not is irrelevant. Second, if the banner had read “Steroid Shots 4 Jesus” or “Bong Hits for Olympians” then maybe there might be a connection between the banner and the event. This event had nothing whatsoever to do with the work of the schools.

Fifth, the Court fails to properly distinguish the actions and the message conveyed by the actions. It is long settled in the courts that while both are relevant, they must be considered separately. Motive of action is what separates first-degree murder from manslaughter, for example. In this case, the Court tied the two together when they should not have, and in doing so arrive at exactly the opposite conclusion that they should have. His actions were clearly free speech on a public sidewalk outside of the legal control of school authorities. He was engaging in his First Amendment Rights. The message conveyed by his actions may have been deemed offensive by others, most notably Principal Morse, but feeling offense is no grounds for censorship! If Frederick has conveyed a message using “fighting words” or other context to incite violence, such as “Kill the Teacher” etc. then removal of the banner might have been appropriate, but only by law enforcement, since Frederick was outside school control at the time. But that didn’t happen either. But because the Court not only ignored Frederick’s state of mind in terms of the banner message but lumped the action and the context together, it arrived at the idea that the banner could be censored and the student suspended. That conclusion is devoid of logic and goes against the Court’s own reasoning in the landmark Tinker v. Des Moines case: in Tinker the court ruled that First Amendment speech is protected for students unless school officials reasonably conclude that it will “materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school.” What is the disruption here, except to Morse’s sense of order to the event? It certainly was no disruption to the Torch as it passed unimpeded, and that had nothing to do with the school anyway. It certainly did not disrupt the work of the school as school work was suspended for this event in the first place. If anything, the school work was disrupted by what Morse did after the fact as that made its rounds of the students as this type of juicy gossip does, so if anyone violated Tinker it was Morse, not Frederick. The Court then applies the absurd claim that the disruption was to the school’s ongoing effort on anti-drug indoctrination, but fails to explain why a differing opinion, if the banner could even be construed as one in the absurd manner the school district claims, is disruptive. The only logical explanation is that the work of the school in anti-drug indoctrination is to remove all discussion about the topic and require students to accept the propaganda the school presents at face value. But that is not education; that is brainwashing. Absent that discussion the education is absent, and Frederick’s banner could have served as an instructional tool and means for discussion and furthering the students’ education rather than becoming an object lesson in civics on how not to handle a free speech situation.

What the Court also loses in the context is the message itself. If Frederick has, as Justice Stevens state in his dissent, simply stated “Glaciers Melt”—would that have been taken to be a contextual message on global warming, part of Alaska’s tourism industry, or the laws pf thermodynamics? Would Morse have torn down the banner if it had said “Sugar Packets 4 Jesus” or some other nonsense beyond the nonsense of “Bong Hits 4 Jesus”? Hard to say, but it would not be surprising if Morse would. The Court uses the idea, though that it is a drug message to justify the censorship. That is beyond logical and places the First Amendment, as Stevens aptly points out in his dissent, in the realm of being limited by context discrimination, which is purely subjective. The Court itself has ruled that the context discrimination clearly violates the First Amendment. The First Amendment does not say, “Congress shall make no law prohibiting free speech unless someone in authority disagrees with what is expressed.” Yet the court reverses itself on that very point here.

As for Morse, she was completely in the wrong, and as a school administrator she should know what the limits of her authority are, and in this case she crossed them badly. She got so wrapped up in her own emotional reaction to Frederick’s banner that she abandoned logic and rational thinking and awareness of her own role and proceeded to turn a silly joke into a national case. She was best to leave it alone and then use it to promote a discussion on the topic afterwards. Any student will tell you that if a “cool” thing becomes a teaching tool, it no longer becomes “cool” and the whole idea dies off quickly. Morse should have been aware of this being a high school principal and used it to her advantage instead of acting like an idiot. But that does not mean she should be held personally liable as Frederick would contend. She was acting in her capacity as an employee of the school district and not as a private citizen and therefore any liability would be assumed by the district. On that point the Court was in unanimous agreement and was correct.

In summary, the Court was out to lunch on this one. Context and circumstances do matter, and the case was wrongly decided in a manner that does not bode well for students in this nation. The only solution to this ongoing and growing tyranny in our public schools is to remove the students from the schools and seek their education elsewhere, be it private or home schools. That or remove the public schools in favor of other means of education, which isn’t a bad idea either.

Government Bailouts explained

2009-04-18T10:39:00.000-07:00

How to solve the housing mess in 2 easy steps and one year

2009-03-02T14:13:00.000-08:00

This solution will preserve homeownership, fix toxic assets, and even stimulate the economy.

1. A one-year mortgage holiday for everyone:

No payments required for one year (except for escrow for taxes and insurance).
No foreclosures or late fees.
No interest accumulation.
Homeowners can optionally continue paying to catch up on late payments if they so desire.

2. At the end of the one year holiday, refinance the entire housing market:

30-yr fixed at 2% for previous fixed-rate mortgages.
30-yr fixed at 3% for previous ARMs.
30-yr fixed at 2.5% for all new purchases.
All fees waived.
All homes reappraised for the current market.
No cashing out of equity, if you have any.
No negative impact to credit ratings.
No addition to or deduction from "income" of the difference in mortgage valuations or costs.

Everybody wins:

The banks still get their money and can rewrite toxic assets into good ones.
The foolish ARM homeowners get a real shot at keeping their homes--even though they really don't deserve it.
The wise fixed-rate homeowners like me get a break in their rate and a proper reward for being smart.
The net savings will keep people from drowning in other debt since it gives them a shot to pay it off, or deal with other expenses, which can stimulate the economy.
New homebuyers get a very good rate to buy.

Extend this to credit card debt and then we're really getting somewhere! Of course, the cards would have to be frozen on the use side as well, which could hinder things some.

The only obstacle is an obstinate Congress.

Of course, this makes sense, even if it is government intervention in the market, which is why it will never happen...

Fine Essay on Liberty and Government

2009-02-17T11:05:00.001-08:00

From Lew Rockwell, used with full credit and reproduction.

Liberty in the Choice of Governance

by Michael S. Rozeff
by Michael S. Rozeff

What is government? It is an organizational vehicle by which people hope to guide certain of their interactions. It is the framework and means by which they obtain governance. Governance, or the regulation of certain of their interactions, is the basic good they seek when they institute a government.

Liberty in the choice of governance has its roots in liberty of a person to decide the course of his or her own life. I regard liberty in the choice of governance as good in itself and as instrumentally good, both for persons and groups of persons. The basic political idea of panarchism that relates to government is that a person consent to his or her governance. Panarchism’s ideal is governance of one’s choice. Liberty in the choice of governance is the root of panarchism, as opposed to tyranny, or being forced to live under a government.

Ideas of force differ among different persons. There exists the possibility of a vast range of modes of governance, and history shows a number of different realizations. One person’s compulsion may well be another person’s liberty. Panarchy contemplates a variety of different and co-existing modes of governance.

The moment that an observer makes claims about what a government’s structure is or how it is to be formed, he is expressing a personal view with which others can differ. If John Adams should say that we need a constitution for Massachusetts and write one, or that it should be voted on using majority rule, or that it should guarantee certain rights, or that it should be perpetual, or that a particular set of people should vote on it, and so on, he is narrowing the possible frameworks and also their evolution over time. He is deciding in advance who the relevant persons are that will be in the group deciding the matter and even how their votes shall count. This runs counter to panarchism.

The panarchist does not seek to impose a form of governance for others, although she may certainly argue that some forms are preferable to others, not only for herself but for other persons. I call myself an anarchist (as well as a panarchist) because my personal preference is for no government-as-we-know-it. I want governance. I think governance cannot be avoided wherever people live together. The form of it, in my opinion, should be so decentralized and open to personal choice that it will hardly be recognized for being government. My anarchist opinions are not my views on panarchism. Panarchism takes precedence by far, for it is a general social theory. It logically precedes the choice of a particular form of governance.

Speaking as an anarchist, I have frequently criticized government-as-we-know-it. I still do. That is the voice of someone demanding liberty and seeking to persuade others of the same. But I wish to distinguish clearly my preferences from those who favor this government that we share. Since I am forced to live under a government, I do not regard it as government at all. I do not wish to be tyrannized by words. So I say that what we call "government" today I do not dignify by that term, inasmuch as it is tyrannical. People who feel that they are living under tyranny are prevented from choosing their form of government. For them, the "government" is not government at all: it is a whip and a chain and a jail. It is a power that robs them of their humanity. I define government as only being government when it is legitimated by consent of those governed. Being "ruled" by a gang or by a dictator or by a tyrant, without one's consent, has nothing in common with legitimate government. It is a contradiction in terms to say that one is governed by a tyrant. One is not ruled by a tyrant. One is pushed around. The English language, unfortunately, lacks this distinction in the single word "rule." One can have certain social affairs managed by governance without being ruled by a sovereign power. To be controlled by force is not the same as being ruled by a legitimate form of government. One is a criminal endeavor, the other a peaceful and consensual matter. Confusing these two relations dulls the moral sense and places them on the same plane where they do not belong. This manner of thinking is an inheritance from Aristotle, perpetuated to this day. Let us bury it.

How does panarchism differ from anarcho-capitalism? Since anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism, it expresses a personal preference for a particular form of governance and government. It is too great a digression and task to discuss what anarcho-capitalism is or is not. For current purposes, I use a quote from Wiki: "Anarcho-capitalism (also known as free-market anarchism) is an individualist anarchist political philosophy that advocates the elimination of the state and the elevation of the sovereign individual in a free market."

If the state were solely a tyranny, as I believe some prominent supporters of anarcho-capitalism see it and define it, then there would be agreement between panarchism and anarcho-capitalism on that score. However, the state is not solely a tyranny. It has many supporters. Many people vote for it and its programs. There exists a certain amount of consent and support for the state and what it does. There is a demand for states of various kinds, and we see this throughout the world and in history. The very variety of states indicates varying demands. We see this variety of demand in that some of those dissatisfied with the large governments of the present wish to go back to the smaller governments of the past. To advocate elimination of the state, as this quote suggests the anarcho-capitalist does, is to advocate the imposition of one's own preference for a form of governance on others. Not everyone wants free markets in everything or the elimination of the state in its entirety. A panarchist does not advocate the elimination of the state as a general matter, even if as an anarchist that is his personal preference or even if he tries to persuade others to prefer living with a vastly reduced state or even no state.

The panarchist does not advocate elevating the sovereign individual in a free market. You may personally want a society with social relations of a particular kind, as may I, but a panarchist is not intent on making this happen for others, only for himself in conjunction with willing others.

The panarchist advocates liberty in the choice of governance.

Nowhere have I mentioned territory. It is implicit in the idea of panarchy that territorial borders that have been made by some men, more or less arbitrarily or by force of arms and other such means and not by legitimate means such as working the land, cannot be a basis for classifying and grouping people together against their wills or without their consent. In fact, no arbitrary criterion can be imposed from an external source and still maintain liberty in the choice of governance. Territory is one such criterion but there are others such as tribe, color, religion, ethnicity, class, population density, age, sex, and so on.

The anarcho-capitalist who advocates no state is implicitly assuming that all persons in a given territory that the state has proclaimed its own form a people that should be freed from that state and all its operations and programs. The libertarian who advocates the liberty to use any drug is implicitly assuming a territorial domain for this freedom. The expert on money who proposes a gold standard is implicitly assuming a territorial domain for its operation. Similarly, when John Adams proposes a constitution for Massachusetts, he is thinking about all the people within certain borders. In all these cases and more, the advocate of liberty is injecting her personal preferences. She is actually pointing out how she prefers to live and how she thinks others should live, and she is labeling this preference as liberty. Naturally, this approach is rejected by those who want certain features of the state. There are those who want drugs prohibited or abortion prohibited or who want social insurance through government. The "liberty" advocated by the libertarian or anarchist is compulsion from their viewpoint. It threatens their preferred way of life.

In trying to achieve liberty for all, the libertarian or anarchist is his own worst enemy. He alienates all those who feel threatened by some aspects of his liberty program that they dislike. Furthermore, he argues interminably with his fellow libertarians and anarchists over the 25 percent of issues over which they disagree.

The panarchist, by advocating liberty in the choice of governance, by implication does not place governance for others on a basis of anything necessarily territorial, religious, ethnic, or any other criterion. Those who create their own governance may willingly choose such a criterion, but the panarchist idea does not include any such basis in its assumptions.

If those who favor liberty are ever to make significant headway in gaining a greater degree of liberty, they cannot allow their personal preferences for living in liberty to override the fact that panarchy is the only logical ideal that is consistent with all kinds and stripes of personal preferences.

There will never be a successful liberty movement until there is agreement on a single overriding ideal; to be divided is to be conquered. Liberty in the choice of government is such an ideal. The problem of unifying has to do with what liberty means. Libertarians, anarchists, and panarchists cannot succeed unless they unite under one banner or one demand, which, as it now seems to me, is liberty to choose one's governance. It means liberty to form a group (or associate) anywhere on earth, including dispersed over the earth's surface, and within that group to have consent of the governed.

There are numerous libertarians in America, perhaps the majority of them, that want to change the Constitution or restore it or any number of other similar attitudes, or else they want to change the laws we live under. In seeking these changes, they assume that they will be bettering the lot of others by giving them liberty. They then run into enormous resistance, the reason being that there exists a vast range of personal preferences that cannot be worked out under any one form of government, including the libertarian form that brings its version of liberty to all. All of this effort seeks to work out our collective destinies within a single and same framework of governance. This can only be tyrannical insofar as many object to that framework and do not consent.

If the program for liberty were elevated to one overriding aim – liberty to choose governance – these difficulties would melt away. If all those who seek liberty made it clear that they only seek to govern themselves by their own consent and to let others govern themselves by their own consent, they'd be closer to the idea of the colonists in separating from Great Britain. They'd be united. They’d have a far greater chance of realizing an improvement in liberty. They’d no longer threaten others, and the resistance of others would have the ground cut out from beneath it. They'd have the high moral ground, for who can justifiably criticize someone who wants to have the liberty to choose his governance? Who can dispute that a government should have the consent of the governed? If these principles are conceded, then the only reservations and criticisms become practical ones. People will wonder how can this be done? How will it work? Those matters can always be worked out once the principle, which is all-important, is conceded. That principle is this: Liberty in the choice of governance. Liberty in the choice of governance without an imposed territorial restriction or any other imposed criterion, while celebrating the liberty for persons to group themselves on any basis of their choosing, or none at all.

February 17, 2009

Michael S. Rozeff [send him mail] is a retired Professor of Finance living in East Amherst, New York.

Why Renting Sucks, Reason #4,788

2009-02-05T15:49:00.000-08:00

From Fox News:

A landlord is demanding the ex-husband of one of the Covina Christmas Eve Massacre victims pay up on her rent.

In what can be described and decried as a ridiculous and outrageous action, Broadcrest Fotohill Apartment Homes is putting the screws to Carlos Ortiz to pay $2821 in rent and penalties on his late ex-wife's apartment because she broke her lease by being murdered.

File this one under, "WTF???"

First of all, he didn't live there, he wasn't on the lease, and therefore wasn't a party to the lease. Broadcrest has no grounds to go after him for anything.

Second, Broadcrest claims that Alicia Ortiz gave "insufficient notice to vacate" the apartment by being murdered. What the hell was she supposed to do, beg her sister's ex-husband to wait a moment before killing her? "Wait, wait, I need to write a note to my landlord to tell them I'm vacating my apartment, then you can kill me!" "Oh, I'm sorry, go ahead." Please. Fact is, the lease ended with her life, and the family had every legal right to retrieve their property form the apartment. A notice to vacate clause in a lease does not apply a dead person since when that lessor dies the lease is no longer valid. So Broadcrest's claim is simply junk.

It's bad enough that this family has been shattered beyond belief over this massacre. But for Broadcrest to come along and demand money from them on top of it is just insane. Someone there needs to be fired for being insensitive and clueless, not to mention incompetent.

And Broadcrest needs to publicly apologize to the Ortiz family and eat their loss with a healthy side of crow.

On Sex, Pheromones, Gender, and Leanings

2009-01-22T14:21:00.000-08:00

Some random thoughts on a discussion Lady Gaura and I were having:

If there is a genetic linkage to both homosexuality and heterosexuality, and I believe there is, then the questions are how much and how does it impact.

We know from genetics that genes are “turned on” and “turned off” by various chromosome combinations. Those genes determine what we are made of, how we operate, what can happen to us, and most importantly here, how we instinctively respond and react.

We also know that people react in various states of arousal (or none at all) to pheromones that others excrete.

We also know that that the conscious and unconscious can be in conflict with each other in the mind, and that some people can even be overwhelmed by the struggle.

So, here’s what I think. Keep in mind this is purely speculative and my opinion only. I have no idea if anyone has ever postulated this idea anywhere, so if someone has, it’s genuinely news to me. It is likely to be controversial (keep reading), but I won’t apologize for that.

The genetics of who we are turn on receptors for pheromones in the body at puberty, both for pheromones of the same gender and the opposite gender. The pheromones are excreted at all ages. The level of receptor activation on each can and does vary from person to person, so that a person may have more receptors active for their own gender, the opposite gender, a close-to-even split, or in the case of the asexual person, none at all. I would not be surprised if the receptor levels were measurable and graphed that it would resemble a flipped Bell Curve in terms of sexual preference.

Meanwhile in the mind, the unconscious takes note of this activation and the reactions from each. These unconscious reactions are what feed our sexual instincts and determine whether one is gay or straight or asexual, and to what degrees of each. Meanwhile the conscious mind absorbs all the indoctrination we get as children on the issue, including gender identity, and the social mores of sexuality, or in both cases, the lack thereof.

As we mature both intellectually and sexually, the mind tries to sort out what the conscious has absorbed against what the unconscious has absorbed. This can cause a lot of confusion in people. I would even go as far as to state it can cause gender identity confusion, leading to people becoming transgendered and even changing genders completely, but I think it also can have other, very bad reactions, such as the case of a person who expresses outward outrage at certain sex acts, but then goes and does them themselves. Rape and other violent sexual crime, for example, could easily be explained as the conscious wanting to do the act, the unconscious fighting it, and the result being a mental snap in the anger and violent direction.

