Would You Like to Play in the Majors?

Here’s a personal story about my brief involvement in the Libertarian Party of Massachusetts (LPMA). I want to say up front that I value the friendship and good will of my colleagues in the party. The people I worked with were good to me and offered me a lot of encouragement. My remarks in this post don’t take away from that. I do want to make some comments about my experience, to offer encouragement to other people who participate in their state parties.

In fall 2008, I joined the board of my state’s Libertarian party and became the organization’s newsletter editor. Shortly thereafter, in Massachusetts’ November 2008 election, Bob Underwood received over three percent of the vote running as a Libertarian for the U. S. Senate. That made the state’s Libertarian party a major political party in Massachusetts.

Not so surprisingly, Massachusetts’ election laws don’t make it easy for people to get on the ballot, least of all candidates for third parties. The laws are somewhat arcane, and leave some room for interpretation. One interpretation, backed by two decades or more of history, is that being a major third party is a particularly bad place to be if you want to place your candidates on the ballot. To secure the 10,000 signatures you need for your nomination papers, you want to be a Democrat, a Republican, a minor party candidate, or an independent who might choose to run under a political designation.

After Underwood’s good showing, LPMA’s board wanted to avoid the disadvantages of being a major third party in the state. Board members discussed how to make the organization a political action group rather than a political party. Persuasive, experienced members of the board carried the day. I was a quiet member of the skeptics, those who wanted to preserve our status as a political party, whether major or minor. I had no interest in devoting time to a political action group, indistinguishable from thousands of other special interest groups out there. A political party fields candidates, and I wanted to help build the state’s Libertarian party.

The upcoming special election to fill Ted Kennedy’s seat is a good example of the current situation. Joseph Kennedy (no relation to Ted) wants to run in the special election as a Libertarian. Acting on the LPMA’s advice, however, he won’t seek nomination as a candidate of the Libertarian party. Instead he’ll seek nomination under the political designation Liberty. To get 10,000 signatures for your nomination papers, you need a lot of money to pay an organization to collect them, or a good volunteer organization to do the same. The Democrats have many contributors and volunteers in the state, and have no trouble placing their candidates on the ballot. The Republicans are much weaker, and leave many races uncontested. The Libertarians have virtually no money and no volunteer organization. Therefore a candidate like Joe Kennedy must pay professional signature collectors out of his own bank account.

To make matters worse, an independent candidate can collect signatures from any registered voter, whereas a candidate from a major political party can collect signatures only from independents and people enrolled in that party. So if you run as a major party Libertarian, the pool of people eligible to sign your nominating petition is much more restricted.

Yet it’s confusing for a candidate to run under the Liberty designation, and a mistake to abandon the opportunity offered by as candidate’s success in winning three percent of the vote. If Massachusetts Libertarians achieve major party status while short of money and volunteers, it should use the momentum to strengthen the party and make it competitive. The state badly needs a new opposition party – everyone can see that. Instead, much of the party’s energy went toward renouncing its status as a major political party, in order to work around state requirements that make it highly problematic for third parties to get off the ground!

Nomination procedures required to place your candidate’s name on the ballot are one issue. I haven’t mentioned the organization’s second major concern. By the letter of the law, the state’s oversight of a political organization’s books is more strict for a major political party. One board member said he didn’t want to go to jail because we didn’t keep our books properly. Another member would say to others at the table, do you want to go to jail? The discussion rose to higher levels, but I couldn’t stand it. The question had no answer.

My enthusiasm went way down. Given the party’s weakness, it was bound to revert to minor party status the next time it ran a candidate in a state wide election and received less than three percent of the vote. It had already gone through the minor -> major -> minor cycle when Carla Howell ran for governor about a decade ago. She received over three percent on election day, and the party went through the double change of status without upheaval or undue interference from the secretary of state’s office. I felt we should endure the same transition again. If we focused our energy on party building, we could strengthen the group’s ability to field candidates and win votes. Any organization has to trudge a lot of miles before it becomes successful, and the trudging doesn’t stop even then.

We did some party building, but far more energy went toward a debate about how to make ourselves into something other than a political party. First we had to remove the word party from our name. But if you don’t call yourself a party, what are you? If you’re a group of activists but not a party, exactly what role do you play in the state’s electoral system? When you’re a major third party, you’re playing in the big leagues even if you’re the weakest team. No baseball team would voluntarily switch to the minor leagues, no matter how many games it lost or how much the major league’s rules were stacked against it. To make yourself a political action group rather than a party, you cease to play in any league at all. You become a booster club.

More generally, when an organization changes its name, not to mention its legal status, the people involved become confused and doubtful. Even members, those closest to the group, become unsure about their own organization. What’s going on?, they ask. Why the change? Should I continue to support the new group? You depend on current members to recruit new members, but doubt makes some portion of your current members less willing to act. They’re not solidly loyal anymore. The organization starts to shrink instead of grow.

The state libertarian parties throughout the United States need loyal, enthusiastic support. The Republican party can go the way of the Whigs 160 years ago if a real alternative emerges. To quote a long-time libertarian activist, let’s put the Republican party out of its misery. Let’s keep our state libertarian parties healthy and ready to participate. Let’s make them grow, make them able – as parties – to compete successfully in elections. The potential and promise of success are both there, and we have to seize the chance.

A fully private healthcare system

Although it appears that Obama may be dumping the public option (for now) many of his supporters both in and out of government are still pushing for a taxpayer funded public option. Allegedly this public option would be a Government Sponsored Enterprise, after the fashion of such success stories as FNME or FDMC. It is called “alleged” because no part of the upcoming healthcare bill that will eventually be voted on by either the House or the Senate has actually been finalized.

On a libertarian internet site someone suggested that he would support the public option – including a 15% tax increase – in exchange for the private option actually being private.

The private system would be completely private. It would not be regulated in any way. It would be free of all FDA regulations, DEA regulations, and medical licensing. Anybody can be a healthcare practitioner, and can prescribe any medication. But any prescription would be considered nothing more than advice since no medications would be controlled.