I also think it happens for more than just sexual and gender identity. I think it really is the entire process of self-discovery, of casting off the mores and values imprinted on us by our parent figures and finding our true selves.

That maturation process can also bring out latent sexual attractions from the unconscious, which can overcome the conscious indoctrination one has received. I think this is seen most commonly in the bi-curious person, who is attempting to figure out their own sexual identity. It’s also seen in those people experiencing sexual awakenings and sudden surges in interest in all kinds of sex, from the ho-hum to the exotic and off-beat. It also may be an element in the so-called “mid-life crisis.” I truly believe that sex fantasies that people have are simply their unconscious asserting itself from time to time.

Now, mind you, I have no idea if this is even close to accurate. It’s just a theory. But, if it is, that raises a couple of questions (and hence the controversy).

Does it mean that there could eventually be a genetic technique to change or turn off the activation of the male and female pheromone receptors, thereby changing one’s unconscious reaction to specific genders? The implication of simply that would be staggering, because it would confirm that one’s sexual preference is genetic, but it would also confirm the idea that it could be “fixed” (I hate that term in that context!). It would also have the potential to increase or decrease the number of active male or female receptors, making one more “gay” or more “straight”, hence the “fix” (or simply more horny, hard to say). It could also be a means to treat sexual predators or addicts by removing the unconscious urge. However, it could also be used to sexually repress all of society, or make everyone a perpetual horndog. (For the Prude Patrol, this horniness is not necessarily a bad thing, since they need to get laid REAL BAD!)

Does it mean that there could eventually be a means to stop pheromone excretion on the front end, until such time as they could be turned on again? Since nobody seems to know exactly what else pheromones affect, this would not be a good idea. The logical application of this, should it become a reality, is to tune off the pheromones in children to render them safer from pedophiles. But at what other cost?

All of that aside, this line of thought presents some interesting threads. Specifically, it would explain a lot of the sexual subjugation, conflict and turmoil that people encounter. It certainly would explain how and why people react sexually the way they do—why some people are completely straight, others are completely gay, and other are bisexual leaning one way or another. It also calls on people to examine their conscious sexual mores closely and to see if they really are what their unconscious mind believes. This requires a patient and loving and understanding partner, because it that journey could be rather rough.

If I were Inagurated...

2009-01-20T15:05:00.000-08:00

It's ironic that the Chief Justice, the man most in charge of protecting and interpreting the Constitution, got the Oath of Office totally wrong today...

What a debacle of silliness this all was--the pomp, circumstance, and in general overhype of the day makes me want to puke.

If that was me up there, and it should be if the people ever possessed enough common sense to elect me after I took leave of mine to run, I would borrow a page from Thomas Jefferson and keep it small. Here's what I'd do:

I'd walk into the National Archives. There would be two pool cameras, a podium to the side, and some chairs to the side for family, the Chief Justice, and the VP entourage of her and her family. No public here, because it doesn't make a lot of sense for them to be out in the cold freezing their collective national ass off just to hear 34 words and a speech. They can stay warm and watch it on TV. The Chief Justice would swear me in, with my hand on the case holding the Constitution, as it should be, sans the "so help me God" line, which isn't part of the oath anyway, and then I'd go to the podium and give the speech.

Here's that speech. Let's assume it's January 20, 2013.

My fellow Americans:

I take the reins of government today with a new beginning, a new purpose, and a new commitment. That commitment is to you. That commitment is to the limited-government principles of the Constitution, to protecting and defending your inalienable rights against all infringement, including that done by government. It is not to the special interest groups, lobbyists, crooks, and thieves that make up the halls of government, whether they be elected, hired, or simply loitering at the government trough like leeches on a wound.

A hundred years ago America veered drastically off course, and only now are we bearing the final brunt of that mistake. Only now will we finally fix the series of catastrophic errors that set the stage for a hundred years of destroying this nation and all we hold dear. Only now will we do what needs to be done, whch is get back to the basics. May we be not too late!

Government, according to President Lincoln, is supposed to be "of the people, by the people, and for the people." A college friend of mine had a T-shirt that quoted that famous line from Gettysburg, but it also asked a question: "What about the people?" It's a question the politicians refuse to answer, either by ignoring or ridiculing those who ask it. Well, I'm asking it now. The difference is that I can answer it, and I will.

Another President, James Madison, explained it another way: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined." It is time, far past time, that we took his words to heart again. It is time to put the teeth back into the Bill of Rights, especially the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. It is time to roll back government, to shrink the Leviathan. That is exactly what I will do.

The fundamental principles of this nation can be found in her founding documents: that we all are equal, we have rights that no government may infringe, and that the ability to govern comes from the consent of the governed. That consent can also be revoked, and when the abuse of government power becomes such that the revocation becomes not only necessary but overdue, revolutions happen. It happened in 1776 when we took up arms for our independence from the corrupt British Crown under King George III. It is time to have it happen again, this time peaceably, by doing what must be done--scaling back the reach, breadth, and oppression of government. I possess the ability and more importantly, the will to do it. But I cannot do it alone, and fellow Americans, I need your help. I need your help to hold your elected representatives in Congress accountable to make these changes, to move past the petty political bickering over whether the policies of more government on the left is better than the policies of more government on the right, to the more fundamental question of securing our freedom. I also need your help to make sure that as the federal government scales back that the states do not jump in and replace it. Let us never forget that the rights of We The People trump all laws, for the rule of law is derived from government, and government is derived from the People that inherently possess those rights. That includes the states, and no state has the power to trample your rights. Nor does the federal government. It hasn't done a good job lately on that protection, and it will change. We are a Republic, not a democracy. Never forget that!

The federal law has 50 code sections and matching regulations. We're going to go over every last one of them with a fine tooth comb. We're going to figure out what is extra-constitutional and toss it, and keep what is not. The focus is not going to be on retaining or expanding power in Washington or Wall Street. It will be about returning and expanding the power of the citizenry, of We The People.

We're also going to repeal the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments. Those two amendments, ratified under dubious circumstances a century ago, drastically changed this nation for the worse. The Sixteenth gave the government the power to rob the citizenry and call it taxation. The days of the Sheriff of Nottingham are over. The Seventeenth destroyed our system of checks and balances by eliminating the voice of the States in the Congress. It's time to bring that check back. We're going to make terms mean what they say, so no home shall be threatened by eminent domain, so privacy laws are in force, and so that we once again become the Land of Liberty and not a police state. We're going to end the warfare mentality, be it targeted at other nations, terrorism, guns, drugs, sex, poverty, or animals. We're going to respect the citizenry again, as we should have been doing all along and weren't.

These changes may seem radical, and to a nation that has alarmingly grown accustomed to government being Big Nanny or Big Brother, they may seem impossible, but they will be done. It is time that We the People stand up and take responsibility for our own well-being and posterity, and once free of the shackles of government, we will be able to do so. It is my hope that people can grow and learn the skills necessary to prosper. Those are the things that made this nation great once, and we can do it again. We have always had the innovation, and the resources to do it. It is time to restore the motivation. And it begins with each and every one of you, your families, friends, and colleagues.

So I call upon you today, each and every one of you, to get off the sidelines and get involved. We used to be the biggest exporter of goods in the world. Now we're the biggest importer. That needs to change, back to what we once were. We need to get the factories making widgets and the people back in the factories making them. We need to make the merchants of Main Street prosperous again instead of closing down because of Wal-Mart just outside town. We need to rebuild our infrastructure, regrow our small businesses, and clean up our messes. We need to become resource independent, and we can do it. We need to end our credit codependency and get back to sound demand-based economics based in solid money and the bedrock principles of earning and saving. we have the technology and the innovation. What we've been lacking is the political will.

And government is not the solution nor the means to doing these things. We will do our best to make sure you all have the equal opportunity to do your best, protect your rights, and otherwise stay out of the way. What you make of it is up to you.

To Congress, I say this:

This is going to happen, whether you like it or not. It's not about you, your committee assignments, your earmarks, your pork, your cushy luncheons with lobbyists and special interest groups, and your political pandering. I will veto every single piece of legislation you send to my desk that does not pass constitutional muster. If you override the veto I will not enforce it. The oath I just took I take seriously, and that means my first duty as both President and a citizen is to protect the rights of my fellow citizens from your excesses. That is what I will do. The partisan kindergarten squabbling that you engage in will stop, because it benefits not a single citizen. We cannot afford to do otherwise either. I want a constitutional amendment requiring a Balanced Budget passed and sent to the States for ratification. You will see that proposal today. The same is true to enable a Line-Item Veto. And that's just the start of the reforms.

To the rest of the world:

America is embarking on a new direction, the one President Washington urged in his Farewell Address. That direction is simple: Peace and commerce with all, entangling alliances with none. America can no longer afford, nor has the desire, to be the world's policeman. The nations of the world will need to learn to function without us, and without our financial and military aid. America will be taking a step back from the world stage and turning its attention inwards. We have plenty of internal problems to solve, and we will solve them peaceably. We will not neglect our legitimate national security interests, but we will be carefully re-evaluating them. Our new policy will be that of self-defense-based neutrality, meaning America will no longer take sides in conflicts between others, will stand by to gladly help broker peace, but will also maintain a strong defense based at home to counter any threat. To quote President Roosevelt, we will speak softly, and we will carry a big stick, but the stick will only be used to defend our citizens, no matter where they are or how many. That is this government's obligation to our people, and we take it very seriously. The United Nations will need to leave New York within the year, and the military alliances America is involved in will see our withdrawal. Critics will ignorantly call this isolationism. It is not, for we will still maintain diplomatic and commerce contacts with all nations. We will listen to the grievances of other nations towards America and work to foster peace and clear dialogue of where we all stand. We will withdraw our military to our own shores. We will happily advise the nations of the world as to our national experience as they grapple with becoming more free. But above all we will allow every other nation on Earth the opportunity to do what we have done--to become a great free nation, to become like us, not by war or coercion, but by peace and cooperation.

My fellow Americans, the road ahead is twisty, winding, rough, and long. We will make mistakes. We always do. Yet it is a road we must take, because the alternative of the flat smooth route is short, and it goes directly over a cliff. As a nation, America can make it, but only if the internal bickering and strife ends and we get back to the basics that made this nation the great nation it once was. We can make this nation that great again. I want to make this nation that great again. We've become too stagnant in our thinking, our actions, and our attitudes, and it needs to change. I call on every citizen to join me and help me make the American Dream a reality once again. President Kennedy once told America, "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country." Liberty's Torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans, again, and we should make her proud. So I ask you this instead: "Ask not what you can do for your government; ask what you can do for each other." As the wise Dr. Franklin pointed out at the signing of the Declaration of Independence, "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately." We must do this, and we shall. The call for a more perfect Union by We The People demands no less.

Today is a new beginning, a return to our roots, and back to the basics. Let us embark on this effort together, equal to all, superior to none, and live up to the national motto of E Pluribus Unum, "from many, one."

Thank you all, and all blessings to all people. Let's get busy.

Merry Christmas, America!

2008-12-24T15:52:00.000-08:00

Just a reminder that anyone at any time can be declared a terrorist for any reason and thrown into jail, Gitmo, or some other legal limbo:

Section 802-a-4-A of Patriot Act I amended 18 USC 2331 to add to the definition of “Domestic Terrorism” activities “that involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;”

That means jaywalking or speeding can get you branded a domestic terrorist!

Section 501 of Patriot Act II expanded the definition of “enemy combatant” to include American citizens who “may” have violated Section 802 of Patriot Act I, above.

That means you didn't even have to break a law to be considered a domestic terrorist and enemy combatant, and then thrown into Gitmo!

Section 102 of Patriot Act II states that any information gathering, legal or not, can be considered clandestine intelligence activities for a foreign power (espionage).

They made news gathering and legitimate research espionage!

And to top it off, Section 201 of Patriot Act II makes it a criminal act for anyone to release information about who is detained or where.

So they can drag you off the street and lock you away on nothing more than being there and doing nothing illegal, never to be seen again.

Land of the Free? Not likely!

Merry Christmas, America! Don't peek at the presents, kids--it's espionage that will get you thrown into Gitmo!

Victory for Angela Keaton!

2008-12-09T15:34:00.000-08:00

The aftereffects of the resignation of The Keaton are still reverberating throughout the LP. I myself when I heard the news was shocked, saddened, and outraged at what I perceived was blatant unprofessional conduct by Mr. Eric Garris, Angela’s employer at AntiWar.com. I was wrong on that, being set straight by Angela herself, and I “manned up” and publicly apologized to Mr. Garris, and he accepted my apology.

Once the emotional WTF? ended, I thought about it a little more. Angela is a close friend, and one helluva tough woman. She won twice this past weekend.

Her first win was in getting the utterly ridiculous charges dropped against her, and she did it in style, with full outrage and anger and fully exercising her right to air it all out openly, where the charges were shown to be utterly inane, and by putting up with no bullshit from anyone. The gallery’s laughter at the charges was just a bonus, with each chuckle a nail in the coffin of her persecutors. This is what she said in a prepared statement when she presented her defense:

“My opposition to the Barr campaign and the general tenor of current Party leadership and direction is well known, though I'm certainly glad the LNC spent so much effort compiling a "Greatest Hits of Angela" for those who remain ignorant of this fact. I do often express that opposition in the form of comic invective, on the Internet and elsewhere, as is my right---and as I expect the members of the LP, many of which share my opposition and dissatisfaction, who elected me to represent them expect. My thoughts and opinions on the current direction of the LP are and were well-known to those who elected me, and such opinions, very common among the membership, deserve public representation and will continue to receive them from me. Expressing my opinions about the LP is no breach of duty to those to whom I owe a duty, the party members I was elected to represent; rather, it is exactly my duty. I do not recognize the comedic expression of opinion within a political party to be an infraction for which one deserves censure or dismissal; and this whole campaign of harassment is merely an attempt to shut out a loud and prominent voice among the party members who share my dissatisfaction and disdain with current leadership, strategies, and the presidential campaign.”

The dispute resolution committee was a compromise attempt, but that really sealed the deal for her second win.

Her second win was her resigning. This is her statement:

“Friends:

This is to confirm that I have resigned my position on the Libertarian National Committee.

I did not do this as a result of pressure from either Mr. Garris or the LNC. In fact, a few LNC members apologized for any part they may have played in this. However, as long as Redpath, Sullentrup and Starr remain in office, donors will continue to have serious questions about administrative competence, staff neutrality and most importantly ideological coherence.

While I won Saturday’s battle, I had no intention of sitting through yet another round of investigative nonsense only to be told that I was “unprofessional” because I dared say publicly what so many of you say in private. While I have nothing but the greatest respect for so many of you, I was the one who delivered the complaints to Redpath and his cohorts directly. I was the one who took the brunt of purge. And a brunt it was!

This is not an HR issue. Actually, Eric Garris not only defended me as my employer but he was willing to do what only a dear friend would do: Save my life.

Eric was aware, as were some of you, that my physical health had begun to deteriorate rapidly after the last three months of harassment by the proxies of the Barr and Root factions. Vomiting blood should not be the reward for pointing out the inept, incompetent and insidious. I went to San Diego to demand that these saboteurs look me in eye. I stood up to the bullies and won but it came at a price. I refuse to give up another moment of my life to these bastards.

For those of among you that I count as my friends, today is my birthday. The greatest gift you can give me is to accept that I have done all I can do to save what remains of the Libertarian Party, and that you will continue our struggle.

Angela Keaton”

The whole mess had been eating her up inside for months, and she was a very wounded person, brought on by the complete and utter bullshit of a group of vindictive persons who saw her, her personality, and her doing her job on the LNC as a threat to whatever little power trips they were playing at the expense of the Party and its membership. They inflicted on her an emotional abuse and physical harm that no person should have to endure, and far beyond what most people could endure. She won because now she is free of all of that, and she left on her terms, and not theirs, head held high, and she did it in resounding style in the way only The Keaton can do. She is now free of the chains that were holding her back, that were giving her serious issues in her life, including ulcers, and now she can heal and get back to a better place. Some of us, her closest friends, of which I am honored to be, will help her get there. Before this hit the fan in the past few days, when Angela was starting to get wound up about it, I asked her, “What can they do? If they throw you out, you’re free of it, and if you stay, they won’t try it again. No matter what, you’ve already won.” In one way I was right, because she did win. But I was also wrong, because the abuse they had heaped on her was causing a health decline, and very few knew the extent of that decline. I didn’t, and I sure wish I did, because both my wife and I would have done everything we could to have helped her cope then.

Make no mistake: the specific people she mentioned in her letter confirming her resignation are cruel and despicable, and they deserve to be run out of town on the nearest rail for what they did to her. Such behavior is emotional abuse, and is hardly the live-and-let-live attitude that the LP and libertarianism in general is supposed to have at its roots!

So what now? What happens next?

For Angela, she’s gone into a proverbial hole for now and taken the hole with her. She needs time to heal, and she is going to take it. She needs to get away, and I think it is best for all to respect her privacy until she decides to return. She's in her private Liberated Space for the moment. But I know this: she is a tough and amazing woman, and she will return, better than ever. I know I am one of many people that are damned proud of her. Whether Keaton/Shinghal ’12 happens now or not is TBD and up to them. Angela gave herself the best birthday present she could get: her own freedom.

For the LP, the damage is severe but repairable. A LNC Alternate Regional Representative, George Squyres, has resigned as well, for reasons not related to this. The faction mentioned above has already moved to stack the LNC with one of their own as a replacement for Angela, but it is being fought. They need to begone from office ASAP before they destroy the LP by either pure incompetence or sheer evil. They also may go after other LNC members not in their cadre to drive them out as well. Plans are being made to make 2010 a potential showdown on the future of the LP. The die has been cast, and the bleeding is happening, and this is not going to be pretty. A new movement has been spawned, partially by Angela, who blazed a trail in September, and by partially by me, who widened it a little this past weekend, along with a cast of many others, to bring openness and membership feedback to the LNC, which is sorely needed. I announced that at San Diego at the close of the open session, and the gallery erupted in a cheer that upstaged Wayne Allyn Root's announcement that he was running in 2012 for the LP presidential nomination the day before. Personally, that felt good.

For us, Angela’s friends, we stand by her and support her. We understand, respect, and support her decision. I do especially, because I have been in her present situation in my past elsewhere. We will await her return, and proceed together from there. In the meantime we will take up her fight and continue it as she requested.