So as an experiment, this idea was run by several supporters of socialist medicine.

Theoretically there should be no reason for them to oppose it. They get everything they allegedly want – full government run medicine with all the controls, paid for by those who do not want government medicine. They get free healthcare paid for by their opponents. They get all the controls they say people need. They get all the licencing, all the regulations, and all the restrictions they say people need. And they get to have those who prefer a private system pay for their public system.

The suggestion was greeted with horror.

For some reason, even though the suggestion gave them everything they say they want, they didn’t want it.

They were obsessed with the question of how someone in the private system would know which medicines to take. It was suggested that people in the private system would go to any fraud who claims to be a doctor, and only wanted the medicinal freedom in order to “pop pills”. Such arguments would indicate that advocates of socialist medicine need the government to prevent them from going to frauds and would need the government in order to not “pop pills”.

It seems that the argument in favor of Socialist medicine is more than simply an attempt by the advocates of that system to have “free” healthcare. There is for some strange reason a desire to ensure that everyone else is in a controlled and regulated system as well, a desire to control and regulate everyone else.

Crossposted from Ayn R. Key’s blog

Crossfertilizing on the left and right, and what is effective outreach

— In GrassrootsLibertarians@yahoogroups.com, marc guttman wrote:
>
> Maybe Root would have joined the crowd in shouting down a candidate for the LPCT nomination for US Senate, Vincent Arguimbau, at a July 4th Rally in Hartford, with chants of “USA, USA, USA,” we he discussed cutting defense spending:
>
>
> I consider this my finest four minutes.
>
> Vincent
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jnQAZJdHlI
>
> Congratulations, Vincent. -Marc

Tom Knapp on this
=================
http://knappster.blogspot.com/2009/07/necessarily-divisive.html

Steve Gordon, quoting his own previous advice to “Tea Party” organizers:

If you are an event organizer or speaker, keep in mind that pretty much everyone will agree with your fiscally conservative message. The Second Amendment is probably pretty safe turf, but not necessary for the purpose of this coalition. Conservatives or libertarians wandering off into territory such as abortion, gay rights, immigration, medical marijuana, and the Iraq War will be creating unnecessarily divisive issues.

And from the same account, his evaluation of one of the events he attended on the 4th of July:

During the candidate speeches leading to the main event, one candidate (I couldn’t hear him well due to the poor accoustics backstage) went off on a rant about our participation in the Iraq War. He was immediately facing a roped-off section of veterans, and I couldn’t hear the end of his speech at all because of the boos he was receiving. To their credit, everyone else pretty much stayed on topic. Fortunately, there were plenty of Campaign for Liberty, Ron Paul, Libertarian Party and other folks there who were bright enough to focus on coalition building, as opposed to pressing issues destined to kill a team effort.

In other words, these events are political dry humps: The function of libertarians in the whole scheme is to help conservative Republicans achieve their daydream fantasy of pseudo-smaller-government orgasm without ever getting so fresh as to suggest that they should put out for real.

What, precisely, is such a “coalition” supposed to achieve? Libertarians have relentlessly stroked the conservative Republican … er, ego … for 45 years now, and what has it got us except used? For the love of God, Steve, get up off your knees and wipe that big white glob of “family values” off your face.

The Tea Parties were supposed to be a popular revolt against big government. In the space of a few months, they’ve become just another GOP astro-turf “revolt” against a few selected bits of big government that conservative Republicans dislike, and “hush, now” if anyone brings up the parts of big government — marriage apartheid, the war on drugs, foreign military adventurism — that they desperately want to save.

“Coalition,” my ass. When are you going to realize that there is no “Republican” in “team?”

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Steve Gordon replies,

Tom,

I think you’ve missed a key point I’ve made in the post you linked and quite a few others.

There are many GOP astroturfed events and many which are true grassroots coalitions. I continue to give examples of each — except on national television, where I spent my time last Tea Party trashing Gingrich, Huckabee and Keyes.

Considering that quite a few of the organizers, speakers and attendees were libertarian, constitutionalist, Alex Jones fans, Libertarian, Campaign for Liberty, Ron Paul supporters, Bob Barr supporters, at least one Mike Gravel supporter, etc. it seems unfair to paint them with the broad brush you just did.

Whether you supported him or not, you surely see the difference between a Ron Paul supporter and a Giuliani supporter.

Most of the Republican candidate speakers (good and bad) were “Ron Paul Republicans” for what that’s worth.

Additionally, you damned well know that I’ve supported coalition activities which cross political boundaries (Free the Hops) as well as more left-leaning coalitions (like bringing Lew Rockwell to an anti-war rally or pushing medicinal marijuana).

As I wrote in the article, “Republican” wasn’t a welcome word at that rally.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Gordon in response to other commenters:

Don’t you ever join in coalitions with the left regarding gay rights issues? I thought you were a participant in SF Pride parades.

I see the Obama administration has left you cold and dry, as well.

On issue-related stuff, I’ll work with anyone on our side of the line.

With regard to results, the last Tea Party (before this current batch) in my state led to the death of a very major GOP-proposed tax increase by a 2-1 margin. If you will recall, I was very active in that effort, too.

………………………

Are you saying that we should oppose Senator DeMint and a majority in the Congress who are working on an Audit the Fed bill because we oppose each and every one of them on some issue or another?
…………………………..

One more point.

Aside from Knapp, I don’t recall you guys providing any support or encouragement whenever I’ve worked with the left or taken swipes at the right.

Some examples include:

Repeated jabs at conservative hypocrisy.

Going after judge Roy Moore, mostly because of statements insinuating that it might be OK to exectute people for homosexual acts.

Pushing the Cory Maye story really hard in it’s early days.

Helping push medicinal marijuana legislation in Alabama.

Helping push Loretta Nall to the top of the Internet charts and then to national television.

Bringing together a coalition effort to reunite a nursing baby with his undocumented mother. This issue also forced the resignation of a state cabinet official.

Bringing Lew Rockwell to an antiwar rally.

Trying to provide some positive media when Mike Gravel joined the LP.

Hitting the national news protesting the RNC Convention in 2004. This included one article where I was holding up a rainbow-colored sign which read “Compassionate conservatism is so gay.” I couldn’t buy my own drinks that night.

Taking heat from “conservative” libertarians for my support and work for Aaron Russo.

How come you folks want to chew my head off when I work with the right, but never even seem to notice when I do anything left-oriented?

…………

On rereading my comments, I’ll retract and modify one statement: “On issue-related stuff, I’ll work with anyone on our side of the line.”

I won’t work with racists, pedophiles, Nazis, and other extreme groups in any manner.

I should have said I’ll work with most people, regardless of their political persuasion, on issues-based activities.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////

My reply:

A few points:

Steve is absolutely correct on the point that he has done effective outreach to the left.

And Tom is not the only one who knows this; I have defended Steve on that ground many times, although I don’t usually have as extensive a list of examples handy.

I think Tom has a good point in that we should make ourselves a distinctive presence at both right and left events.

Consider, for example, the message that “taxes fund the war machine”. This is a message we can carry to both anti-tax and anti-war gatherings. Sure, some people at anti-war gatherings may not like that point because they are pro-tax, and some people at anti-tax gatherings may not like it because they are pro-war.

But what is the alternative? We can keep quiet on economic issues at peace events and never distinguish ourselves, and we can keep quiet at economic freedom events and never distinguish ourselves.

Someone who follows us around may eventually notice that we are at both types of events – assuming of course that we actually are (I certainly did not see the level of promotion for peace rallies or any other left leaning coalition/outreach from the LP as I did for the tea parties). But then, even in this rosy scenario, we will mostly end up with folks who are scratching their head as to why we are there at all.

On the other hand, if we agree on the main premise of the event yet clearly distinguish ourselves everywhere we go, and go everywhere, we make our challenge to the dominant view of how the world works much more unavoidable.

Regarding CLS point on Lew Rockwell above, there is a vast difference between Rockwell and Buchanan on economic issues, at a minimum; let’s not lump them together.

CLS and Steve Gordon are both two of the best libertarian activists; it’s really too bad that there is such bad blood, it is very counterproductive to the many areas where we can still work together.

In other news, how about some debates between Wayne Root and Ernie Hancock? Hancock is willing. Or how about Loretta Nall? Couldn’t get in touch.

Humor break brought to you by AaronStarr.com
Paulie | 07.07.09 – 7:51 am | #
.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Reply to me from Chris Bennett:

Kissing much butt lately Paulie?

What about an apology from Steve Gordon about supporting a candidate who eulogized to the highest degree a former US Senator who was clearly RACIST even at the time of his death. YES I’M TALKING ABOUT BOB BARR!!!

Gee Steve is this how you throw away your friends who until as early as 2008 supported you in any endeavor you took part of. I’m still awaiting, you have my number but I shouldn’t hold my breath about it.

Yes I do admit that Steve has done much outreach to the left on issues that concern libertarians and liberals alike.

Even so (you still get the GAS FACE!)

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

My reply to Chris:

Chris,

I never kiss anyone’s ass, not yours and not Steve’s.

I told Steve from the start that I did not think Barr would be a breakthrough candidate, and I did not think that the conservatives who supported Barr for his record in congress would set aside their differences with libertarians who liked Barr for (at least supposedly) being a changed man.

I criticized the Barr campaign in many ways before and after the nomination. In case you have forgotten, much of that is still easily available.

Barr was one candidate, one year, just as Russo was another year, and Ron Paul, Badnarik, etc., and just as Ruwart and Kubby almost were.

I don’t always agree with Steve, but the nastiness on all sides is counterproductive. For another example, the LNC is about to spend about $25,000 in travel costs to go to a meeting whose main focus will likely be a single $25 donation and how it was handled.

The nasty tone of the infighting is what really leaves a bad impression and drives people away, or keeps them from working with each other on future projects just because they disagreed on one campaign or strategy.

I call out all sides on that, and on other things – lack of activity, organization and follow through, lack of sunshine and transparency, etc.

I can work with almost everyone in the
party to some extent, and I can and do criticize anyone and everyone when I think they require it – although I’m trying to be more constructive about it.
Paulie | 07.07.09 – 12:44 pm | #

> ________________________________
> From: Starchild
> To: Bruce Cohen ; Wayne Allyn Root
> Cc: CALibs@yahoogroups.com; Grassroots Libertarians Caucus ; LP Radical Caucus
> Sent: Tuesday, July 7, 2009 4:31:17 AM
> Subject: [GrassrootsLibertarians] Re: [ca-liberty] Wayne Allyn Root discovers the value of anti-government protests
>
>
>
>
>
> Wayne Root apparently believes that until very recently, being
> interested in “saving your country” meant being a flag-waver, never
> having a bad word to say about the U.S. government, and never having
> been to a protest in your life. All in sharp contrast to those
> “typical socialist radicals” and “counter-culture hippies” who
> habitually disturbed our tranquility with their numerous unnecessary
> complaints about harmless things like undeclared wars and police
> brutality! In Wayne’s World, it seems the only people who went to
> protests before Obama came along were unpatriotic “American-haters. “
> Although besides the “American-haters” he also reports the presence of
> that quasi-mythical creature, the “professional protester,” a species
> only somewhat less steeped in popular mystique than the legendary
> “welfare queen.” (No Bigfoot sightings, Wayne? I’m disappointed! ) But
> I’m glad he’s discovered that you can go to protests and still be a
> good person — indeed that perhaps it is even (gasp) Patriotic. When
> it comes to speaking out against abuses of power, better late than
> never. See you at the Tea Party!
>
> Love & Liberty,
> ((( starchild )))
>
> On Jul 6, 2009, at 12:01 PM, Bruce Cohen forwarded (in part):
> > I was a Witness to History
> >
> > By Wayne Allyn Root
> >
> > The protestors at these Tea Parties are not the typical socialist
> > radicals, counter-culture hippies, and professional protestors of
> > the left who attended the war rallies. The Tea Party protestors
> > define middle America. These are small business owners, blue-collar
> > workers, parents with young children in tow, grandparents, patriotic
> > war veterans. These are people who have never said a bad word about
> > America in their lives. These are flag wavers- not flag burners.
> > These are lifelong Republicans and conservatives and libertarians
> > who have never attended a protest in their lives. These are patriots
> > looking to save their country, not American-haters looking to tear
> > it down…
>

West Virginia Libertarians raising funds for 2010, 2012 ballot access

Howdy folks, first, a few brief personal notes:

1. I’m in West Virginia working on the ballot access drive mentioned below

2. My birthday is today. I still have very little internet access, and would appreciate hearing from you all at 415-690-6352. Email will not reach me again for several days.