For Angela’s detractors, critics, and enemies, I will defer to a quote by Thomas Knapp: “Go fuck yourselves.”

For the future battles in the LP, and there will be plenty of them, and bloody as hell, I don’t think “Remember The Keaton!” is a good battle cry. But it helps to keep it in mind. :)

Never, ever, piss off an engineer.

The future begins now. Time to get to work.

LNC Meeting Dec 6-7

2008-12-03T22:25:00.000-08:00

Watch the LNC webcast here! Dec 6-7, broadcast starts at 7:30 AM, meeting at 8 AM. Twitter feed is on the right. If you have a Twitter account you can log in there and read the tweets.

Watch live video from LNC Meeting Dec 6-7 on Justin.tv

How to do a College Football Playoff

2008-11-25T12:39:00.000-08:00

With all the hype over a college football playoff spouting up again because of the perpetually fucked-up BCS, I will dust off my own proposal.

Right now, there are 11 conferences and the Independents:

ACC, BigEast, Big12, Big10, C-USA, MAC, MWC, Pac10, SEC, Sun Belt, WAC, Independents (Notre Dame, Army, Navy, Western Kentucky).

That means 12 berths, assuming one from each is eligible with at least a 7-5 record. No 6-6 teams allowed. (Independents, that means you!).

Here’s how you do it:

The 11 conference champions and the best of the Independents get berths into the playoffs. Each conference can determine its own champion its own way, and the Independents will do whatever it is they will do.

Use a Power Ranking, or some sort of ranking among the 12 teams to determine seeds.

The top four seeds get first-round byes.

If a conference winner is not eligible, the 2nd-place conference team gets the berth. If no Independents are eligible, then the #5 team gets a first-round bye. The same would be true in the occurrence of the bizarre case of a conference having no eligible teams.

The 11 games are played elimination-style, each one at a bowl, and each one except the championship has to be at a neutral site if possible. No Miami in the second round in the Orange Bowl, or USC in the national semifinals at the Rose Bowl, thank you.

First round starts the week after the conference championships, meaning the second week in December, and one round is played per weekend. Each round has a pot of cash attached to it, and the pot is guaranteed to each team in each round, doubling each time, starting with $1M in the first round.

The semifinals and final will rotate between the Rose, Sugar and Fiesta Bowls. Orange, Cotton, Gator, and Holiday get the second round games, and the first round games are at locations TBD. The other 23 bowls can be for the also-rans, provided they all finish at least 7-5. No 6-6 teams allowed in the postseason.

EXAMPLE: Based on this season, if it ended today, and based on strength of schedule to determine ranks, it would look like this:

Big12: Texas, SOS 1, Seed 1
SEC: Florida, SOS 6, Seed 2
ACC: Florida St., SOS 12, Seed 3
BigEast: Cincinnati, SOS 29, Seed 4
Pac10: Oregon St, SOS 36, Seed 5
Big10: Penn St, SOS 44, Seed 6
MWC: Utah, SOS 54, Seed 7
Independents: Navy, SOS 56, Seed 8
MAC: Buffalo, SOS 75, Seed 9
WAC: Boise St., SOS 90, Seed 10
C-USA: Houston, SOS 92, Seed 11
Sun Belt: Troy, SOS 102, Seed 12

So the first round of games on Dec 13 with $1M to each team would be these:

8 Navy vs. 9 Buffalo
7 Utah vs. 10 Boise St.
6 Penn St. vs. 11 Houston
5 Oregon St. vs. 12 Troy

The second round of games on Dec 20 with $2M to each team would be these:

1 Texas vs. lowest remaining seed, Orange Bowl
2 Florida St. vs. 2nd-lowest remaining seed, Holiday Bowl
3 Cincinnati vs. 2nd highest remaining seed, Gator Bowl
4 Florida vs. highest remaining seed, Cotton Bowl

The semifinals on Dec 27 with $4M to each team:

Lowest seed vs. highest seed, Fiesta Bowl
2nd lowest seed vs. 2nd highest seed, Sugar Bowl

The championship on Jan 3 with $8M to each team:

Last 2 remaining, Rose Bowl.

Now THIS makes Sense!

On Proposition 8

2008-11-06T23:59:00.000-08:00

The balloting is done, and it appears that 52% of Californians believed in the lying hype put forth by the bigots who put forth this crock of a Proposition.

So what now?

Three lawsuits have already been filed with the California State Supreme Court to block it from being implemented. They claim that Prop H8 actually made a far-reaching amendment to the state constitution that requires approval by 2/3 of the state legislature, which was not done, and therefore is invalid.

While that may be true, here’s better courses to take.

First, the state course.

The wording of Prop 8, which only defines marriage in California as being valid between a man and a woman, has many state constitutional problems. First, it invalidates all same-gender marriages made between June 17th and November 5th, which by definition is an ex post facto law, which violates Article 1 Section 9 of the state constitution:

“A bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts may not be passed.”

An ex post facto law is one that has retroactive force. Prop 8 attempts to undo what was legally done. The Attorney General is trying to avoid this by saying that the state will honor those marriages, some 16,000 in all, but he can’t dodge the plain wording. Second, the ruling by the state Supreme Court is not in any sense overturned by Prop 8. The ruling was that Prop 22 was unconstitutional because it denied equal protection under the laws as specified in Article 1 Section 7-a:

“A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws;”

Well, guess what, Prop 8 still does exactly that! It does NOTHING to overturn the state Supreme Court ruling. All it really does is create a constitutional conflict. The current equal protection clause says that same-gender couples can marry. Prop 8, which would become Article 1 Section 7.5 if enacted, would contradict that, but IT DOES NOT say that it is an exception to Section 7!:

“Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

And that exception is REQUIRED by Article I1 Section 26:

“The provisions of this Constitution are mandatory and prohibitory, unless by express words they are declared to be otherwise.”

Because no exception was made in Prop 8, section 26 is applied, meaning that Section 7-a remains fully intact, and the ruling by the state Supreme Court along those lines also stands. To resolve the conflict, Prop 8 must go.

So, in this case, opponents of Prop 8 have two strong arguments at the state level to toss Prop 8.

Second, the federal course.

In Colorado in 1992 voters enacted a state constitutional known as Amendment 2. It was an amendment to the state Constitution to prohibit all governments in Colorado from enacting laws or rules that would prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. The case found its way to the United States Supreme Court, which ruled, in Romer v. Evans, that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause prohibited such an amendment, and that homosexuals were considered a suspect class for discrimination, and more specifically that class-based legislation aimed at homosexuals was unconstitutional. That suspect classification was used as a foundation for the landmark Lawrence v. Texas ruling in 2003. Also, since the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Bill of Rights against the states, Romer applies to Prop 8 and is therefore unconstitutional. Also applicable is the landmark Loving v. Virginia, where the rejection of Virginia’s claim of equal denial of rights for both whites and blacks to marry each other is analogous to what the California Supreme Court ruled here. Even Planned Parenthood v. Casey addressed the issue:

“It is settled now, as it was when the Court heard arguments in Roe v. Wade, that the Constitution places limits on a State's right to interfere with a person's most basic decisions about family and parenthood,”

To say that marriage is not included in those most basic decisions about family would be ludicrous on its face.

And Lawrence itself gives the statements that make it a landmark and directly applies here, in its holdings:

“Petitioners’ right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in private conduct without government intervention. Casey, supra, at 847. The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the individual’s personal and private life.”

Marriage is definitely such private conduct, and denial of the right to wed is definitely government intervention.

If the lawsuits go the federal route, this is the way to argue it.

Third, the state amendment route.

If the bigots can do it, so can we.

Post-election Thunks

2008-11-05T17:26:00.000-08:00

After a long day of tracking, canvassing, and in general going ARGH!, the election is over. The new President-elect is Barack Obama, elected in a landslide, as predicted. More on that and its future here.

But I also was tracking ballot issues nationwide and can’t figure this out at all:

Arizona voters got smart and voted to ban taxes on property sales or transfers, but then got stupid and banned gay marriage and shot down a Homeowners’ Bill of Rights.
Arkansas voters got really stupid and voted to allow idiots and the insane to vote (kid you not) and then banned unmarried cohabitating couples from adopting.
California voters…nevermind. We’re beyond fucked up here. Just call us Stupidfornia. We voted to build a railroad, ban gay marriage, give chickens bigger cages, and state mortgages for veterans. I voted no on all 12 propositions, so at least I can sleep well at night with enough booze to numb the pain. Now we'll see Stupidfornians riding the Springfield Monorail with free-range, hetero-only, married chickens to a veteran's house.
Colorado voters got stupid and shot down opening up union shops and banning mandatory union payroll deductions for state employees, but then they got smart and shot down five tax increases, the personhood amendment, saved TABOR, and added craps and roulette to Central City, Blackhawk, and Cripple Creek.
Florida voters had the sense to ban certain property improvements from being included in property tax assessments, but then they got stupid and banned gay marriage.
Iowa voters also got stupid and voted to allow idiots and the insane to vote. Must have been the Arkansas folks bussed in.
Louisiana voters got smart and voted down easing restrictions on blight to facilitate eminent domain takings.
Massachusetts voters got smart and decriminalized MJ, but then got really stupid and voted down a tax cut and voted to ban greyhound racing. 2000 hounds will need homes from that, adopt if you can, please!
Michigan voters got smart and passed MMJ.
Nebraska voters got smart and passed a discrimination ban. Colorado voters had one on the ballot as well but the totals aren’t in yet.
Nevada voters got really smart and passed a very tight eminent domain reform.
Ohio voters got smart and gave property owners their water rights.
Oklahoma voters pre-empted the PETA pukes and passed a right to hunt/trap/fish amendment (got 80% in the no-brainer vote of the year, why 20% voted against it is beyond me!).
Oregon voters got stupid and voted down deducting federal taxes from state income and refused to allow home renovations under $35K to not have a building permit (here in CA, we just ignore the permits and do it to code anyway).
South Dakota voters came to their senses and shot down its abortion ban.
And Washington voters got smart and decided to let people do us all a favor and let us help each other kill ourselves with assisted suicide.

There is no pattern here, save one: people are stupid.

Obama finished his victory speech with the traditional "God Bless America."

To that I add, "Gods Help Us!"

Fill in the bubbles

2008-10-30T14:04:00.001-07:00

OK, you know the drill: fill in the bubbles. This may become a regular feature.

Support the Boston Tea Party

2008-10-22T22:20:00.000-07:00

They win on the hotness factor, as shown by the Keaton:

"Party Like it's 1773!"

Thoughts on What's Coming

2008-10-21T18:26:00.000-07:00

Economic Chaos. Potential War with Iran. Energy Prices. Recession. Russia. Pakistan. Iraq.

What do these all have in common? A pretty grim picture.

Let’s examine the links between these things. You may want a scorecard for this.

Consider the following facts:

1. Oil had peaked at $147 (7-11-08), and now is at $71 (as of 10-21-08). That’s a 52% drop in three months.

2. World stock markets have tanked in the past four weeks, with trillions of equity and investments being lost.

3. Iceland faced default on its national debt. (Iceland???)

4. Iran is still enriching uranium, and the West still claims they are working towards a nuclear bomb. IAEA says otherwise.

5. Israel is bleating the war drums loudly.

6. The now multi-trillion-dollar bailout did nothing to help the market or the consumer.

7. Russia is on the rise from being flush with petroleum money and is revamping their army, navy, air force, and infrastructure.

8. The Pakistani people are getting agitated against U.S. efforts to track down and kill al-Qaeda in Waziristan.

9. Iraq is supposedly winding down, but troops aren’t coming home yet.

10. Afghanistan is heating up, and there is little chance of improvement there.

11. Unemployment and foreclosures are still on the rise in the U.S. as the recession continues and takes its deepest dive yet.

What does this all mean?

In a word, war.

Yikes!

The effects will be immediate: World War III, which really started on 9/11, will turn very hot very fast.

So here’s the situation: With the markets in meltdown and unemployment and home foreclosures still rising, the American people are getting angrier and angrier. They feel they were ignored by the trillion-dollar bailout and have let the elected government know it. However, the meltdown, which has its foundations in the utter mistake of relying on credit to move an economy, will only get worse, because the American government is either unwilling or unable to see the real root problem, let alone do anything about it. Frantic, the government will search for a means to kick-start the economy, get people working again, and get things under control. Martial law could be useful here, according to some people.

Enter Israel stage left, with their own angry concerns over Iran. They want Iran’s nuclear research eliminated so they can remain the only nuclear power in the Middle East, which allows them to retain a tactical superiority. If Iran has its own nukes as a MAD deterrent, that creates the option for an all-out conventional attack on Israel, the likes of which hasn’t been seen since 1967. Yes, Israel has the technological and defensive advantage there, but a nuclear element makes Tel Aviv nervous and uncertain. So they want that element taken out. They did it before in 1981 on Iraq.

Meanwhile, Iran has its own problems. It is unable to refine its own oil resources into the gasoline it needs to run its nation, so it imports gasoline while exporting oil it doesn’t use for power. It wants to develop nuclear power so it can export more oil to afford the cost of improving its refining capabilities and stop importing gasoline. In DC, they view this effort is to give them a nuclear weapon, or alternatively, as a means to funnel more money to terrorists. Sure, it could funnel a nuke to terrorists, but that option nobody takes seriously, since the number of nuclear states is few (nine) and such an activity is easily traceable back to its source by the fallout elements. Their biggest buffer against an attack, a huge spike in oil prices, has evaporated as the price has dropped. Now the market and consumer can better absorb an oil spike if Iran is attacked, even with a recession.

Of course, that’s all based on the lie of Iran developing a nuclear weapon. They aren’t. Enrichment for nuclear power is a 5% level, and for a bomb, 70-90%. Iran is right at 5%, according to the IAEA.

Russia has indicated that it would stand with Iran if they are attacked. They have been using their own oil resources to rebuild their military and national infrastructure, and last month they sent a message to Washington when they sent a fleet into the Caribbean to Venezuela, including using strategic Tu-160 White Swan (“Blackjack” as the West calls them) bombers, that can carry supersonic nuclear cruise missiles. Washington either didn’t get or ignored the message, and very few Americans were even aware of what was going on. Now Russia and Venezuela are engaging in war games, making Colombia nervous.

An attack on a Muslim country AGAIN by America will not be seen well in the Middle East, and would give Muslims the reason they need to engage both the U.S. and Israel in an all-out war, including more terrorist 9/11-style attacks here. There are only two reasons why that hasn’t happened so far: their patience and our dumb luck. Neither can last forever.

So where does that leave the Bush Administration: plunging straight ahead towards the cliff.

If a 9/11-style attack happens first, be it either real or a false-flag, the Bush regime will immediately try to blame Iran. They may try to blame al-Qaeda again and tie them to Iran, but that gambit was tried with Iraq and the American people aren’t buying that again. In any case, the Bush regime will use it as an excuse to declare martial law, suspend the elections, and try to resurrect the economy by going to war, dragging a very unhappy and reluctant population with him. How the population reacts is anybody’s guess, and it depends on how much the American people have been wussified to simply go along with it so they can get back to playing their Nintendo Wiis or playing music on their iPods.

If Israel strikes Iran, with or without American assistance, then we would be facing a theater war with Russia and Iran and who-knows what Muslim nations on one side, America and Israel on the other side, and a whole lot of troops in both Afghanistan and Iraq stuck at the front lines. The battle of Armageddon may well begin. The reason the troops have not left Iraq will be made quite clear: Iraq is the preposition point to invade Iran. It is far easier to invade Iran from the west than from the east, from Afghanistan. Just look at a map.

Can this go nuclear? Easily, because you have three nuclear powers in the equation (United States, Russia, Israel) and possibly a fourth in Pakistan, whose role has always been tedious and on edge, and following them would be a fifth in India, with their own nukes, and possibly a sixth in China unless they exercise the good sense to stay out of it. So not only could it go nuclear with between three and six of the nine world nuclear powers (Britain, North Korea, and France are the other three), it could go beyond theater into a continental or even global war. Russia is thinking that way and so are the BMD folks in the Pentagon, which why there is a big brouhaha over the missile defense units in Poland and the Czech Republic.

Naturally, such a war, if it stays conventional (might we be so lucky!) would be seen in Washington as a means to get the economy going through a war machine as we did in World War II. But this is not 1939, and the reasons for and the rules of war have changed. It used to be over land and resources. Now it’s over money and energy.

In Main Street America, however, two factors will come into play. One is the current anger over the situation. It is very conceivable that Americans, already angry over losing their homes to foreclosures and retirement accounts to the corporatist American zaibatsu on Wall Street, may simply refuse to go along, defying all federal efforts to federalize the economy the way they did in 1941-42. But that’s not very likely, because of the other part of the equation, which is the newest front in warfare, which in cyberspace. A full conventional war will be accompanied by a full cyberwar, and the American government’s attempts to limit information to their official sources ala 1984 will just aid their opponents. How much the American people buy into the propaganda remains to be seen and goes back to the wussification mentioned above. The average American is not ready for and does not understand what a cyberwar is, what it does, or how it affects them. Nor are they informed enough to look outside the corporate media sources of the United States. If the war goes nuclear and Russia were to do an EMP attack over America, the power and information loss would be devastating from a survival, informational, and psychological perspectives. The American people are slaves to their electricity, even as this is typed on an electricity-powered computer.

So, what has to be done prevent this mess? Well, for one, Israel must calm down. Second, nations must continue to use diplomacy to keep Iran at the negotiating table to get their nuclear program under inspection and supervision. At the very least those two things must be tried to keep things calm until Bush leaves office and takes his corrupt cronies with him in January. The American elections MUST go forward cleanly and properly; if not then the anger increases and the results may be a foregone conclusion. Americans cannot do anything about another attack except increase their own local vigilance for any odd activity. They must also get off of the credit cards and get back to living within their means on cash.

But above all, there must be an organized and concerted effort to pressure our leaders to exercise proper leadership, not to just beat the drums of war because of campaign dollars or market profits for cronies, but instead to work with the world to forge peace as a means to develop prosperity, to turn around the negative attitudes and get nations to work on peaceful mutual interests and trade.

That effort starts with the grassroots of the world, from the bottom up, to get the leaders, elected or not, to do the right thing, not only for their own people, but for all people.

It starts with US.

All too true...

2008-10-18T17:23:00.000-07:00

This is insanely bad...