3. Today is also IPR’s first birthday.

Site summary:

VISITS

Total 655,239

PAGE VIEWS

Total 1,900,232
Average Per Day 2,224

3,337 Posts
48,799 Comments

Wes Benedict sent out this letter about our project in West Virginia:

——————————————————————————–

——————————————————————————–

Dear West Virginia Friend of Liberty,

I have been very impressed with the remarkable accomplishments of the Libertarian Party of West Virgina so far this year regarding ballot access and candidate recruitment under the leadership of the new Chair, Matt Harris.

I hope you’ll visit their website and contribute $100 or $200 to help pay for petition signatures to get six candidates on the ballot for the November 2010 elections.

They’ve got an experienced petitioner on the ground collecting signatures now thanks to a recent $1,000 contribution, and need $500 minimum to keep going for another week. They’re also doing work to prepare for 2012.

The six candidates they’ve identified are for County Commissioner and the West Virginia House of Delegates. These petition drives are small and manageable, requiring only a few hundred valid signatures each.

It’s been a while since the Libertarian Party of West Virginia ran candidates for office. In 2008, our Libertarian nominee for President, Bob Barr, raised nearly $45,000 to hire people to collect the 15,100 valid signatures to get on the ballot in West Virginia. But they ran out of time, were short on signatures, and failed to get on the ballot.

That was a big disappointment, not only for West Virginians, but for Libertarians throughout the country who wanted to see the Libertarian candidate on as many state ballots as possible.

But the great news for the future is that this year West Virginia Libertarians helped get a bill past by the legislature and signed into law by Governor Joe Manchin which effectively cuts into half the number of signatures required for Libertarian candidates to get onto the ballot in West Virginia. So, instead of needing nearly $45,000 for the 2012 presidential petition drive, it should take only about half that much.

Additionally, rather than waiting for the 2012 presidential candidate or the National Libertarian Party to fund a West Virgina drive, the LPWV is taking matters into their own hands and getting started right away.

They’re also doing things in an efficient manner by collecting signatures both for their 2010 candidates, and at the same time, collecting signatures to have 2012 candidates for Governor and President on the ballot.

Here’s why that’s an efficient process. It can be hard to get somebody to stop and listen to you and then to sign a petition. However, once you get a person to stop and sign one petition, it’s quite easy to get them to sign a second or third petition while they’re standing there.

My name is Wes Benedict and I served as Executive Director of the Libertarian Party of Texas from 2004 to 2008. Here are some highlights of my tenure:

Recruited a record 173 LP candidates for office in Texas for the November 2008 elections, which was 29% of the nationwide LP total.
While Texas has 8% of U.S. population, LPTX candidates in 2008 received 28% of the U.S. House and 44% of the State Representative votes received by Libertarians nationwide.
Libertarians known elected to nonpartisan offices in Texas increased from 2 to 8.
Increased LPTX donor base from under 300 in 2005 to over 900 in 2008.
Raised $244,000 for the 2007-2008 election cycle for TX, which was more than CA, FL and NY combined (which comprise 24% of U.S. population).
While I am very proud of our accomplishments in Texas, none of that would have been possible if the National Libertarian Party hadn’t helped the Libertarian Party of Texas get onto the ballot in 2004 by contributing $45,000 to that effort.

Because others helped Texas in 2004 when we needed help, I’m happy to help out West Virginia, and I’ll be forwarding this email to some of my Texas friends to see if they’ll lend a hand as well. I’m just doing this as a volunteer.

I can’t guarantee that they’ll be successful or that nothing will go wrong. I’m in Texas, not West Virginia. However, I do hope that others will recognize that Matt Harris and the LPWV are showing initiative and making things happen and I want to do what I can to encourage and reward those self-starters.

I do hope you will help out with the West Virgina petitioning by visiting their website and donating $100 or $200 or whatever you feel comfortable with.

Click here to donate or paste this link into your web browser: https://secure.donortownsquare.com/SSL/donate.aspx?sgst=0&amt=0&ai=876&qs=SS7G6
or visit their website at http://www.lpwv.org/ and click on the DONATE ONLINE button.

You can mail a check or money order to:
LPWV
PO Box 4428
Star City, West Virginia 26504

Send me a note or call me between 8 AM and 10 PM CST if you’d like to discuss this further. Also, I’d appreciate it if you’d send me a note if you donate. I’m trying to make sure I help them find $500 by tomorrow.

Regards,
–Wes Benedict
Former Executive Director of the Libertarian Party of Texas
512-442-4910 home
512-659-8896 cell
wesliberty@aol.com

West Virginia Libertarian Party kicks off ballot access drive

Posted in Donny Ferguson’s blog at LP.org:

Message from the Libertarian Party of West Virginia:

The LPWV has just kicked off our 2010 and 2012 ballot access drive. This will require some 20,000 total signatures state-wide. This isn’t cheap, and we need your help! Our petitioning team is on the ground right now in Morgantown collecting signatures for our candidates for the 44th district state house of delegates, Monongalia county commission, and other state and national offices. We also have many other candidates from around the state lined up who need your help.