2008-10-16T22:42:00.000-07:00

From a local Riverside Republican Women's group:

Inland GOP mailing depicts Obama's face on food stamp

As made by the Chaffey Community Republican Women:

Nuts, isn't it (even if they did get the Kool-aid color wrong!)?

To what depths will the GOP sink?

UPDATE 10/20: apparently it came from a left-skewer blog--at least that's what the CrayoLA Times reports...

Last gasp for McCain?

2008-10-15T14:28:00.000-07:00

We'll see tonight. I won't do the question-by-question analysis like last time, but I will present my thoughts.

Beforehand, though, if Obama drops the cool veneer and layeth the smacketh down on McCain, it's all over. The key question will be if McCain brings up Ayers or ACORN, both of which are traps for McCain.

Otherwise, all Obama has to do is tell McCain directly, "Look directly into my eyes and tell me, and the world, that you have a plan that will rebuild America, create jobs, produce goods for export, fix our infrastructure, and get us out of the Middle East both economically and militarily." Then he just sits there and looks straight at him in a game of optical chicken. McCain will either give a bullshit answer, he'll turn away, or he'll lose it and go ballistic. In any case, Obama wins.

After that, the only possible chance would be for Sarah and/or Bristol Palin to pose nude in Playboy, but since Larry "Hustler" Flynt is proceeding with a Sarah Palin send-up porn flick, even that might not be enough.

UPDATE: McCain came out flailing and attacking. He fell into the Ayers and ACORN traps as expected, and in general looked very bad. Obama clearly won.

On the way out, McCain couldn't find the door, just like Bush did once, and wound up, once again, trailing Obama, to his great displeasure:

BTW, this photo was taken from a Yahoo News slideshow on the debate. If it's a photoshop job, blame Yahoo. If not, blame McCain. His campaign makes me react that way, too.

In Defense of the Alaska Independence Party and the Palins (Yes, you read that right!)

2008-10-10T09:56:00.000-07:00

Short but sweet.

Alaska Independence Party favors a public vote on whether Alaska should remain a state, return to a territory, be a commonwealth, or become an independent nation. They were allegedly promised this vote in 1958 and it never happened.

Todd Palin, the "First Dude" of Alaska, is a member of the AIP. For this, his wife gets criticized on the campaign trail, because people seem to think secession is unpatriotic.

I'm no fan of Sarah Palin. She is not politically qualified to be VP. But this criticism over the AIP is just wrong.

Allow me to quote the most famous secessionist in American history:

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

So, are these critics of Sarah Palin also saying that THOMAS JEFFERSON was unpatriotic???

America was formed on secession from Britain, remember???

Think about it.

Money: A Must Read

2008-10-06T20:18:00.001-07:00

This is long, but worth the read, and it explains much about the origins of money, how we got to this mess, and how to deal with it.

http://mises.org/story/3122

No on Prop 8

2008-10-05T12:02:00.000-07:00

This one is outstanding, because it takes the biblical arguments and shoves them straight up the theocrats' asses!

Dogs 1.0

2008-09-30T23:19:00.000-07:00

Dear Bill Gates,

Recently I purchased and installed DOGS 1.0. I soon noticed that this program appears to have numerous glitches. For instance, every time my computer boots up, I have to run Feed 5.3 and Water 7.1. Many times I've been in the middle of writing an important document and a window will flash telling me to run Take for Walk 2.0. This program also contained applications I did not wish to install, such as Pooper Scooper 8.5, and Drooling dogs 9.4.

Applications such as Vacation 2.7 and Free Time 10.1 can no longer run, crashing whenever selected. Possibly the worst is that DOGS 1.0 has attached itself to programs like Finance Manager and MS Money, with folders added such as "Entry Fees" and "Puppy Toys". Periodically, I'll get a reminder telling me to send a check to the manufacturer of DOGS 1.0 for the aforementioned items.

I have tried to uninstall DOGS 1.0 numerous times but when I try to run the uninstall program, I get warning messages telling me that a deadly virus known as "Dog Show Withdrawal" will infect my system. Please Help!!!!!

THE REPLY:

Dear User,

Your complaint is not unusual. A common misconception among users is that DOGS 1.0 is a mere "utilities and entertainment program." It is not - it is an OPERATING SYSTEM and is designed by its' creator to run everything! A warning will soon be imprinted on the box.

Since you have already installed DOGS 1.0, here are a few tips on how to make it run better. If you are annoyed by the applications Feed 5.3 and Water 7.1, you may run C:\HIRE HELP, however this will cause another folder to be added to financial applications, labeled "Staff". Failure to send payment to "Staff" will result in Feed 5.3 and Water 7.1 being run again on startup.

A note of caution: NOT booting up your computer for several days isn't the solution to avoiding Feed 5.3 and Water 7.1. You will find that, when you boot up your computer again, a nasty virus called "Barking and Howling 4.2" will have attached itself to important documents and the only way to rid your computer of "Barking and Howling 4.2" is by purchasing and installing "Vet 10.1", which we admit is extremely expensive but crucial. Otherwise, "Barking and Howling 4.2" will cause irreversible damage to the operating system.

Finally, it is important that you run C:\Milk Bones and C:\Tummy Rubs on a fairly regular basis to keep the application running smoothly. If you have any more questions, please call our toll free number.

Sincerely,

Tech Support

McCain's Slow Death Spiral

2008-09-30T17:27:00.000-07:00

The Straight Talk Express, as much as a misnomer that can ever be in what is shaping up to be the worst Presidential election since, well, 2004, ran off the road and into the election ditch over this Ripoff and Rape America Bill.

(UPDATE: It appears that Hairball Reid & Co. are going to attach it to a current Senate bill to force a vote to put pressure back on the House to reconsider and pass it. in what can best be described as a backdoor maneuver to push through a bill that nobody except Wall Street wants, meaning that once again, the Beltway and Wall Street seem to trump real Americans and Main Street--those fucking bastards!)

Back the adventures of Panama John and his sidekick The Putbullied Pig with Lipstick.

McCain announced last week that he was suspending his campaign to come home to his masters in DC to work out the Ripoff and Rape America Bill. He challenged Obama to do the same, in a move that put Obama on the spot. If Obama met the challenge, then McCain could try to paint him as being easily manipulated and not strong. If Obama didn't, then McCain could paint him as not caring about the economy. Obama called the bluff and not only came back to DC but played an active role in the bill negotiations--far more than McCain even did. Insider reports are that Obama literally rolled up his sleeves and got to work, while McCain was in the room and mostly silent and doing nothing--most likely because the Man Who Doesn't Know Much About the Economy (PPT, anyone? Anyone? Bueller?) was in over his head. So much for trying to make Obama look easily manipulated, and McCain came out of it looking out of his league (which is accurate for both him and most of DC not named Ron Paul!).

In the middle of this was scheduled the first debate, in Mississippi, which McSame said he would not attend if no deal had been reached. Come debate time there still was no deal, but McCain went anyway, showing him to be a liar, and the irritable McCain promptly got smoked by a calm, cool, and collected Obama. Back to DC we go.

Once a compromise was reached, McCain, having done little but sit there and resemble a potted plant, left town and quickly moved to claim credit for the compromise and promised to rally the GOP troops to the cause. Famous last words. At the same time he blasted Obama in an obvious lie, claiming that Obama was doing exactly what McCain was doing, which was "phoning in" his efforts for the EERA bill, because McCain was actually doing it by phone from his Ohio campaign headquarters--so much for the campaign suspension, and that was quickly pointed out by the Obama campaign.

Then came the vote, and of course, as we know, it thankfully tanked. GOP leadership was quick to blame a speech made by Speaker Pelosi for the defeat, but the CREDIT for the defeat lies with real America and Main Street, who flooded emails and broke fax machines strongly reminding their Congresscreatures that we were following things, we were PISSED, and oh, yeah, there's an election in 5 weeks. 538.com has reported that of the 38 incumbents facing tight races, 30 of them (80%) saw the writing on the wall and voted no, purely ot save their own political bacon. Of those whose races were in the notoriously gerrymandered "secure" districts (which are unconstitutional per U.S. Term Limits v. Thorton, BTW) voted 197-198. Notable in the situation was that McCain was unable to rally his GOP mates in the whoreHouse to vote for the Rape, showing that he actually has no control over his own party and is unable to lead even that, let alone the nation. He couldn't even get his own AZ delegation to vote for it! In contrast, Obama sat back and let Pelosi and Co. do the heavy lifting and failing.

The bad news, and neither one of these SeNUTors get a pass on it, is what is planned for the SeNUT this week (see above).

Meanwhile, up in New York, NBC had Katie Couric interview Governor Hockey Mom. The disastrous interview itself, as well as the corresponding parody from Saturday Night Live, is now up in its gory details on YouTube--watch it with a barf bag nearby becasue you'll need it, and the SNL version was much better. The National Enquirer has now broken the story that The Homecoming Queen's Got a Gun was also having an affair with her husband's business partner, presumably while he was off on his snowmobile (a snow machine *makes* snow, Palin, you moron!) in the oil fields looking for moose for her to shoot (or put lipstick on) from a heliocopter. Troopergate just won't go away, either, and her tenure in Wasilla is coming out more as well, and it isn't good.

Her troubles aren't over either, as she is scheduled for the VP debate with Biden in two days and she will finally have the chance to make herself look even worse in front of a national TV audience, with no edits or do-overs. maybe she just ought to send Tina Fey in her place...

So, in summary, everything Panama John touched this week turned to manure. King Midas he isn't--more like King anti-Midas. His Dominatrix Librarian stuck her hockey-skate-laden foot in her mouth so much that the red on her lips isn't lipstick but cuts from the skate, and it's only going to get worse on Thursday.

He lied about his campaign at least twice, about Obama's actions, took premature credit for a failed bill, failed to lead his party, and got whacked in the first debate.

She ran into parody, bad interviews, affair rumors, more past foibles, and still has to face off with Biden in a can't-win situation.

The net result? The Straight Talk Express, complete with its Dual Airbags, is in the ditch, and there is no bailout in sight. Obama comes out of it looking good, for now, mainly because he didn't screw up.

Ron Paul was right on this mess, but I don't think even he could have predicted the sideshow of bad comedy and even worse political missteps that have happened here. The GOP is now beginning to regret shunniing him. That sentiment will get even worse over the next 5 weeks.

And the biggest winner of all? Bill Clinton. See, it really IS the economy, stupid!

BTW, here's McCain's latest truth slip:

Analysis of the Bailout

2008-09-28T16:06:00.000-07:00

OK, the newest draft of the legislative pile of manure known as The Ripoff Bailout on Main Street but The Rescue Plan on Wall Street, has been released. The ‘‘Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008’’ is the official DC title--110 PDF pages of junk.

Now we all know that is so full of bovine biosolids that it belongs on a Monfort feedlot. But the idiots in DC, in their perpetual "inside the Beltway" (them) vs. "outside the Beltway" (us) war--thanks to Wendy McElroy for the apt term--still seem to think they need to bail out their Wall Street Big Business friends and to Hell with real America.

That being said, I've been looking over the bill and have some following thoughts. The bill has 3 sections, so I'm going to break it down along those lines (or else this will run on forever!).

The full bill can be referenced here.

So without further ado, some thoughts on Section 100:

1. "Unjust Enrichment" (Page 9, Section 101-e):

"In making purchases under the authority of this Act, the Secretary shall take such steps as may be necessary to prevent unjust enrichment of financial institutions participating in a program established under this section,"

Now, what is an "unjust enrichment" of a financial institution? Conversely, what is "just enrichment"? Why is the word "unjust" in there at all? It should be removed to prevent ANY enrichment--no profiteering for financial institutions under the bailout, PERIOD!

2. "Considerations" (pages 12-14, Section 103):

The Secretary of the Treasury is *supposed* to take some things into consideration:

(1) protecting the interests of taxpayers by maximizing overall returns and minimizing the impact on the national debt;
(2) providing stability and preventing disruption to financial markets in order to limit the impact on the economy and protect American jobs, savings, and retirement security;
(3) the need to help families keep their homes and to stabilize communities;
(4) in determining whether to engage in a direct purchase from an individual financial institution, the long-term viability of the financial institution in determining whether the purchase represents the most efficient use of funds under this Act;
(5) ensuring that all financial institutions are eligible to participate in the program, without discrimination based on size, geography, form of organization, or the size, type, and number of assets eligible for purchase under this Act;
(6) providing financial assistance to financial institutions, including those serving low- and moderate-income populations and other underserved communities, and that have assets less than $1,000,000,000, that were well or adequately capitalized as of June 30, 2008, and that as a result of the devaluation of the preferred government-sponsored enterprises stock will drop one or more capital levels, in a manner sufficient to restore the financial institutions to at least an adequately capitalized level;
(7) the need to ensure stability for United States public instrumentalities, such as counties and cities, that may have suffered significant increased costs or losses in the current market turmoil;
(8) protecting the retirement security of Americans by purchasing troubled assets held by or on behalf of an eligible retirement plan described in clause (iii), (iv), (v), or (vi) of section 402(c)(8)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, except that such authority shall not extend to any compensation arrangements subject to section 409A of such Code; and
(9) the utility of purchasing other real estate owned and instruments backed by mortgages on multifamily properties.

Now, of that list, taxpayers would expect numbers 3, 8, and 9 to be top priority, because they are direct impacts to us. We *want* stable communities and to keep homes, especially those who are being screwed by this mess through no fault of our own (disclaimer: including me!). We want to make sure that the people who busted their tails for these lenders, the people who did the yeoman work just to make a living processing honest loans, we want to make sure that those people do not lose their retirements from these failures. And we certainly want to make sure multifamily properties like duplexes and apartments and condos don't go under, either.

BUT, those things will be considered by Secretary Paulson, for about a second, before the former CEO of Goldman Sachs rejects them in favor of number 2 first and foremost. I say that because that has been the pattern of his activity all along. Expect considerations numbered 1, 4, 5, 6, and 7 to go the way of 3, 8, and 9--considered and ignored.

The Boston Globe had a somewhat reasonable idea in that the government buy a 50% stake in these mortgages directly and refinance them with the homeowners to keep them in their homes, under longer fixed-rate terms, so that they can afford the payments. Once the mortgage is paid off the borrower works on paying back the government. If the home sells, the proceeds are split 50-50.

OK, so that's not the most libertarian idea in the world. But it's a far sight better than bailing out lenders that don't deserve it. I'd rather see those of us that did it right and are getting screwed through not fault of our own get some real relief besides and industrial-size tub of Vaseline and an extra $2300 per person tax bill.

3. The "Oversight" (pages 14-17, Section 104-b):

The "Financial Stability Oversight Board" will be the Secretary of the Treasury, Chair of the Fed, Director of Federal Home Finance Agency, HUD Secretary, and SEC Chair.

Some oversight, huh? No citizenry, nobody from real America--just political appointees and Wall Street types. Their "oversight" will be limited to who signs their paychecks--the White House and Wall Street--and not to the taxpayers. BTW, this group *is* the Plunge Protection Team, too! This is the robbers guarding the bank!

4. FDIC as a loan manager? (pages 23-24, Section 107-c):

This section puts the FDIC, the agency responsible for insuring regular bank accounts, into the loan management business. WHY???

5. The spending: (pages 40-49, Section 115):

- $250B AT ANY GIVEN TIME--no limit on number of times, either. Can be increased to $350B if the President whines to Congress.
- BUT--and here's the poison pill kicker!--in subsection a-3, if the President whines, Congress is on the clock for 15 days to pass a joint resolution disapproving of the spending, then if Congress doesn't get it done, the spending jumps to $700B at any given time, still with no limit on number of times.

THAT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL! Congress cannot delegate the power of the purse to the White House! This basically tells Congress that if Bush complains, he gets another $100B of taxpayer money automatically and if they don't act on his complaints to say no he gets another $350B of taxpayer money. It gives the White House a $100B Whiners Check and another $350B Fine if Congress decides to not. It turns appropriating funds on its head, assuming a "yes" unless Congress says "no", which violates the Separation of Powers doctrine, instead of the other way around as is traditionally done.

BTW, there is a typo in Section 115-c-2-D, in that it refers to Section 114-a-1 and 2, when it should be Section 115-a-1 and 2--there are no paragraphs 1 and 2 under 114-a, but there are under 115-a.

How much Vaseline do we taxpayers get for that rape up the rear???

6. National Debt increase (page 68, Section 122):

Increases it from the current $10.615T (as of 7-30-08 per Public Law 110-289) to $11.315T.

More deficit spending outside the budget. If they had any smarts of guts, they'd cut current spending levels to pay for it. Instead this $700B adds $2333.33 per person in debt to the nation.

Note also that if even if the debt ceiling is not increased again, a spending cut elsewhere in the budget can create more funds to blow on this scheme without increasing the debt.

There are other pieces of Section 100 that most likely could come under scrutiny from people more versed in those areas than I am. But Section 100 covers 90 of the 110 pages as well.

Next Post: Section 200, which has to do with budget-related provisions.

UPDATE: 9/29/08: With the bill failing in the House, for now, there will be no Part II or III. However, should it pass on reconsideration, I will do Parts II and III.

PETA and Bob Barr?

2008-09-24T22:20:00.000-07:00

Joined by Borat, Ben & Jerry's, and breast milk.

From Fox Kansas City:

PETA Pushes for Human Breast Milk in Ice Cream

Last Edited: Wednesday, 24 Sep 2008, 7:22 AM CDT

Created: Wednesday, 24 Sep 2008, 7:10 AM CDT

Given the choice, would you prefer cow's milk or breast milk?

PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, has written a letter to the co-founders of Ben & Jerry's ice cream, urging them to replace the cow's milk in the products with human breast milk.

PETA's request comes in the wake of news reports that a Swiss restaurant owner will begin purchasing breast milk from nursing mothers and substituting breast milk for 75 percent of the cow's milk in the food he serves. PETA points out to Ben and Jerry's that such a move on their part would lessen the suffering of dairy cows and their babies on factory farms and benefit human health at the same time.

"The fact that human adults consume huge quantities of dairy products made from milk that was meant for a baby cow just doesn't make sense," said PETA Executive Vice President Tracy Reiman. "Everyone knows that 'the breast is best,' so Ben and Jerry's could do consumers and cows a big favor by making the switch to breast milk."