After successful lobbying efforts by Libertarian Party activists, we recently passed a bill which cuts in half the number of valid signatures required to get our candidates on the ballot, so there’s never been a better time to attain ballot access in WV. We expect to attain major party status here beginning in 2012, and it all starts here, now, and with you!

Please help us ensure that voters have a Libertarian choice. Consider donating generously at http://www.lpwv.org or by mailing a check or money order payable to LPWV to:

LPWV
P.O. Box 4428
Star City, WV 26504

Contributions to the LPWV are not tax-deductible. Please include your full name, address, and phone number.

---

---

Posted by Paulie. Disclosure: I am the “petitioning team” on the ground in Morgantown.

Personal note: My internet access is almost non-existent here – it involves over an hour walk each way up and down hills to the town library, for a maximum of one hour a day online, and it has been raining almost every day. Please do not send emails or expect me to see comments here, but do feel free to give me a call – I have unlimited minutes every day at any hour: (415)690-6352.

Hitting the road again…finally!

After the longest dry spell of work that I’ve had in my business since I’ve been in it (1998), where I have been sitting on my hands and pretty much living at IPR (not an actual paying job) since September, I’m finally hitting the road today. I don’t know how much internet I will have – I have no laptop – so call me if you need to get a hold of me.

It HAS happened here

Posted at Progressive Historians by Winter Rabbit:

The sterilizations of indigenous women were covert means of the continuation of the extermination policy against the Indian Nations. At least three indigenous generations from 3,406 women are not in existence now as the result. The sterilizations were not unintentional or negligible. They were genocide. What would the indigenous culture and political landscape be now? One can only imagine, but the sterilizations like the relocations – were forced.

continue reading…

Angry dude is right…

h/t Cork

The Obama “cuts”

I’m not going to do the LP’s work for them, but the gist of it is that they called the Obama cuts out as bullshit in their latest Monday message. And indeed it is:

Obama’s budget calls for around $11,755.00 in spending for every man, woman and child in America. But his “cuts” — which aren’t even new reductions — come out to only around 32.7 cents per person.

That much isn’t really news-the time has long since passed when the word “millions” as applied to the federal budget lost any real importance. However, what did catch my eye, after the usual dime’s-worth-of-difference propaganda, was the list of 12 specific items in the budget suggested as cuts:

Here are just a few of the reductions we back. You can find more in the Cato Institute’s “Handbook for Policymakers, Seventh Edition.”

• Avert the oncoming fiscal crisis in Social Security by indexing initial benefits to changes in prices, instead of wages. Saves $47 billion annually by 2018. Without reforms like this, the program will go bankrupt or force trillions of dollars in destructive new taxes or borrowing.
• Turn Medicare into a block grant and freeze federal spending, forcing states to pursue cost-cutting reforms. Saves $227 billion annually by 2018.
• Eliminate the Commerce Department’s Economic Development Administration, a $352 million corporate welfare program.
• Eliminate the Commerce Department’s International Trade Administration, another $369 million in corporate welfare.
• Eliminate the Energy Department’s nuclear energy research programs, $695 million in welfare that should be undertaken by nuclear energy investors.
• Turn Head Start over to private charities, saving $687 million annually. Since its inception Head Start has shown no substantive increase in inner-city literacy rates.
• Eliminate the Bureau of Indian Affairs, saving nearly $2.5 billion a year.
• Eliminate funding for the United Nations and other international programs, saving nearly $1.6 billion annually.
• Eliminate the Legal Services Corporation, saving $350 million annually.
• Eliminate the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities, $278 million a year in welfare for wealthy arts patrons.
• Eliminate the Small Business Administration, $530 million in welfare for businesses.
• Eliminate the $935 million a year in Postal Service subsidies and force them to further privatize operations.

Those are just a few cuts, a “twelve step program” if you will, which alone save taxpayers $282.3 billion. That comes out to $921.78 in savings for every man, woman and child in America, and there would be a lot more savings than that to come with even more reductions.

Compare that to Obama’s piddling 32.7 cents.

That’s not bad, but I would submit that the math is a little fuzzy there. You can’t know exactly what the Medicare reform would save, especially since there would be fifty different solutions to how to deal with those block grants. Some states might choose to supplement falling federal funding with more state funding, keeping the net amount of taxation even or even increasing it as far as that state is concerned.

Also, I don’t particularly care how much a given plan saves me in 2018, I want to know what it saves NOW. I also want to know whether those numbers are accounting for inflation… is that $282.3 billion in today’s dollars or 2018 dollars?

Also, not every last one of those cuts is a good idea from a libertarian point of view. The Bureau of Indian Affairs is the price we rightfully pay every year for the intermontane West. The treaties concluded with those tribes guarantees them various payments in exchange for the cession of land. All I’m gonna say is that if you’re a libertarian and you believe in keeping your word, you can cancel that funding but be prepared to hand North and South Dakota over to the Lakota, Arizona to the Hopi and Navajo, etc. Those treaties are law, not polite suggestions to be ignored when they’re inconvenient for the budget.

I’m all for a general reformation of the way we treat Native Americans in this country, namely restoring to them whatever land and sovereignty we can via new treaties with their tribal governments. But that’s going to take a lot of research and a lot of negotiation and is beyond the scope of a single unilateral budget cut during a recession.

But anyway, my main point is that it looks like the Cato Institute is aiming to become the next Center for American Progress. CAP did a lot of homework for the incoming Obama administration, giving it several well-articulated policy proposals to implement. CAP won the war of ideas against the neocon think-tanks sometime in 2005, and more and more that intellectual reality became reality for the rest of us.

It is said that in the short term, the stock market is a voting machine; but in the long term it is a weighing machine. In that same sense, in the short term American politics is a battle of parties and personalities; but in the long term it is a battle of ideas. You can win for a time without ideas, so long as you have a well-oiled propaganda machine. The GOP proved this for the past 8 years. But you cannot hope to win in the long term without ideas on your side.