In response, Ben and Jerry's spokesperson had this to say:

"We applaud PETA's novel approach to bringing attention to an issue, but we believe a mother's milk is best used for her child."

Of course, that inevitably leads to Borat and Bob Barr:

From Capitol Hill Broadcasting Network:

X-rated Ice Cream names besides Tooter Hooter Fruiter and Tit Roof Sundae are left to the comments section...

A new twist on an old junk mail...

2008-09-24T21:42:00.000-07:00

Dear *******:

I need to ask you to support an urgent secret business relationship with a transfer of funds of great magnitude.

I am Ministry of the Treasury of the Republic of America. My country has had crisis that has caused the need for large transfer of funds of 800 billion dollars US. If you would assist me in this transfer, it would be most profitable to you.

I am working with Mr. Phil Gramm, lobbyist for UBS, who will be my replacement as Ministry of the Treasury in January. As a Senator, you may know him as the leader of the American banking deregulation movement in the 1990s. This transaction is 100% safe.

This is a matter of great urgency. We need a blank check. We need the funds as quickly as possible. We cannot directly transfer these funds in the names of our close friends because we are constantly under surveillance. My family lawyer advised me that I should look for a reliable and trustworthy person who will act as a next of kin so the funds can be transferred.

Please reply with all of your bank account, IRA and college fund account numbers and those of your children and grandchildren to wallstreetbailout@treasury.gov so that we may transfer your commission for this transaction. After I receive that information, I will respond with detailed information about safeguards that will be used to protect the funds.

Yours Faithfully, Minister of Treasury Paulson

Spectrum standings

2008-09-24T00:40:00.000-07:00

http://ontheissues.org/

Ron Paul is a Conservative-Leaning Libertarian.

Chuck Baldwin is a Libertarian Conservative.

Bob Barr is a Hard-Core Conservative

John McCain is a Populist-Leaning Conservative.

Sarah Palin is a Populist-Leaning Conservative.

Barack Obama is a Hard-Core Liberal.

Joe Biden is a Populist-Leaning Liberal.

Alan Keyes is a Libertarian-Leaning Conservative.

Ralph Nader is a Hard-Core Liberal.

Cynthia McKinney is a Hard-Core Liberal.

Tom McClintock is a Moderate Populist Conservative.

(McClintock is running for Congress in CA-4)

So: who will YOU vote for?

LP members to apologize to Dr. Paul?

2008-09-22T15:54:00.000-07:00

Let's see if the LP membership has more guts than the majority of the LNC...and by majority I DON'T mean Ruwart, Wrights, Hawkbridge, and Keaton, all of which had the courage to stand up to this mess (there may be 1 or 2 I missed).

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/LP_members_apology_to_Dr_Paul/

New LP mascot

2008-09-20T21:56:00.000-07:00

The Democrats have the Patriotic Jackass:

The Republicans have the Satanic Elephant:

So, now, I give you...the Libertarian Ostrich!

It comes in 3 flavors.

For those in the Starr Chamber, oblivious to the antics of Bob Barr:

For the LNC fence sitters and general membership who just sits there and watches, doing little:

And for the activists, radicals, and other hell-raisers, those of us that actually DO the work of the LP that needs to be done, there's this one:

So, LP members, which are you?

Government bails out Wall Street, screws Main Street

2008-09-19T08:23:00.000-07:00

This morning the crime cabal that runs DC announced more credit and bailouts for Wall Street at the expense and ongoing turmoil of Main Street. Never mind that A) they don't deserve it, and B) we do. Here is the correct, accurate, prophetic, and definitive rebuttal by Dr. Ron Paul, a man who has forgotten more about economics than those other yahoos have ever learned. Dr. Paul gets it. Bush, Chris Cox, Ben Malarkey, and Pat Paulsen don't.

This is stopping the bleeding by adding more blood and no bandages.

This is going to get worse.

Meanwhile we get the bill, the execs get millions to walk away, and all our wallets get emptied and asses sore from the screwjobs.

Best advice: pay off your debts, stop using credit cards (but don't close the accounts), conserve your monetary resources, NEVER do ARMs, get out of the stock market and into non-oil commodities, and cut back expenses.

Let the failures fail, but don't become one of them.

One of these days they'll learn that the way to solve a credit crisis is to create assets and debits to eliminate the credit problem by creating jobs that actually create income and products...

Lipstick follies

2008-09-11T13:26:00.000-07:00

Back at her RNBC (Republican National Bullshit Convention) dog-and-pony show speech, Sarah Palin said this:

I had the privilege of living most of my life in a small town. I was just your average hockey mom and signed up for the PTA. I love those hockey moms. You know, they say the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull? Lipstick.

Now, the McCain campaing is complaining about the Obama campaign stating that McCain's economic plan was bad. What Obama said:

John McCain says he's about change too, and so I guess his whole angle is, 'Watch out, George Bush -- except for economic policy, health care policy, tax policy, education policy, foreign policy, and Karl Rove-style politics -- we're really going to shake hings up in Washington.’ That's not change. That's just calling something the same thing something different. You know you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig. You know you can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change, it's still going to stink after eight years. We've had enough of the same old thing.

Now, how McCain's campaign can get that to refer to Danielle Palin Quayle is beyond me. But then the McCain campaign, in expressing its outrage, said this, through spokeshole Jane Swift, former governor of Taxachusetts:

Ultimately, I think the American people will realize that calling a very prominent female governor of one of our states a pig is not exactly what we want to see when we supposedly are going to have this great debate that is the politics of hope.

So the only people that actaully called Palin a pig were the McCain campaign people.

You got that right: her own campaign partners called her a pig!

With friends like that, who needs enemies?

Of course, since Palin is also by her own admission a pit bull with lipstick, she is now unable to campaining in communities which have banned pit bulls, lipstick or not...

And since she is also a pig, by her own campaign admission, does that make her...

...wait for it...

a pit-bullied pig with lipstick?

You be the judge...

LNC Insanity

2008-09-07T21:36:00.000-07:00

Well, today and yesterday the Libertarian National Committee held their only general campaign season meeting in Washington D.C. You'd think that for them, the focus would be on the election, right?

WRONG! That's something the kindergarten-level major political parties do, not the advanced intellects of the LP!

Instead they spent the better part of two days trying to remove LNC at-large and second-highest vote-getter (and close friend) Angela Keaton from the LNC, and when that didn't work, they ejected our heroine from the room and then asked her to resign. Never mind that those actions violate the Bylaws and the membership is outraged beyond most words.

Yup, they went on a fishing expedition, and got waxed by the great equalizers, publicity and allies.

Her crimes:
1. Blogging the meeting to the membership.
2. Calling two staff members "sexy" in that blog, which those staff members found flattering and not offensive.

Some links to detail this mess:

http://twitter.com/AngelaKeaton

http://lastfreevoice.wordpress.com/2008/09/06/angela-keaton-liveblog-from-lnc-meeting/

http://lastfreevoice.wordpress.com/2008/09/07/angela-keaton-day-2-lnc-meeting-liveblog/

http://lastfreevoice.wordpress.com/2008/09/06/lp-membership-dues-taxation-without-representation/

http://lastfreevoice.wordpress.com/2008/09/06/call-to-arms-lnc-trying-to-censure-angela-keaton-for-writing-on-blogs/

http://lastfreevoice.wordpress.com/2008/09/07/call-to-arms-lnc-at-it-again-voting-on-whether-to-ask-angela-keaton-to-resign/

http://lastfreevoice.wordpress.com/2008/09/07/cory-scapegoats-angela-keaton-to-get-out-of-entering-into-contract-between-lnc-and-barr-campaign/

http://lastfreevoice.wordpress.com/2008/09/07/lnc-lawless-narcissists-chamber/

http://lastfreevoice.wordpress.com/2008/09/07/boston-tea-party-comments-on-libertarian-national-committee-meeting/

The chief perpetrator for this would be former LPCA Chair and current LPUS Treasurer, Aaron Starr.

He looks like a familiar moron we all know, doesn't he?:

He acts like it, too...

Other members of the Starr Chamber include Chair Bill "Where's My Gavel?" Redpath, M "What's my First Name?" Carling, Bill "Conan the Meeting Tape Destroyer" Sullentrop, and Dan "I'm pissed at everyone" Karlan, and "Shut Up" Stewart Flood.

Keep in mind that the cabal doing this idiocy is not a majority, and in fact they don't have the 2/3 needed to do anything, and it drives them NUTS! Angela has many allies on the LNC and even more outside it.

LNC next meets Dec 6-7 in San Diego. This one is gonna be a small riot. Expect torches, pitchforks, tar and feathers, and a rail or two. The current actions of the Starr Chamber in the LNC are unacceptable, and membership is PISSED!

UPDATE 9/20: The resolution was actually done by mail, and the deadline passed with no vote, so it died. The result is that Angela remains on the LNC, and she has said that she will not apologize, either. Next up for the Starr Chamber is rumored to be more shenanigans, this time going after longtime Libertarian and top-vote-getter Dr. Mary Ruwart. To be continued...

Palin' in Comparison

2008-09-04T13:09:00.000-07:00

Being the equal-opportuity-offender that I am, I offer this rebuttal of the whatever screed that Sarah Palin gave as she accepted the nomination be the co-run-over-by-the-bus-mate of Panama John Songbird McCain at the RNC last night. My comments are in italics and parenthesized. Palin's speech is in normal test, and not parenthesized, although they should be euthanized.

Virtual barf bags are avaialble at the end in the comments section.

--------

Mr. Chairman, delegates, and fellow citizens, I will be honored to accept your nomination for vice president of the United States.

I accept the call to help our nominee for president to serve and defend America. And I accept the challenge of a tough fight in this election against confident opponents at a crucial hour for our country.

And I accept the privilege of serving with a man who has come through much harder missions, and met far graver challenges, and knows how tough fights are won, the next president of the United States, John S. McCain.

It was just a year ago when all the experts in Washington counted out our nominee because he refused to hedge his commitment to the security of the country he loves.

(No, he was counted out because he was broke and had no traction!)

With their usual certitude, they told us that all was lost, there was no hope for this candidate, who said that he would rather lose an election than see his country lose a war. But the pollsters...

The pollsters and the pundits, they overlooked just one thing when they wrote him off. They overlooked the caliber of the man himself, the determination, and resolve, and the sheer guts of Senator John McCain.

(Nope, he was the last one left after the other flamed out and the GOP rejected common sense in Dr. Ron Paul!)

The voters knew better, and maybe that's because they realized there's a time for politics and a time for leadership, a time to campaign and a time to put our country first.

(None of which have occurred under GOP watch the past 8 years!)

Our nominee for president is a true profile in courage, and people like that are hard to come by. He's a man who wore the uniform of his country for 22 years and refused to break faith with those troops in Iraq who now have brought victory within sight.

(He’s also a traitor, adulterer, corrupt politician, and lousy military man who got by on his family connections only, a ne’er-do-well loser!)

And as the mother of one of those troops, that is exactly the kind of man I want as commander-in-chief.

I'm just one of many moms who will say an extra prayer each night for our sons and daughters going into harm's way. Our son, Track, is 19. And one week from tomorrow, September 11, he'll deploy to Iraq with the Army infantry in the service of his country.

My nephew, Casey, also enlisted and serves on a carrier in the Persian Gulf.

My family is so proud of both of them and of all the fine men and women serving the country in uniform.

(All of which have NOTHING to do with whether he and you can lead. All this is merely a “Rah, rah, we support the troops” pile of bullshit.)

So Track is the eldest of our five children. In our family, it's two boys and three girls in between, my strong and kind- hearted daughters, Bristol, and Willow, and Piper.

(How many of them are actually yours?)

And we were so blessed in April. Todd and I welcomed our littlest one into the world, a perfectly beautiful baby boy named Trig.

(Fine, but why did you fly from Texas to Alaska to have him, with the pressurization and oxygen issues probably compounding the Down’s syndrome?)

You know, from the inside, no family ever seems typical, and that's how it is with us. Our family has the same ups and downs as any other, the same challenges and the same joys.

Sometimes even the greatest joys bring challenge. And children with special needs inspire a very, very special love. To the families of special-needs...

To the families of special-needs children all across this country, I have a message for you: For years, you've sought to make America a more welcoming place for your sons and daughters. And I pledge to you that, if we're elected, you will have a friend and advocate in the White House.

(Like how you cut state funding for special needs children by 62% as governor?)

And Todd is a story all by himself. He's a lifelong commercial fisherman and a production operator in the oil fields of Alaska's North Slope, and a proud member of the United Steelworkers union. And Todd is a world champion snow machine racer.

(So what? He works in a union and races snowmobiles. Does that mean he’ll be in the Winter X-games soon, or will he simply challenge foreign dignitaries to races to settle international disputes?)

Throw in his Yup'ik Eskimo ancestry, and it all makes for quite a package. And we met in high school. And two decades and five children later, he's still my guy.

(1/8 Eskimo. And if the Enquirer is accurate, you haven’t been doing much with his package lately!)

My mom and dad both worked at the elementary school in our small town. And among the many things I owe them is a simple lesson that I've learned, that this is America, and every woman can walk through every door of opportunity.

And my parents are here tonight.

I am so proud to be the daughter of Chuck and Sally Heath.

(So?)

Long ago, a young farmer and a haberdasher from Missouri, he followed an unlikely path -- he followed an unlikely path to the vice presidency. And a writer observed, "We grow good people in our small towns, with honesty and sincerity and dignity," and I know just the kind of people that writer had in mind when he praised Harry Truman.

(I thought Republicans praising Democrats was verboten, especially at the RNC?)

I grew up with those people. They're the ones who do some of the hardest work in America, who grow our food, and run our factories, and fight our wars. They love their country in good times and bad, and they're always proud of America.

(Bullshit. You grew up nowhere near Missouri. The only thing you have in common with them is the cold winters.)

I had the privilege of living most of my life in a small town. I was just your average hockey mom and signed up for the PTA.

(So much for the GOP hating public schools, I guess.)

I love those hockey moms. You know, they say the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull? Lipstick.

(So you’re a pit bull with lipstick? I got news for you: there is no such thing as a pit bull!)

So I signed up for the PTA because I wanted to make my kids' public education even better. And when I ran for city council, I didn't need focus groups and voter profiles because I knew those voters, and I knew their families, too.

(But you need them to write this speech because this ain’t Wassilla Alaska!)

Before I became governor of the great state of Alaska I was mayor of my hometown. And since our opponents in this presidential election seem to look down on that experience, let me explain to them what the job involved.

(Running up $22M in debt from zero for a town of 5000 people and almost getting recalled, for starters)

I guess -- I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a community organizer, except that you have actual responsibilities.

(Yeah, deciding the operating hours for the town dump is real responsibility!)

I might add that, in small towns, we don't quite know what to make of a candidate who lavishes praise on working people when they're listening and then talks about how bitterly they cling to their religion and guns when those people aren't listening.

(You don’t know what to make of the Bushes and McCain? Then why are you running with them?)

No, we tend to prefer candidates who don't talk about us one way in Scranton and another way in San Francisco.

(Considering that you probably can’t find either on a GOP map…how would you know?)

As for my running mate, you can be certain that wherever he goes and whoever is listening John McCain is the same man.

(Yeah, right. Google Green Zone Follies and tell me that with a straight face.)

Well, I'm not a member of the permanent political establishment. And I've learned quickly these last few days that, if you're not a member in good standing of the Washington elite, then some in the media consider a candidate unqualified for that reason alone.

(Blame the media, huh? Never mind that the unqualified criticisms are not based on insider status—they’re based on FACTS—Sarah Palin IS unqualified!)

But -- now, here's a little newsflash. Here's a little newsflash for those reporters and commentators: I'm not going to Washington to seek their good opinion. I'm going to Washington to serve the people of this great country.

(No, you think you’re going to Washington, but you’re not, and you’re going to try to give the GOP a non-grump-old-white-guy look. Problem is, those of us in reality aren’t buying.)

Americans expect us to go to Washington for the right reason and not just to mingle with the right people. Politics isn't just a game of clashing parties and competing interests. The right reason is to challenge the status quo, to serve the common good, and to leave this nation better than we found it.

(All of which the GOP does NOT do, ditto the Democrats)

No one expects us all to agree on everything, but we are expected to govern with integrity, and goodwill, and clear convictions, and a servant's heart.

(Ditto previous comment. The GOP has no integrity, cannot govern properly, has no goodwill, and no servant’s heart. They do have clear convictions both politically and criminally, though, and they tend to overlap.)

And I pledge to all Americans that I will carry myself in this spirit as vice president of the United States.

This was the spirit that brought me to the governor's office when I took on the old politics as usual in Juneau, when I stood up to the special interests, and the lobbyists, and the Big Oil companies, and the good-old boys.

(Like with the Bridge to Nowhere?)

Suddenly, I realized that sudden and relentless reform never sits well with entrenched interests and power-brokers. That's why true reform is so hard to achieve.

(Gee, it took you how many years to figure out in politics what most of knew in the first minute?)

But with the support of the citizens of Alaska, we shook things up. And in short order, we put the government of our state back on the side of the people.

(Government is NEVER on the side of the people. Go read some Jefferson, whydontcha?)

I came to office promising major ethics reform to end the culture of self-dealing. And today, that ethics reform is a law.

(Sure, and you broke it as well over your ex-brother-in-law, his boss, and his divorce from your sister)

While I was at it, I got rid of a few things in the governor's office that I didn't believe our citizens should have to pay for. That luxury jet was over-the-top.

I put it on eBay.

(But did you get its worth?)

I love to drive myself to work. And I thought we could muddle through without the governor's personal chef, although I got to admit that sometimes my kids sure miss her.

(So you can’t cook, either!)

I came to office promising to control spending, by request if possible, but by veto, if necessary.

(So did AHHHNOOLD, and look where it’s gotten him!)

Senator McCain also -- he promises to use the power of veto in defense of the public interest. And as a chief executive, I can assure you it works.

(Earth to Palin—there is no line-item veto in D.C.!)

Our state budget is under control. We have a surplus. And I have protected the taxpayers by vetoing wasteful spending, nearly $500 million in vetoes.

We suspended the state fuel tax and championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. I told the Congress, "Thanks, but no thanks," on that Bridge to Nowhere.

(AFTER it became a dead albatross. BEFORE that you supported it!)

If our state wanted to build a bridge, we were going to build it ourselves.