The Cato Institute has seemingly appreciated CAP’s role in the ascent of Obama, and is positioning itself to be the thinktank responsible for the eventual GOP comeback. I think this would be an excellent development, especially as the neocons are in disarray. I do believe that Obama will eventually discredit himself if he allows the spending to spiral out of control, and at that point, we have our moment, our victory in the war of ideas, and it’s just a matter of letting reality catch up.

(Crossposted at my personal blog)

LPWV Gets Cryptic Letter from D-Lake

random flicks

Kubby: new stock certificate

Some of my IPR posts today….

Tom Knapp for President campaign update

Posted by Tom Knapp at Kn@ppster. Reposted to IPR by Paulie.

---

---

It should have been obvious to me that using KN@PPSTER as a presidential campaign site wasn’t going to work, even from the start. That became more clear to me when I began planning campaign events and had to think about how attendees at those events would react after I (hopefully) wowed them in person, with professional literature, etc., then sent them here.

So, time to head back into “real campaign site” territory. It’s skeletal — I’ve just started populating it with some relatively recent articles and haven’t buckled down to getting my position paper suite together yet — but it’s there (and thanks to an in-kind contributor, the header image is great!).

Some updates:

- This weekend, I’ll be attending the Missouri Libertarian Party’s state convention and hosting a hospitality suite Saturday evening at the convention hotel. If you’re attending the convention, or just happen to be in the Jefferson City area, drop in for a drink and some conversation!

- OK, folks, you’re finally going to get a book out of me. Working title: Unnecessary Evils: Handbook for a New American Revolution. I’m already writing away at it and expect to publish it next spring.

---

---

Boston Tea Party at Kansas TEA Party

Posted by Jim Davidson at http://www.bostontea.us/node/663. Reposted to IPR by Paulie.

---

---

I attended the Tax Day Tea Party in Overland Park, Kansas on Wednesday. It was much fun.

According to the local Fox Snooze affiliate, there were a thousand people there. I did see a helicopter overhead, probably from Channel 9, so someone might even have counted the crowd.

There were all kinds of people there, from Vietnam veterans to Iraq war veterans in age, some very elderly, many young children. There were mostly white people, but the region is pretty pale. I did see a number of Hispanic folks and some other ethnic minorities.

My favorite protester war a pink pig outfit. It was fun to stand near the police and shout, “Look at the pig!” Then point at the one in the pink outfit. -smile-

I was able to pass out about 200 flyers for “Lawrencians for Liberty” including “Campaign for Liberty” and Boston Tea Party contact particulars. I also passed out around 200 flyers for http://www.alongsidenight.com/ the new agorism revolution project.

In Colorado Springs for the von Mises Circle earlier this month I was given by one of the organisers a stack of “Audit the Fed” flyers from the Campaign for Liberty, so I passed those out, too. Then it was off to the street to wave my sign at passing motorists. There was huge enthusiasm from the cars – lots of waving and horn honking and cheering.

My sign said, “No more taxes, No more wars, End the bailouts, End the war on drugs” on one side, and “Go Ron Paul” on the other.

Many people asked about the fliers and one had even read J. Neil Schulman’s book “Alongside Night.” She was excited to hear about the plan to make it into a film.

There were two sets of speeches, both with amplification. For a while, I stood between the two sets of speakers and had one blaring in my left ear, nearly canceling out every word blaring in my right. Many speakers introduced themselves and none stick out in my mind.

A politician was there with an “end the bailouts” petition. Many people signed that, including me, and many signed up at the Kansas City tea party booth, including me. So, I should get more e-mail, and that’s always swell.

There were many police but no violence. Many different messages were presented, and I was amused by quite a few.

If you missed out, and plan to be in the Kansas City area, check out the End the Fed rally coming up later this month.

If you plan to be in Lawrence, we’re doing two “Films for Action.” One is “America: Freedom to Fascism” this coming Sunday the 19th of April at the Woodruff Auditorium in the Kansas student union. The other is some “Money Masters” thing, which is critical of the Federal Reserve but, as I recall, promotes the completely idiotic approach of having Congress print money.

You should really get involved. It is the revolution of our time.

Get a shirt or something to declare your affiliation:
http://www.cafepress.com/bostontee

---

---

Removal of Lee Wrights from Libertarian National Committee appealed to Judicial Committee

---

---

Emailed to contact.ipr@gmail.com. Posted to IPR by Paulie. See previous IPR coverage for background.

---

---

To: LNC

Subject: I have received an appeal to an action you have taken in your roles as Secretary and Chair of the Libertarian Party

Chair Redpath and Secretary Sullentrup,

In my capacity as Chief Justice of the Libertarian Party Judicial Committee, I am in receipt of an appeal of your actions suspending Lee Wrights from his position on the National Committee. I am forwarding the appeal and supporting documents to you in 3 additional emails.

Article 8, Section 5 describes the process we will be undertaking. Please send your responses to me and I will distribute them to the other members of the Judicial Committee. The sooner I receive your responses, the sooner we can move through the process, so I thank you for all due speed.

I will keep you appraised of our actions.

For Liberty,

Ruth E. Bennett

Chief Justice

Libertarian Party

---

Judicial Appeal

Jurisdictional Claim. Article 8, Section 5 and Article 9, Section 2c of the Bylaws of the Libertarian Party, give the Judicial Committee the power to hear appeals on the suspension of National Committee members-at-large. I was elected to an At-Large position at our 2008 Denver convention and was recently suspended without the prerequisite vote of the LNC. I am formally appealing this action.

Basis of Appeal On April 14 of this year, I was notified by the Secretary Bob Sullentrup (Exhibit 1 sent in follow-up e-mail) that 1) my membership dues ?lapsed? as of April 7; and 2) I was taken off the LNC as of April 8 because I was no longer a sustaining member as required by Article 8, Section 4 of the bylaws.

My suspension was not the result of a ?for cause? vote by the LNC, as required by Article 8, Section 5 of the bylaws. Instead, it apparently was made by the Secretary and affirmed by Chair Bill Redpath.