When oil and gas prices went up dramatically and filled up the state treasury, I sent a large share of that revenue back where it belonged: directly to the people of Alaska.

(On behalf of those paying at the pump, you’re fucking welcome. Why didn’t you return that to US???)

And despite fierce opposition from oil company lobbyists, who kind of liked things the way that they were, we broke their monopoly on power and resources. As governor, I insisted on competition and basic fairness to end their control of our state and return it to the people.

I fought to bring about the largest private-sector infrastructure project in North American history. And when that deal was struck, we began a nearly $40 billion natural gas pipeline to help lead America to energy independence.

(Through Canada, that is…)

That pipeline, when the last section is laid and its valves are open, will lead America one step farther away from dependence on dangerous foreign powers that do not have our interests at heart.

The stakes for our nation could not be higher. When a hurricane strikes in the Gulf of Mexico, this country should not be so dependent on imported oil that we're forced to draw from our Strategic Petroleum Reserve. And families cannot throw more and more of their paychecks on gas and heating oil.

(Blame your boy Bush for that!)

With Russia wanting to control a vital pipeline in the Caucasus and to divide and intimidate our European allies by using energy as a weapon, we cannot leave ourselves at the mercy of foreign suppliers.

(Ditto.)

To confront the threat that Iran might seek to cut off nearly a fifth of the world's energy supplies, or that terrorists might strike again at the Abqaiq facility in Saudi Arabia, or that Venezuela might shut off its oil discoveries and its deliveries of that source, Americans, we need to produce more of our own oil and gas. And...

And take it from a gal who knows the North Slope of Alaska: We've got lots of both.

Our opponents say again and again that drilling will not solve all of America's energy problems, as if we didn't know that already.

But the fact that drilling, though, won't solve every problem is no excuse to do nothing at all.

(And only NOW you adopt the position that was being advocated by the left and free-market libertarians? WHERE THE HELL HAVE YOU BEEN?)

Starting in January, in a McCain-Palin administration, we're going to lay more pipelines, and build more nuclear plants, and create jobs with clean coal, and move forward on solar, wind, geothermal, and other alternative sources. We need...

We need American sources of resources. We need American energy brought to you by American ingenuity and produced by American workers.

(Oh, yeah, in the pockets of Big Oil, that’s right…)

And now, I've noticed a pattern with our opponent, and maybe you have, too. We've all heard his dramatic speeches before devoted followers, and there is much to like and admire about our opponent.

But listening to him speak, it's easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or even a reform, not even in the State Senate.

(Check his record, because you haven’t)

This is a man who can give an entire speech about the wars America is fighting and never use the word "victory," except when he's talking about his own campaign.

(And the GOP can’t define it either, because they don’t know what it is, and in this case, it’s not possible)

But when the cloud of rhetoric has passed, when the roar of the crowd fades away, when the stadium lights go out, and those Styrofoam Greek columns are hauled back to some studio lot...

(But when this pile of bullshit is cleaned up, when the piped-in roar of the crowd fades away, when the arena lights go out and the upper section tarps are removed, and that runway for the models is disassembled…)

When that happens, what exactly is our opponent's plan? What does he actually seek to accomplish after he's done turning back the waters and healing the planet?

(The only legitimate point—what is the plan? But what is McCain’s plan as well?)

The answer -- the answer is to make government bigger, and take more of your money, and give you more orders from Washington, and to reduce the strength of America in a dangerous world.

(And so is the GOP. If you want to reduce government, then why did the GOP go berserk in the other direction the past eight years? Why did they make the left look like libertarians when it comes to the size of government?)

America needs more energy; our opponent is against producing it. Victory in Iraq is finally in sight, and he wants to forfeit. Terrorist states are seeking nuclear weapons without delay; he wants to meet them without preconditions.

(We need more energy, but it’s not just from drilling. The is no victory in Iraq, just withdrawal in disgrace. Terrorists may already have nuclear weapons, no thanks to the Bush GOP. And there’s something to be said about trying to figure out why an enemy is pissed at you. Perhaps you are the problem after all!)

Al Qaida terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America, and he's worried that someone won't read them their rights.

(Funny, ask Ramzi Yousiff and Osama bin Laden about what is more effective—treating terrorists as criminals or war enemies. Oh, wait a minute, you’ll have to ask Ramzi in prison, where he sits, tried and convicted and doing no more terrorism, and then you’ll have to find bin Laden to ask him, because he’s still unindicted, free, and plotting more terror acts, assuming he’s even alive. it seems to me the law enforcement approach works, and the war approach—not so much.)

Government is too big; he wants to grow it. Congress spends too much money; he promises more. Taxes are too high, and he wants to raise them. His tax increases are the fine print in his economic plan.

(And the GOP wants to do the same thing with another trillion or two in debt and collapse the monetary system in the process. You should have listened to Dr. Paul.)

And let me be specific: The Democratic nominee for president supports plans to raise income taxes, and raise payroll taxes, and raise investment income taxes, and raise the death tax, and raise business taxes, and increase the tax burden on the American people by hundreds of billions of dollars.

(And yours would cut more taxes on the wealthy, give no relief to the lower and middle class, and make it impossible for them to survive.)

My sister, Heather, and her husband, they just built a service station that's now open for business, like millions of others who run small businesses. How are they...

How are they going to be better off if taxes go up? Or maybe you are trying to keep your job at a plant in Michigan or in Ohio...

Or you're trying -- you're trying to create jobs from clean coal, from Pennsylvania or West Virginia.

You're trying to keep a small farm in the family right here in Minnesota.

How are you -- how are you going to be better off if our opponent adds a massive tax burden to the American economy?

(They’re not, but your policies don’t help them either.)

Here's how I look at the choice Americans face in this election: In politics, there are some candidates who use change to promote their careers, and then there are those, like John McCain, who use their careers to promote change.

(McCain doesn’t promote change. McCain promotes McCain, period!)

They are the ones whose names appear on laws and landmark reforms, not just on buttons and banners or on self-designed presidential seals.

(Like the unconstitutional McCain-Feingold, or the ridiculous McCain-Kennedy amnesty act, for starters?)

Among politicians, there is the idealism of high-flown speech- making, in which crowds are stirringly summoned to support great things, and then there is the idealism of those leaders, like John McCain, who actually do great things.

(Name one. Just one!)

They're the ones who are good for more than talk, the ones that we've always been able to count on to serve and to defend America.

(Like Songbird defended America while crashing five fighter planes and causing how many deaths on the Forrestal. Like he defended America when he proposed amnesty to millions of illegal aliens, including MS-16 gang members with ties to terrorists and who prey on innocent Americans in the inner cities?)

Senator McCain's record of actual achievements and reform helps explain why so many special interests, and lobbyists, and comfortable committee chairmen in Congress have fought the prospect of a McCain presidency from the primary election of 2000 to this very day.

(HA! They are just playing their games, and in fact some of them are on McCain’s staff!)

Our nominee doesn't run with the Washington herd. He's a man who's there to serve his country and not just his party, a leader who's not looking for a fight, but sure isn't afraid of one, either.

(yeah, right)

Harry Reid, the majority of the current do-nothing Senate ... he not long ago summed up his feelings about our nominee. He said, quote, "I can't stand John McCain."

(Neither can everyone else who hasn’t overdosed on the Kool-Aid!)

Ladies and gentlemen, perhaps no accolade we hear this week is better proof that we've chosen the right man.

(You chose Dr. Paul? Did I miss something?)

Clearly, what the majority leader was driving at is that he can't stand up to John McCain and that is only...

... that's only one more reason to take the maverick out of the Senate, put him in the White House.

(Harry Reid can’t stand up to ANYBODY, stupid! that’s old news!)

My fellow citizens, the American presidency is not supposed to be a journey of personal discovery.

This world of threats and dangers, it's not just a community and it doesn't just need an organizer. And though both Senator Obama and Senator Biden have been going on lately about how they're always, quote, "fighting for you," let us face the matter squarely: There is only one man in this election who has ever really fought for you.

(Not McCain!)

There is only one man in this election who has ever really fought for you in places where winning means survival and defeat means death. And that man is John McCain.

(Vietnam was not fighting for America. Have you not studied history? Do you not know what that mess was really about? It was about political ideology, plain and simple—same as Iraq!)

You know, in our day, politicians have readily shared much lesser tales of adversity than the nightmare world, the nightmare world in which this man and others equally brave served and suffered for their country.

And it's a long way from the fear, and pain, and squalor of a six-by-four cell in Hanoi to the Oval Office.

(Assuming he was actually in that cell much…and the stories indicate he wasn’t!)

But if Senator McCain is elected president, that is the journey he will have made. It's the journey of an upright and honorable man, the kind of fellow whose name you will find on war memorials in small towns across this great country, only he was among those who came home.

(It’s the journey of a never-done-well opportunist who got into the Naval Academy on name alone, almost flunked out, flew planes badly, crashing five yet on name alone did not get his wings clipped, killed over a hundred sailors on the USS Forestall, got shot down and turned traitor to save his own skin, then covered up his activity later, had an affair on his wife while she was injured in a car accident, divorced her, married his drug-addict, mob-tied mistress, and parlayed a myth into Congress, where he has never left. Some honor, some uprightness, some greatness!)

To the most powerful office on Earth, he would bring the compassion that comes from having once been powerless, the wisdom that comes even to the captives by the grace of God, the special confidence of those who have seen evil and have seen how evil is overcome. A fellow...

A fellow prisoner of war, a man named Tom Moe of Lancaster, Ohio...

... Tom Moe recalls looking through a pinhole in his cell door as Lieutenant Commander John McCain was led down the hallway by the guards, day after day.

(To his medical care and prostitutes, no doubt…)

And the story is told, when McCain shuffled back from torturous interrogations, he would turn towards Moe's door, and he'd flash a grin and a thumbs up, as if to say, "We're going to pull through this."

(Shuffling to play the act after getting laid and spilling his guts that is…)

My fellow Americans, that is the kind of man America needs to see us through the next four years.

(A traitor?)

For a season, a gifted speaker can inspire with his words. But for a lifetime, John McCain has inspired with his deeds.

If character is the measure in this election, and hope the theme, and change the goal we share, then I ask you to join our cause. Join our cause and help America elect a great man as the next president of the United States.

(His type of character I can do without. Ditto yours. You are made for each other!)

Thank you and God bless America. Thank you.

(Gods help us!)

Hillary's Speech a milquetoast flop

2008-08-27T11:39:00.001-07:00

I heard Senator Hillarious' convention speech on the radio last night on the way home from work.

The junior Butternut Squash from New York had the chance to unify the Democratic PUMAs (Party Unity, My Ass!) behind Obama, vilify Panama John, and pass the torch to the next generation of America.

She failed 2 out of 3.

What She Did Right

She did vilify McCain, and painted an accurate portrayal of McCain as being a Bush extension and puppet:

Now, John McCain is my colleague and my friend. He has served our country with honor and courage. But we don't need four more years...of the last eight years. More economic stagnation…and less affordable health care. More high gas prices …and less alternative energy. More jobs getting shipped overseas…and fewer jobs created here. More skyrocketing debt...home foreclosures…and mounting bills that are crushing our middle class families. More war...less diplomacy. More of a government where the privileged come first…and everyone else comes last. John McCain says the economy is fundamentally sound. John McCain doesn't think that 47 million people without health insurance is a crisis. John McCain wants to privatize Social Security. And in 2008, he still thinks it's okay when women don't earn equal pay for equal work. With an agenda like that, it makes sense that George Bush and John McCain will be together next week in the Twin Cities. Because these days they're awfully hard to tell apart.

She did a good job of painting Panama John as a Bushite, and did a good job about showing where he's wrong on things. The Twin Cities line was a good one, but she should have referred to Bush and McCain as political twins to get it across better.

She even got the tagline right:

No way. No how. No McCain.

It's easy to vilify McCain. After all, the man is a ne'er-do-well career government man:

He got into Annapolis because his daddy got him in (the same Daddy who covered up the USS Liberty incident).

He finished fifth from the bottom of his class and had a reputation as a lazy partier.

He lost five planes out from under him, including the USS Forrestal incident and becoming a POW.

He sold out this nation while a POW in exchange for medical treatment and prostitutes, earning the nickname Songbird.

Once he finally got home he promptly engaged in an adulterous affair while his wife was invalided by an auto accident, then divorced her and married his mistress, who just happened to be a drug-addicted beer distribution heiress with ties to the Mob.

He used her fortune to run for Congress, allegedly ahving other affairs along the way, and then improperly rode the coattails of the late, great Barry Goldwater to succeed him in the Senate (McCain is no Goldwater, but only Ron Paul comes close!).

He got mixed up in the influence-peddloing scandal known as the Keating Five.

He used his seat to block legislation to investigate what happened to his fellow POW/MIAs, probably to keep his own treason secret.

He legislated the unconstitutional McCain-Feingold campaign finance legislation.

John Sidney McCain is simply the worst possible Republican canididate for the GOP, and the best for the Democratic Party.

What She Did Wrong

First, she made the speech all about what she did, not what Barack Obama will do. For a much better taste of that, check out the speech by the terminally-ailing Ted Kennedy. He channeled his late brother's words and actually said what his brother did in 1960: that the torch has been passed to a new generation. Instead, her's what Hillary said:

I haven't spent the past 35 years in the trenches advocating for children, campaigning for universal health care, helping parents balance work and family, and fighting for women's rights at home and around the world...to see another Republican in the White House squander the promise of our country and the hopes of our people.

Later on:

For me, it's been a privilege to meet you in your homes, your workplaces, and your communities. Your stories reminded me everyday that America's greatness is bound up in the lives of the American people -- your hard work, your devotion to duty, your love for your children, and your determination to keep going, often in the face of enormous obstacles. You taught me so much, you made me laugh, and...you even made me cry. You allowed me to become part of your lives. And you became part of mine. I will always remember the single mom who had adopted two kids with autism, didn't have health insurance and discovered she had cancer. But she greeted me with her bald head painted with my name on it and asked me to fight for health care. I will always remember the young man in a Marine Corps t-shirt who waited months for medical care and said to me: "Take care of my buddies; a lot of them are still over there….and then will you please help take care of me?" I will always remember the boy who told me his mom worked for the minimum wage and that her employer had cut her hours. He said he just didn't know what his family was going to do. I will always be grateful to everyone from all fifty states, Puerto Rico and the territories, who joined our campaign on behalf of all those people left out and left behind by the Bush Administrtation.

See, it was about her. Even more later on, it was still about her, not Obama:

I ran for President to renew the promise of America. To rebuild the middle class and sustain the American Dream, to provide the opportunity to work hard and have that work rewarded, to save for college, a home and retirement, to afford the gas and groceries and still have a little left over each month. To promote a clean energy economy that will create millions of green collar jobs. To create a health care system that is universal, high quality, and affordable so that parents no longer have to choose between care for themselves or their children or be stuck in dead end jobs simply to keep their insurance. To create a world class education system and make college affordable again. To fight for an America defined by deep and meaningful equality - from civil rights to labor rights, from women's rights to gay rights, from ending discrimination to promoting unionization to providing help for the most important job there is: caring for our families. To help every child live up to his or her God-given potential. To make America once again a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws. To bring fiscal sanity back to Washington and make our government an instrument of the public good, not of private plunder. To restore America's standing in the world, to end the war in Iraq, bring our troops home and honor their service by caring for our veterans. And to join with our allies to confront our shared challenges, from poverty and genocide to terrorism and global warming. Most of all, I ran to stand up for all those who have been invisible to their government for eight long years. Those are the reasons I ran for President.

Only afterward did she make one reference to Obama:

Those are the reasons I support Barack Obama. And those are the reasons you should too.

Yes, she did make some references to Obama, but most of the speech--almost half of it, was about Hillary Rodham Pumpkin. And that's not surprising, because to both her and her husband, it has always been Clinton first, Democratic Party second, America third. Always. was Hillary capable of delivering speech like Ted Kennedy? She can certainly technically do it, but her ego won't let her make that leap. That's why Obama was wise to not name her his Vice-Presidential choice or even consider her, PUMAs be damned.

Second, she fell short in passing the torch. The fact is, Clintons are the 90s Democratic Party. They're last millenium's news. This isn't 1960, but it's not far off with the generation switch, and the parallels are fascinating for the whole thing, from the outdoor acceptance speech to the parallels of JFK-BHO, Johnson-Biden, even McCain-Nixon. Hopefully for the nation's sake we won't relive 1963 again.

If you want to see the torch passed, look to Ted Kennedy, who despite his terminal brain tumor, kidney stones on the plane to Denver, and in general failing health, gave one helluva speech, and took up the mantle of his late brothers and rightfully passed on the torch they took up almost fifty years ago.

Other Miscellaneous Junk

There was a passing refernce to the Akransas DP chair being killed and Congressman Tubbs dying from too many lobbyist meals, but that was just political fluff which had no meaning.

There was also an inexplicable and long-winded reference to Harriet Tubman and the Underground. Why was that there? According to the speech, it was to get to the "keep going, but get going first" punchline, but she used it poorly, and it wound up playing to racist fears of the 1850s. It really had no place in this speech.

There was also this line:

We need leaders once again who can tap into that special blend of American confidence and optimism that has enabled generations before us to meet our toughest challenges. Leaders who can help us show ourselves and the world that with our ingenuity, creativity, and innovative spirit, there are no limits to what is possible in America. This won't be easy. Progress never is. But it will be impossible if we don't fight to put a Democrat in the White House.

Why the vague references to "leaders" and "a Democrat" in the White House? Was she referring to herslef in the implicit, "you should have chosen me" attitude? Why not refer to Obama directly here? That doesn't make sense, unless she cribbed this from a campaign sppech she never used, or if it was intended for a speech had there been a floor fight for the nomination (which still might happen as of this writing if the PUMAs have their way!).

There was a section relating to the 19th Amendment, as if that had to do with anything that day. Pure political pandering to women only.

There was way too much emphasis on national health care, as if that would cure our national ills. (For my take on that mess, read here.)

Conclusion

Hillary the Great Pumpkin gets a B- for this speech, probably the most important one of her life, and that's being generous. She probably deserves a C. She would do worse if she had failed to mention Obama at al beyond the first minute. Obama's campaing is about change, and the new generation. Hillary missed the memo a long time ago, and that's why she lost.

And she still doesn't get it.

Dogs and cats saved in CA--AB1634 castrated!

2008-08-23T09:57:00.000-07:00

Yesterday the infamous mandatory spay/neuter bill, AB1634, came to a vote in the California legislature.

It got castrated, 5 yes to 27 no votes.

After 18 months, 11 amendments, hundreds of pet owner groups, breed groups, the NRA, the Libertarian Party, Cat Fanciers, American Sporting Dogs Association, and even Lassie, triumphed in a resounding victory over the animal rights extremists of Bob Barker and other celebutards, as well as terrorist-supporting PETA and HSUS.

Along the way the victors had to overcome shady deals and parliamentary tricks by the bill author, and in spite of all odds and treachery by the AKC, converted 2 of the 3 sponsors first to neutral and then to opposed to the bill, most notably the CA Veterinary Medical Association, and they did it all through a relentless grassroots efforts that broke a dozen fax machines in the Capitol and literally had the bill author begging for mercy at the end--the same author why tried to ban plastic grocery bags and incandescent light bulbs, so that tells what kind of idiot he is.

The result is that spay/neuter is still voluntary in California, save some dictatorial enclaves like Los Angeles, where it is rapidly being shown to be an utter failure. Since pre-adult S/N is a health risk, countless dogs and cats will grow into adulthood properly. Personal property and privacy rights have been retained.

I'll be celebrating at the dog park today, with all three hounds in tow.

Legalized Bigamy: A Side-Effect of the Same-Gender Marriage Debate and DOMA

2008-07-30T14:31:00.001-07:00

Well, this is an interesting kettle of fish! DOMA allows states to not recognize same-gender marriages from one state (CA, MA) in another. Every other state besides those two have either prohibited same-gender marriages or are silent/neutral on the issue.

That means that a same-gender marriage in CA or MA is not valid in neighboring states.

Bigamy laws state that entering into a marriage while currently in a recognized marriage in that state is invalid and illegal.

In 48 states, same-gender marriages are not valid.

But in 2 states, they are.

So if John and Fred get married in CA but later John marries Sue in NV, while still married to Fred, can they both be legal in their respective states? At this point, certainly. NV cannot claim John commits bigamy since his CA marriage to Fred is not recognized or valid in NV. In NV, John is effectively single and can marry Sue. Since he married Fred in CA first, CA cannot legally recognize his marriage to Sue either, and since he did that in NV, CA has no jurisdiction to claim bigamy.

Now, outside of the obvious question of why in the world John would want the insanity of two spouses in different states, this scenario raises a huge point as to why DOMA is royally screwed up, and why banning same-gender marriage is also royally screwed up. DOMA basically had the effect of creating legalized bigamy once MA and CA legalized same-gender marriage!

Sure the idea of the states being “laboratories of democracy” is all well and good, but what does one do when THIS pops up? All the state laws are valid, and everything John did was legal.

Well, there are three non-status-quo options:
1. Ban same-gander marriage nationally.
2. Permit same-gender marriage nationally.
3. Get government out of marriage entirely.

Naturally, as a libertarian, IMNSHO #1 just won’t fly. Marriage has always been about love and commitment and property, not personal plumbing.

#2 is good, but only as a stopping point on the way to #3. If marriage becomes a private contract between consenting adults (no pre-adult or arranged marriages, thank you!), then the state has no role in it except to mediate any contract disputes if the marriage ends. Since marriage licenses grew out of miscegenation laws, removing such a racist license is only fitting and proper anyway.

That’s as it should be. After all, how many of the Founding Fathers had marriage licenses? Answer: Zero. So, if they didn’t need them, then why do we? A good pre-nup contract is all that is needed.

NOTE: I despise the term “same-sex”. Sex is an action, not a condition of being. Gender is a condition of being, and I refer to marriages and other relationships between two males or between two females for what they are: of the same gender. Plus it indicates the truth: these relationships are about far more than the actions of sex anyway, so they deserve proper respect for that depth. And, besides, who ever uses the term “opposite-sex” marriage or relationship anyway?

Repudiating the 17th Amendment

2008-07-15T12:40:00.000-07:00

I have spoken many times in the past on how the 17th Amendment was a collosal mistake disguised in giving a vote to the People. Usually my position was based on the Amendment removing a crucial and little-talked about vertical check on the federal government by the states.

Now Paul C. Hanson has taken it several steps further in what to do about it.

I'll reproduce here what he has said in its entirety at his myspace blog for anyone who doesn't have a myspace account. All credit to him for the fine work.

As found at http://www.dailypaul.com/node/55050

Here is why our government doesn't work and what to do about it
Posted July 15th, 2008 by pchanson
A Magic Bullet Will Be Needed to Kill the 17th Amendment.

An article by Paul Hanson

The U.S Constitution "originally" laid out the separation of powers
between the federal government and the State governments in the first paragraph of article 1 section 3. How this paragraph accomplished that goal will become clear later in this article. This paragraph states:

"The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the LEGISLATURE thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote."

Then in Article I, section 4 we also find this:

"The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators
and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the
Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the PLACES of
chusing Senators." Those places were to be in the State Legislatures.

This balance of power was then permanently locked in by the last
clause of article 5. I call this clause the magic bullet because
it can't be stopped by any means that I can see. Article 5 dealing
with amendments to the Constitution clearly states:

"... and that NO State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its
equal Suffrage in the Senate."

By including this in the section dealing with amendments, it is
obvious that the sections of the Constitution concerning selection
of Senators and the suffrage they provided was not amendable
unless ALL of States consented and that this was to be a permanent provision. All of the above shows how adamant the founders were about this point by referring to the States representation on no less than 3 occasions. If even ONE State objected to changes in an area that would affect their suffrage, that change would be invalid. The normal ratification process could not be used to alter this principle. Yet that is exactly what happened when the 17th amendment was adopted.

The father of our Constitution, James Madison, in Federalist 43,
further supports this claim. He states that the Constitution was
completely amendable with 2 exceptions only. One of the
exceptions dealt with the importation of slaves and became moot
after 1808. The other was the State's equal suffrage in the Senate.

It appears, then, that this all boils down to definition. What is the
definition of State suffrage? In Federalist 59, Hamilton explains
State suffrage as the State legislatures having a voice in the
Senate. The 17th amendment effectively canceled that voice and
turned it over to the citizens of the States. I submit to you that
now, however, this definition has been left entirely to the
discretion of the States themselves. The courts have no say in the
matter. I will explain this bold statement in detail later. Why do I
feel this issue vitally important to restoring States rights? For
the same reasons our Founders did, to support the concept of
federalism and the balance of power between the States and federal government.

This concept strictly limited the federal governments powers to those specifically enumerated in Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S.
Constitution. The People, through the Constitution, permitted the
national government to exercise certain enumerated powers. By
limiting the federal government's power and granting the States
nearly unlimited power, the federal government would merely be
protecting the States collectively and allowing the States to
handle their own affairs.

Federalism allowed the States wide latitude to run their own affairs
and by doing so, created 13 laboratories of freedom to experiment and formulate the best system of self-governance. This situation also created an atmosphere of competition between the States. When a State allowed its inhabitants to prosper and keep what they earn, The State would prosper and be allowed to continue governing its people. When the State government became a burden to them, the people could vote out the tyrants during the next election. Another alternative was for the businesses and the people to move to a State that was more to their liking. Business leaving the State would cause the tax base to erode and so would the peoples support of that government. Sooner or later, either
the State government or the people would wake up and correct
the problem.

The 17th amendment took away the States protection from the abuses of federal power allowing the federal government to get away with legislating in areas where they had no business doing so. This was a grave error seriously upsetting the balance of power so carefully crafted into our magnificent Constitution. The concept of Federalism was all but destroyed leading to endless abuses by the federal government from which there is no escape.

The enforcement mechanism against federal encroachment prior to the invalid17th was the States' representation in the Senate. The "Peoples House"i.e. the House of Representatives amply represents the people, while the States were to be represented by the Senate.

The States now have no representation and we are experiencing the folly of this venture toward pure democracy today. We were founded as a Republic not a democracy and now we see why. All the States needed to do in the past was to recall or direct their Senators before a bad law made it to the floor of the Senate for a vote and the damage could be stopped in its tracks. Hamilton's Federalist essay 59 addresses this issue directly. This power has been unconstitutionally snatched from the States by the invalid 17th amendment.

Careful study of the 17th amendments ratification reveals at least 10 states that failed to do so. Those 10 were FL, MS, DE, KY, UT, MD, RI, AL, IA and GA. The clear manner in which article 5 is written places the statement dealing with States equal suffrage in the Senate after the words: "Provided that no Amendment which may be made..." further showing that this was an exception to the rule regarding amendments.

With the failure those of 10 states to ratify the 17th, they were
denied their equal suffrage in the Senate without their consent in
violation of Article 5, thus making the 17th amendment invalid.
However, once any state declares the 17th invalid, based on what
I have pointed out here, that State, even though it had previously
consented to the 17th can withdraw its consent anytime it so chooses. Any State that previously consented can say "we no longer consent" because Article 5 mentions nary a word about the permanence of any such consent. The right of the state to withdraw that consent is further fully supported by the clear wording of the 10th amendment:

AMENDMENT X
(1791)

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the
States respectively, or to the people."

The power to withdraw that consent is not prohibited by article 5
so the power to withdraw it is reserved and retained by the
States. Fits like a glove. All the states need to do is select their
Senators in their legislatures and send them to Washington.
Simple. And what would the courts say about move such as this?
No court can attempt to make the State comply with the 17th
because they won't have jurisdiction to try the case. Here's why:

When a sovereign State declares the 17th amendment invalid, the Senate would be unlawfully seated. It would then follow that the Supreme Court is also unlawfully seated as is the entire federal bench because the Senate approves those federal court appointments including the Supreme Court. Anything decided by those federal courts would be null and void. The State could simply refuse to recognize the jurisdiction of the court system. The States could argue that the federal judiciary has been confirmed by a Senate that did not have the states best interest at heart.

The only other argument that could be made against the State would be the power of the Senate to be the ultimate judge of their elections and refuse to seat the Senators. However, how can an illegitimate Senate make such a decision? The answer is, they can't.

I have presented these facts in many forums over the years and they have never been successfully challenged. One argument that always seems to arise is this: "Well, all the states do have equal suffrage because they still each have two senators." This invalid argument comes from a lack of full understanding of what "suffrage" really stands for and by a focus on the first term "equal" while ignoring the second, "suffrage." The point of my entire article is that the States (meaning the State Legislatures) are the ones who have lost suffrage. The people of the State now elect Senators and are in possession of that suffrage. The real point is who do these senators now represent? After I make this point, I usually get this: "Well, the people ARE the "State." This is not entirely accurate either. In all instances I can find in the Constitution where it is speaking about the States, it is speaking of the Legislature of the States. The best example I can find that clearly delineates between the two is the last clause of that wonderful 10th Amendment again. That clause clearly lists the "People" and the "States" as two separate entities. If they were the same thing, there would be no need to list them both in the very same sentence.

There are other far-reaching implications of an invalid 17th and I'm
sure that opponents of what's been written here will use them to fight these truths. I will not give them ammunition by detailing what those far reaching implications are. However, I will say this:
If we endeavor to rid ourselves of the invalid 17th amendment in
the manner outlined above, be prepared for the fight of your lives
because there are many entrenched interests that would like
nothing more than to never have this information reach the light
of day.

There have been many articles written concerning the "repeal" of the 17th amendment. While many of these articles correctly point out the folly of the 17th, they fail to realize that a movement to repeal is nothing more than a pipe dream. The only way to remove the 17th amendment is through outright repudiation using the method I have described above. I will explain why:

There are 2 methods laid out in Article 5 for amending the
Constitution. One of those methods is through a Convention of the
States. I will not go into details as to why this method should
never be used under any circumstances other than to say that if you truly value your freedoms, this method should be avoided at all
costs. The other method would be an exercise in futility. To use
the method that all the other amendments have used since the
10th would entail having to first convince 67 senators to vote
themselves out of a job. Then 290 House members would have to
vote for the repeal of an amendment which will make all the laws
they want to pass much more difficult to push through the Senate.
A senate which as a result of its passage would now be jealously
guarding the rights of the States that the House laws frequently
trample. If that isn't enough, you need to get 38 state legislatures
to vote for repealing an amendment over the objections of the
people who would feel like their right to vote was being stolen (a
right which never really existed due to an invalid 17th). To
educate the masses in 38 separate states that the 17th
amendment was a mistake is an insurmountable task. To do it
for just one, as would be the case in a move to repudiate it,
Maybe. In a repudiation argument, it could be demonstrated to
the people that the right to vote for their Senators should have
never been theirs in the first place due to the fraudulent manner
in which the 17th was adopted.

My first target for a move to repudiate would be done in a State
that swings to the right most of the time and where the voters are
well informed and leery of the feds. Utah would be my choice
since Utah rejected the 17th outright and they have been stung
recently by federal land grabs. Please join me in this endeavor to
repudiate the 17th and get the concept of federalism firmly back
on track.

We must educate ourselves and our posterity in the wonderful documents that founded our great Republic if we are ever to set it back on course toward freedom and prosperity. That is why I'm writing this today. My positions on the 17th amendment are supported by the Constitution of the United States including the 10th amendment and "The Federalist Papers", specifically Madison 43 and Hamilton 59.

Thanks for your attention,

Sincerely,

Paul C. Hanson

This article can also be found on my blog.

Signs of life in the Anglican Church

2008-07-08T10:40:00.000-07:00

From CNN.com:

The General Synod passed a resolution Monday night that allows women to become bishops, acting over the objections of traditionalists who argued that Jesus
only wanted men in leadership positions.

The Anglican Church (Church of England) allowed women priests 16 years ago.

Naturally, the Vatican, who regards the Anglicans in same way that China regards Taiwan, as a renegade splinter form the main group, was not pleased:

The move by the Anglican Church's General Synod "is a rift to the apostolic tradition" of ordaining only men as bishops, the Vatican said in a statement, and is another obstacle to reconciliation between Anglicans and Roman Catholics.
"This decision will have consequences on the dialogue which had brought good fruits," the Vatican statement said.

Of course, the Vatican has it wrong. So what else is new? When it comes to women, the Vatican bats 0-for-existence.

Allow me to point out the mudanely obvious, from Acts of the Apostles, specifically 2:1-12:

1 Now when the day of Pentecost had come, they were all with one accord in one place.
2 Suddenly there came from the sky a sound like the rushing of a mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.
3 Tongues like fire appeared and were distributed to them, and one sat on each of them.
4 They were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak with other languages, as the Spirit gave them the ability to speak.
5 Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men, from every nation under the sky.
6 When this sound was heard, the multitude came together, and were bewildered, because everyone heard them speaking in his own language.
7 They were all amazed and marveled, saying to one another, “Behold, aren’t all these who speak Galileans?
8 How do we hear, everyone in our own native language?
9 Parthians, Medes, Elamites, and people from Mesopotamia, Judea, Cappadocia, Pontus, Asia,
10 Phrygia, Pamphylia, Egypt, the parts of Libya around Cyrene, visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes,
11 Cretans and Arabians: we hear them speaking in our languages the mighty works of God!”
12 They were all amazed, and were perplexed, saying one to another, “What does this mean?”

Yes, I refer to the Pentcost, the ordaining of the first ministers of Jesus. The story is pretty familiar to most Christians.

But who, in verse 1, were "they" (the "brethern" in some versions)?

Refer back to 1:13-14:

13 When they had come in, they went up into the upper room, where they were staying; that is Peter, John, James, Andrew, Philip, Thomas, Bartholomew, Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, Simon the Zealot, and Judas the son of James.
14 All these with one accord continued steadfastly in prayer and supplication, along with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.

Also, Matthias, selected as Judas's replacement, in 1:26.

Note the list: the eleven apostles (plus Matthias), the women (Mary, Martha, and the Magdalene), and the brothers of Jesus.

It is upon all of these that the tongues of fire from the Holy Spirit descended onto--INCLUDING THE WOMEN!

Yes, in the Christian religion, at the outset, God ordained women to do His Work. At last that's what the book the Christians believe to be the inerrant Word of God, the Bible, says.

That fact seems to be lost on the Vatican. It was not on the early Church when they needed all the help they could get, and the frescoes from that period reflected it.

Besides, look at it from a common sense point of view.

What difference is there between men and women that prevent women from ministering to the Word of God? What is it about women that suppsoedly prevent them from doing so?

Is it some sort of stigma associated with Eve? Tell that the women saints and the Virgin Mary.

Is it some ancient patriarchal power trip? Probably. Strong women frighten weak men.

Is it something in the female brain? Yes. Women as a whole tend to be more caregivers than power players, and the power players in religion are the ones who not only want to be charge, but want to stay there as well. But in this case, perhaps having caregivers in charge instead of theo-political neophytes is probably a good thing. That means that women are probably BETTER at ministering the Word of God than men (which would explain most of the debacles in Church history!).

Is it the gender? I hope not. That's just misogynistic and just wrong.

When it comes to women, marriage, children, and uncloistered life, the Vatican tends to be wrong much more than they right. I owe my own existence to saner heads outside the Vatican, because my grandfather was a loving and happily married Lutheran pastor, father of my father, and giver of unconditional love to me in the too-short time we had together. My first son was named in his honor.

So cheers to the Anglicans for getting it right. And jeers to the Vatican for getting it wrong. Again.

Help Needed

2008-07-05T20:21:00.001-07:00

I don’t normally do this, but this isn’t normal, either.

Antiwar.com needs your help.

Antiwar.com is devoted to the cause of non-interventionism and is read by libertarians, pacifists, leftists, "greens," and independents alike, as well as many on the Right who agree with our opposition to imperialism.

And they are in need of cash. Perpetual war for perpetual peace has exhausted the many dedicated staffers, readers and volunteers.

Why? One word: IRAN. The Bush Administration is determined to go to war with Iran whether the American people want it or not, and by 4-1 margins we don’t! Furthermore, America does not have the resources in this recession and already overstretched military to open a third theater of war!

Iran does not have nuclear weapons. They are not developing any either. President Bush could care less. To his thinking, they are the evil bad guys. They are not a threat to this nation, and they never have been. It has been nearly thirty years since the lowest point in Iran-American relations. Thirty years of rebuilding a damaged relationship. The Iranian people don’t want war, either. Bush would throw all of that away over a neocon fiction.