Libel and Slander. The advertising process for my replacement began within minutes of notifying me of my suspension (Exhibit 2 sent in follow-up e-mail) and included the Secretary?s notice to me (Exhibit 1). In that notice, the Secretary mentions a statement presumably made by me at the last LNC meeting that I ?would never again give a dime to this Party.? He concluded, based on that statement, that I deliberately withheld my dues. I never made such a statement.

Financial Endangerment of the Libertarian Party. The Secretary?s notice, along with the fabricated statement was sent out to the State Chair?s list asking for nominations for my ?vacated? seat. Consequently, as illustrated below, some individuals believed that I had was rebelling and decided to join me by repudiating their membership as well (http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2009/04/applicants-sought-for-lnc-vacancy/comment-page-1/#comment-54731):

John // Apr 14, 2009 at 7:22 pm
It?s about time a true radical showed some true leadership and told the LP to *&%$ off. What a brilliant move! The Boston Tea Party could do well with men like Lee at the helm.

Outlander // Apr 14, 2009 at 7:55 pm
Lee has always been one of my heroes, but never more than today! The national lp is not worth the money. I just sent an email to the national lp office resigning my membership too. If Lee goes to the boston tea party, I?ll follow.

beetlejuice // Apr 14, 2009 at 8:10 pm
Real leaders, like Lee, show the way by their principled actions, not by pontificating about what others should do. Either the LP will take this as a warning and give up trying to be Republican-lite or more long time activists will follow Lee, hopefully over to the BTP, but surely somewhere good in the libertarian movement.

Fearing an exodus of my supporters from the LP, I went on the blogs and explained that this was a clerical snafu; I had never gotten the snail-mail renewal notices because I?ve been moving around a lot lately. I even posted the confirmation notice I received from paying my dues on April 14, the date I was notified of the delinquency. Had I not done this, I fear that the false information conveyed by the Secretary would have resulted in a loss of membership and contributions for the LP.

Summation. I believe that my suspension from the LNC was in violation of our bylaws. The manner in which it was done endangered the Libertarian Party?s membership and financial roster and is still creating division.

Unfortunately, I have no choice but to appeal my suspension. An e-mail vote to overturn the Chair?s ruling or reinstate me takes at least 2 weeks; the bylaws give me one week to appeal.

In addition, I do not wish this precedent to permit a sitting At-Large member to face suspension because their dues are late. LNC members commit a great deal of time and money to serve; it seems illogical and unappreciative to overturn their election by convention delegates because of a late $25 dues payment.

If you require more information from me to facilitate this appeal, please do not hesitate to call (336-403-1036) or write ( rleewrights@gmail.com ).

Submitted respectfully to the chair of the LP National Judicial Committee,

R. Lee Wrights, At-large

---

---

Not my post, but me, Ross Levin and Gregg Jocoy on the first installment of IPR radio. If anyone else listens to it, I’d be interested in your take on the issues discussed. Some of the discussion takes place after significant dead air gaps.

---

---

Libertarian Party Newsletter California Freedom: Peace and Glasnost

---

---

Article published in California Freedom, the monthly newsletter of the Libertarian Party of California, by editor Thomas Sipos; found at his blog, Libertarian Peacenik. Posted to IPR by Paulie.

---

---

My editorial, in the April 2009 issue of California Freedom:

When Mikhail Gorbachev became Soviet dictator in 1985, he announced a policy of glasnost, which has been translated as “openness.” He meant that Soviet media should freely promote a diversity of opinions, rather than parrot the party line. Party decision-making should be transparent. Criticism of party leaders should be welcome. Citizens’ opinions should be heard, however “negative.”

I’ve been told that I shouldn’t discuss America’s foreign interventions. I should only print material that “all libertarians agree on,” otherwise I’m being “divisive.” I shouldn’t cover LNC meetings, or disagreements and embarrassments, or debate and discussion. I should only print “positive” stories. Doing otherwise violates CF’s Mission Statement.

Yes, CF has a MS. Here it is:

“CF is the official publication of the LPC. Its purpose is to promote and enhance the political success of the party. To accomplish this it provides an informative and entertaining blend of political news, analysis, features and advertising for its members. Its content focuses on: 1. California events, rather than national; 2, Externally oriented politics, not internal debate; 3. Our successes, rather than our disappointments; 4 Libertarian analysis of political positions enjoying support from the mainstream of California voters; 5. Practical guidance on winning elections and changing public policy.”

At the 2007 LPC convention, I asked Elizabeth Brierly about the MS’s origins. She told me that Bruce Cohen had asked her to draft a MS to guide future editors. Elizabeth prepared a first draft, which went round robin between herself, Bruce, and Aaron Starr, with the two gentlemen offering changes until the MS met their specifications.

ExCom approved the MS on August 20, 2005.

Like a Constitution, a MS must be interpreted. To say that CF’s content “focuses on” X rather than Y can mean either that X articles/LTEs should predominate over Y articles/LTEs (the free speech-oriented interpretation); or that X should exclude Y (the restrictive interpretation).

It’s been suggested that my coverage of LNC activities violates the rule against “internal debate.” Why? Perhaps because it’s an “internal” (party business) rather than “external” (election campaign) matter.

But if we interpret “focus” so restrictively, CF could not promote or cover party conventions. Conventions are “internal.” Yet I assume that, even post-MS, CF always covered libertarian conventions, state and national.

Clearly, there is no absolutist ban on covering “internal” matters.

Perhaps the problem is with “debate”? I may cover “internal” matters, but not debate about internal matters. Actions by party leaders may be reported, but not questioned.

No, I can’t believe that’s what the 2005 ExCom intended, despite some party leaders distaste for glasnost. (One reason the LNC persecuted Angela Keaton was for her live blogging the September 2008 LNC meeting to the membership.)

I interpret the MS’s phrase “focuses on” to mean that X material should predominate over Y (comprising a majority of CF’s content), but not exclude Y. Certainly, antiwar is a position “enjoying support from the mainstream of California voters.”