The consequences of such an attack would be devastating to our economy, and it would destroy what little credibility in the international community the United States has left. Oil would most likely blow past $250 per barrel and gas $7 per gallon. Consumer prices on everything would skyrocket, and the current recession could worsen, even becoming a return to 1929.

We don’t want or need that to happen.

So what can you do?

Antiwar.com is leading the charge against this lunacy. But they need your help. With your kind donation they can continue this fight and help us all work to avoid the economic and political destruction of America.

There are three things I’m pleading with you to do.

First, please donate here. Anything you can give helps. Everything you can give is appreciated Antiwar.com would like to raise $25,000 by August 1st.

Second, please pass this request around. The more people that know about this need and this huge problem, the more that can be done, and everyone needs to be involved.

Third, contact your Congressman, Senators, and the White House on HCR 362. Tell them NO to war with Iran.

America’s future is in jeopardy. Can you afford not to help?

While I am not associated with Antiwar.com in any way, I do support their mission.

For more information on how you can help, please contact Development Director Angela Keaton at akeaton@antiwar.com or 310-729-3760.

Peace,

The Mudslinger

Another Victim of the LPHQ Tyranny?

2008-06-30T21:27:00.000-07:00

Well, it appears (at the moment, anyway), that the LPHQ has claimed another victim.

The first victim (or at least attempted) was Dr. Mary Ruwart, through the attempts of then-Executive-Director Shane Cory, candidates used-car salesman Wayne Root and certifiable nutcase Christine Smith, in an amateurish smear attempt. It didn't work, except for the fact it may have denied Dr. Ruwart the Presidential nomination. But Dr. Ruwart has had the last laugh. Cory is long-gone, deservedly so, Smith had a tantrum on C-SPAN and left the LP in a huff, presumably taking her 6 votes with her, and Root didn't get the Presidential nomination either, and only got the VP nod after selling out to Barr (and presumably selling a few used cars along the way). Dr. Ruwart wound up on the LNC, where I hear she is letting her harder side out to play and take no shit from anyone (HUZZAH!).

The second victim was Chuck Moulton, ousted as LNC Vice-Chair, even though he knew how to run a meeting and the chair, Billy Redpath (so named because of the red shift in the path of the LP that he's helped engineer!) couldn't run a meeting of paper dolls. Chuck had to go in their view, not because he was a radical, but because he wasn't one of "them." Replacing him is former Presidential candidate Steve Jingozian. I have no opinion on Jingo, and he gets the benefit of the doubt from here. Let's hope he is fair in his role and does a good job, and keeps the "libertarian" in the Libertarian Party.

Then there is the third victim. Unfortunately it is my good friend, political ally, and downright wonderful lady in the Anarchist Bitch. Even though she was re-elected by the delegates with the highest vote total (tied with Dr. Ruwart), apparently that mandate from the membership for her representation was lost on the Starr Chamber. Not on her, mind you, not at all. She did exactly what a beautiful, pissed-off, liberated, radical anarchist would and should do: she did her JOB. She started asking a LOT of awkward questions and spreading a LOT of sunshine on the inner workings and dysfuctionalities of the LNC. She respected those that respected her, and to those who didn't, she gave that quarter back as well, with a couple of nickels to boot. The response was to call her a "brat", threaten her, and demand her resignation. She responded in a self-deprecating manner and made utter fun of them on her blog.

But for now, that is at an end. It appears, unfortunately, that the powers-that-be don't like her serving the membership (meaning, people like ME!) very much, meaning that they don't seem to like the membership very much either. I don't think she has resigned, at least I hope not.

Here's hoping that there is a purge in the LNC, but it is the Starr Chamber that gets the gate. We got them out of the LPCA before it was too late, and the Takenaga-group is doing its best to clean up that mess and actually move forward. I am proud to be part of that effort. Hopefully they will be gone from the LNC before the LP goes under.

And no, you won't expect to see the Mudslinger anywhere near the LNC. I still have all my hair and would like to keep from tearing it out. I have plenty to do with the LPCA. Plus, my blowtorch and bulldozer are both in the shop.

NOTA???

2008-06-29T11:59:00.000-07:00

On a different blog, Lady Gaura referred to Obama as an empty eggshell.

So...

With a tip of a striped hat to Dr. Seuss…inspired by LadyGaura.

I do not like an empty shell.
I do not like it very well.
I will not vote for Old War Coot.
I will not vote for Empty Suit.
I will not vote for Darth Nader.
I will not vote for Barr Vader.
I will not vote for Pastor Chuck.
I will not vote for the Green Schmuck.

The choices suck for 2008.
For four more years, freedom must wait.
But can we take four more years,
Of war and death and playing on fears?
Can we take four more years,
Of no jobs, no cash, and lots of tears?

Nothing left, no place to go.
What I’ll do, I just don’t know.
Then I look up and I see
The candidate that’s right for me.
He promises nothing, and delivers less.
No pile of crap dumped on my chest.
No funds to raise, no favors to owe.
No speeches to make, no places to go.
He’s the last place for a discouraged "vota",
That place to turn to is called, simply, NOTA!

I think that NOTA is the best.
I think he’s better than the rest.
I’ll vote for the best one I choose.
I’ll vote for NOTA–-I can’t lose!

It's a Heller-va Ruling--and it's not what it should be!

2008-06-26T17:00:00.000-07:00

Today the Supreme Court made history by FINALLY addressing the meaning of the Second Amendment.

In case you live under a rock, or on another planet, here's the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Pretty simple, right? Look at the grammar:

Subject Clause: "the right"
Modifying subject prepositional phrases: "of the people", "to keep and bear arms"
Verb Clause: "shall not be infringed".

That's pretty straightforward: the right of the people shall not infringed. That's commonly referred to in libertarian circles as the "individual right" perspective.

In contrast, there are some who think the amendment applies to a militia or a group of people, and not single persons. That's commonly referred to in authoritarian circles as the "collective right" perspective. Libertarians commonly refer to it as "bullshit."

So what did the Supreme Court do today? Well, to hear the LameStream Media tell it, the Court upheld the individual right perspective.

And to some extents they did. Here's the first sentence of the actual holdings:

"1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

So far so good.

But, wait a minute, all is not as it seems. Note that was Section 1 of the holdings. Now, here's Section 2:

"2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."

WTF is this?!? The Court in this section contradicts itself! "shall not be infringed" means exactly that: no infringements--no limitations. Yet here they say the right is not unlimited. It has infringements!

So, once again, in the tradition of Kelo and Raich, we have the Supreme Court engaging in Orwellian doublespeak: black is white, up is down, "public use" is "public purpose", "intra-state commerce" is "interstate commerce", and now, we can new to the list, "shall not be infringed" is "may be infringed". Is that bullshit or what?

Look at the list of allowed infringements:

Possession by felons. Considering that these days the legal defintion of a felon is much more than a hardened criminal who robs, rapes, or kills, this infringement is ridiculous. You want to keep them away from felons? Then fix what a felon actually is, and actually lock them up and throw away the keys!
Possession by the mentally ill. These days the definition of mentally ill has expanded more than the definition of a felon. Mental illness is not just for rubber-room candidates anymore, so this infringement is also ridiculous. Fix the definition to mean the criminally insane, lock them up, and throw away the keys!
Carrying in "sensitive" places. No, they don't mean with a cocked hammer in the front of your waistband. They mean schools ("think of the children!"), government buildings ("we must protect our oppressive bureaucrats from the public they piss off!"), airplanes ("pass the box cutters!"), and so on. In other words, the Killing Fields. Didn't 9/11, Virginia Tech, and Columbine teach them ANYTHING? (I leave out prisoners in prisons for obvious reasoning--they have forfeited this right in the first place!)
Conditions and Qualifications on commercial sales. This means FFLs, gun show loopholes, background checks, and all that meaningless garbage. Come over to my house later so we can ignore this crap while I buy your rifle.
Dangerous and unusual weapons. Well, the first term is redundant. Weapons are SUPPOSED to be dangerous! As for unusual, what's that? An XP-38 Space Modulator? A rocket launcher? A suitcase nuke? An angry Tazmanian Devil? The Airborne Laser? A Super Soaker, Wrist Rocket, Daisy BB gun, rubber band gun, or a paintball gun?

Note two things on this list: the Looney Tunes references in the infringements (but I repeat myself!), and the fact that criminals and terrorists can, do, and will ignore any and all of these infringements at will.

And there's one more infringement in Section 3. See it?

"3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. "

Yep, the licensing part. The Court naively assumes that a license is not an infringement, mainly because Heller wimped out on that point at oral arguments, which outraged those of us who believe in RKBA. Police departments in general don't like to grant licenses or CCW permits because they mistakenly think only their guys should be the armed ones--never mind that that mentality fosters an attitude of arrogance, corruption, and brutality, and greatly improves one's chances of suicide-by-cop.

But the Court in Section 3 also pointed out two other things.

First, that the trigger lock and disassembly requirements are unconstitutional, because in that state the purpose of self-defense cannot be fulfilled. They got that one right. No criminal is going to wait for you to assemble and load your gun, and no criminal is going to wait for you figure out how to get off the trigger lock. In those cases, you're dead because you couldn't defend yourself (unless you beat the crap out of the criminal with the locked-up gun or gun parts!).

Second, they pointed out that a total ban on handguns is a prohibition on a class of arms, and that fails constitutional muster. That also means banning any other class of arms is also unconstitutional by extension. Note this contradicts part of the infringements listed as OK above for "dangerous and unusual weapons"! This includes machine guns, so-called assault rifles, and so on. Yep, the machine gun ban is lifted by implication.

So this ruling is not what it is claimed to be.

Yes, the Second Amendment is officially an individual right.
No, it can be infringed, despite the plain wording.
Yes, the Supreme Court are a bunch of hypocritical fools. They refer to the plain language on one hand when referring to the individual right part, but then turn around and ignore it when looking at "shall not be infringed."

So, once again, the Supreme Court screwed up. What they should have ruled was this:

"The Second Amendment says that individuals have the right to keep and bear arms, without any restriction by government. But that right also includes the right to self-defense, so if you are packing and start shooting up the joint, you better hope your insurance is paid up, because your life will quickly end by return fire. Learn to shoot straight and accurate and for crying out loud, if you feel depressed, angry, frustrated, homicidal, suicidal, or just ready to snap, be responsible, put the gun away and get some help!"

Section 2 is a travesty. Shame on the Court for being unable to read plain English.

We are back to the age-old question: "What part of 'shall not be infringed' don't you understand???"

P.S. The Incorporation Cluse of the 14th Amendment makes this apply to the states as well. This makes perfect sense since a state cannot deny a Constitutional right anyway.

Good Joke

2008-06-18T00:20:00.000-07:00

A drunk man stumbles into a bar and yells out, "I can lick any man in this bar!"

The bouncer replied, "So, is this your first time in a gay bar?"

-from the July 2008 Playboy

LadyGaura has a complaint...

2008-06-16T22:04:00.000-07:00

...so she asked for some space. I obliged, mainly because she ain't complaining about me! (LOL! J/K!)

So without further ado, LadyGaura sez:

I just heard a TV commercial for something HDTV related. I found it to be pretty demeaning, really. It definitely was not nice towards families with a demanding work schedule or the like. It also seemed to be jeering at people who actually have to use high-octane brain power, making us all sound like we’re not very street smart. I’ll grant, I’ve known intellectuals who do brain-dead things like walk into walls or washing their coffee cups with the SDS_PAGE equipment. But that certainly isn’t true of all of us.

What does seem to be more true, or at least the impression is of this, is that intellectuals and people who just like to use their brain sometimes, are rapidly becoming verboten in this society. Oh, we don’t mind them when we have a heart attack and we need help, we don’t mind that the computer guy who comes to fix the computer from its embedded virus. But we do seem to mind, these days, when people ask about how the candidates stack up on issues, especially difficult issues like the M3 or sound money economics. Instead, you’re supposed to hold an opinion only on how hawt Obama Girl is. You’re just not supposed to keep original thoughts up in the cerebral memory stick anymore, only what the Church or the State or the Press or Hollywood wants you to think. It’s getting positively Orwellian out there.

Sorry, but that’s not how I was raised. I was taught from an early age to value education and learning. I was taught that reading books is fun—and you can have fun learning. I eventually went on to get a Master’s Degree in Agronomy. A lot of people don’t even seem to know what that is—it’s crop science, with dashes of soil science and other related disciplines. I can look at a barley field and tell you—that patch is deficient in nitrogen—that stand could use some iron, or copper, or whatever. I tend to think original thoughts on a regular basis. Movies bore me, because the thinking is all done for you. Books—books, those on the other hand are exciting. I’m usually on a first-name basis with my local bookseller. I come by that honestly—my parents are the same way.

What on earth is so wrong with thinking, especially deep thinking? Humans are supposed to think—our brains are wired that way because that has meant survival. And just because it looks like we’ve won and our existence would seem fairly assured (for now), it doesn’t mean we can stop thinking. Some people are prone to deep thoughts. Sometimes that has meant the betterment of mankind, like lightbulbs and radios and the Internet. It’s who we are. It’s also changeable. You can’t really change your ancestry, your gender, your sexual orientation. I can dye my hair, but the brunette truth will show in another month. You can, however, choose to think, or not to think. It’s all a matter… of a thought.

Just think, okay? And let us brainy types think too.

Defending friends

2008-06-15T21:10:00.001-07:00

Thanks to Keaton for this one.

Specifically, this part:

To BetteRose Ryan, I’m a big puss. I sacrificed my bohemian creds to maintain a completely worthless middle class privilege. Starr, Carling and Cory were savaging you in an executive session over the Shotgun Willie’s booth. Starr insisted that it scared off other vendors. Scared off whom? Here ya go, you lying posers: I danced from Austin to Vegas. I’ve worked in the best and worst clubs. I’ve been paid $1000 to do nothing but sit for thirty minutes. I’ve spoken to more men about libertarianism while dressed as a school girl than any of you will in your tacky double knit polyester suits.

Evidently the Starr Chamber thinks it can insult convention organizers in Executive Session and get away with it. They thought wrong.

I've known BetteRose Ryan for years. Ditto her husband, Tony, and her sister, Michelle Poague. I consider them my friends. They are great people, first class all around. BetteRose and Tony have both served the LP with distinction in both LPCO (BetteRose as state chair and predecessor to my state chair, John Bernsten, Tony on the LPCO Board with me), and as LNC representatives (BetteRose as at-large, and Tony currently in a region). Michelle has also served on the LPCO Board in 2003-4. I was busy being a dad at that time as my son was born 4 days after the 2003 LPCO convention, which I helped organize, following the BetteRose "Cookbook" for conventions. I stepped down from the LPCO Board at that point for exactly that reason--parenting called.

Shotgun Willie's is the premiere club in Denver metro, in the unincorporated Glendale district. A lot of the girls there are LPCO activists, including Michelle. They co-sponosered the LPUS Convention. To Coloradoans, we know them as the "Glendale Ballet", and they have been mainstays in the LPCO, especially at election night parties, for years.

If the Starr Chamber is pissed over the Glendale Ballet at the LPUS Convention, then perhaps they ought to untwist their prude panties and go to a show. I’ve known that outfit for years; it’s high class, and they are regulars on the LPCO circuit–hell, an institution, even!–and not just for sex appeal either–some of them are bona fide party activists! That and BetteRose Ryan, Tony, and Michelle are all well-known as class acts bar none, which seems to be lost on the Starr Chamber, since they seem to lack it. The Glendale Ballet is what the LP is all about–free enterprise, free expression, and free minds and bodies.

Sorry, Starr Chamber. Methinks you doth protest too much, and for the wrong reasons. You should be thanking the Ryans, Michelle, and LPCO for putting on a great convention (as they tend to do!) instead of criticizing them. You also ought to be taking notes on what they did right instead of coming up with an idiotic cockamamie scheme to do LPUS 2010 in Hawaii, away from media cameras, media coverage, and the ability of most delegates to attend, in what is a poor imitation of the LPCA 2006 convention fiasco.

We got you out of CA before you ran it into the ground. Let's hope we can do the same at the LNC before it is damaged beyond repair.

For more info on Shotgun Willie's, check out http://www.shotgun-willies.com/Flash_index.htm

More hijnks from the Starr Chamber

2008-06-14T12:57:00.000-07:00

Hat tip to Keaton for this one. They never seem to learn, do they???

Is this another attempt to limit attendance by cost and travel limitations for the next round of elections and more platform controversy? Or is this just another example of utter stupidity in action?

Can the LPHI even put a national convention together? (No slight to LPHI, but it's no easy feat, even at the state level, and I've been there and done that!)

What about the lack of media coverage and expense to go all the way out there, and the time zone differences (as any east coast college football fan can attest to!)? Might as well hold the thing on Guam...

Is the Starr Chamber so fucking stupid that they think that they can interfere with the Convention Committee's work and get away with it?

Angela, all our thanks for bringing sunshine onto the LNC. It is needed.

Just some jokes

2008-06-14T01:00:00.001-07:00

A blonde storms into a library and up to the librarian.

"I have a complaint. This book I took out has horrible! It had way too many characters in it and no plot whatsoever!" grumbled the blonde.

"I'm sorry to hear that," said the librarian. "Do you have the book?"

"Yes," replied the blonde. "Here it is."

She reached into her bag and put the book on the counter.

The librarian said, "So THAT'S where our phone book went!"

*******

A priest, a minister, and rabbi walk into a bar. The bartender looks up and says, "What is this, some kind of joke?"

*******

How many libertarians does it take to change a light bulb?

None. The free market will sort it out.

*******

How many politicians and bureaucrats does it take to change a light bulb?

1 to notice it's burned out.
1 to write legislation to replace it.
20 to add pork riders.
535 to pass the bill
1 to sign the bill
1000 to write the corresponding regulations.
1 to buy the light bulb for $20,000
1 to screw the light bulb into the water faucet.

Introducing some friends

2008-06-13T20:50:00.000-07:00

I've been remiss in doing this, so I want to introduce a couple of close friends.

Dez is an old friend from CO with her husband in Iraq, and a mentor of mine when we both did media work for the LP at various levels in CO. Her blog is here.

Angela is a newer friend from CA, with a killer mind, body, and tongue--she'll tell it like it is whether you like it or not, and she takes no prisoners--unless you ask her nicely. She also works for antiwar.com. Her blog is here.