I would like to print more about county LP events and election campaigns, but I’m getting few submissions. I assume we’re in a post-election year doldrum. If you want to read about “California events,” then write it. I can’t publish what I don’t get.

Finally, I was told that CF should not print discussion or debate about contentious party issues, because those are properly left to the conventions. The problem is, many members aren’t aware of internal controversies unless they’re reported. If they don’t know, they may not attend the convention. This creates the risk that party business will be ceded to well-organized minority factions.

I have changed the tone of CF from two years ago. I hope I’ve brought glasnost to it. Transparency about party matters, and openness to debate, may bring “divisiveness” and “negativity.” But it would be ironic if a libertarian publication had less glasnost than the late Soviet Union.

* We’re All Demopublicans Now

On March 9, Donny Ferguson, LNC Director of Communications, sent out a mass email, writing: “the most important principle is winning” and “There is nothing more noble and principled than winning an election” and “winning elections is the most important libertarian principle there is.” These sentences were boldfaced and underlined to emphasize his theme.

Winning is also the Demopublicans’ most cherished principle; all other principles are negotiable. Seems the LNC has just equated Demopublicans with Libertarians.

Susan Hogarth reprints Ferguson’s article, with her reply.

* Libertarian Muslims

In every war, The Other is demonized. I’ve never confused Russians with Communists, or Germans with Nazis, yet always, some self-styled patriots will conflate the actions of some with an entire race, religion, or ethnicity.

It needs repeating: most Arabs and Muslims are not terrorists. Some are libertarians. Their website: Minaret.org.

* Independent Political Report

A critic accuses me of insisting on the last word. He’s miffed that I replied to one of his articles.

He’s also wrong. Many of my editorials are sprinkled with urls. Rather than have the last word, I often give you “heads up” on key issues, then send you off to research further.

I often refer you to Independent Political Report.

This is the current “hot spot” for discussions (and flame wars) about the LP. Party leaders post here. LNC meetings are posted — while in progress. The site is uncensored, unmoderated, and easy to post to. Anonymously, if you wish.

Glasnost indeed!

* Rob Power Resigns

Rob Power resigned from ExCom at the conclusion of their March meeting. He writes that he “went to Long Beach with every intention of resigning” and he “merely signed” his resignation letter at the meeting’s conclusion. He adds, “I’m going to be writing a detailed explanation of why I decided to resign.”

Power’s term was to expire in 2010. Now there’ll be an additional At-Large seat to fill at the Visalia convention.

* Late March Issue

The March CF went out late. I finished it in February, but I have no say when issues are printed or go online. Even so, I’m sorry the Riverside LP meeting notice ran late. I advise future LP event notices to be submitted way in advance.

* Libertarian Peacenik

If you can’t get enough of my long, rambling, “antiwar obsessive” editorials, visit me at: Libertarian Peacenik.

Peace. Glasnost.

---

---

Brian’s response. Actually, he posted it himself, which goes against IPR rules, so I had to switch in my name.

---

---

Libertarian Party of California Executive Committee member (and IPR reporter) Brian Holtz has published the following reply to the editorials in the last three issues of the LPCA newsletter California Freedom. The annual LPCA convention is April 24-26 in Visalia.

---

---

Tom Sipos was very careful in January to invest LPCA newsletter space in a picture of multi-decade LP activist/leader Aaron Starr with a Hitler mustache, but CF readers saw absolutely nothing there about the eight most serious charges against Sipos’s hero Angela Keaton (to each of which I give a paragraph at http://more.libertarianintelligence.com/2008/12/apology-angela-should-offer.html). Now Sipos claims he was practicing “glasnost” and “transparency” in his “reporting” about e.g. an LNC meeting he didn’t even attend (though held only a couple hours from where he lives). My own blog posting about the San Diego meeting (http://libertarianintelligence.com/2008/12/lnc-tightens-belt-defuses-keaton-bomb.html) was much more balanced and accurate than Sipos’s editorial, and I wasn’t even using LPCA paper/postage or drawing an LPCA paycheck.

Nobody has told Sipos he “shouldn’t discuss America’s foreign interventions”. During Bruce Cohen’s two-year tenure, CF ran five pieces featuring opposition to intervention, and zero pieces in defense of libervention in general or the Iraq invasion in particular. Sipos in his first three issues ran six anti-intervention pieces, and the two opposing pieces he ran were accompanied by two instant Sipos rebuttals — thus totaling 8 antiwar pieces in those 3 issues. His pace has continued unabated since then, and he has proudly said that this internally controversial subject will continue to be his editorial focus.

Nobody has Told Sipos he should “only print material that ‘all libertarians agree on’” or that “party leaders may not be questioned”. It’s even sillier to pretend that advice against emphasizing party schisms is somehow a ban on covering normal party business like conventions. These are all straw men crafted by somebody who never has to worry about the same-page instant-rebuttal that in CF he reserves for himself — sometimes taking even more space than what he is answering. (Don’t be surprised that if this message appears in CF it is accompanied by yet another same-page Sipos rebuttal of some sort. That’s the sort of “last word” I said he reserves for himself, and no other recent CF editor has assumed such same-issue rebutting privileges.)

Sipos selectively takes one sentence out of context from one of an entire series of LPHQ communications, and pronounces Donny Ferguson a “Demopublican”. Donny Ferguson is in fact a dedicated and talented young political operative who could be even more personally successful if he weren’t so principled and selective in his employment. Read the entire paragraph that Sipos butchers in order to smear Donny:

“Here’s the beautiful thing about having political power. It’s a zero-sum game. If you’re in office, even if you don’t have the votes to repeal anything, the high-tax Democrat or the deficit-spending Republican aren’t there to vote for more government. There is nothing more noble and principled than winning an election.”

Thus while Donny is in fact saying that the most principled thing is to stop Demopublican growers of government, Sipos wants you to think that Donny himself is no better than a Demopublican.

Mr. Sipos, let us not assassinate this lad further. You’ve done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?

---

---

Well, those are all my libertarian posts at IPR today. I did a bunch more on other parties. The fun part is the comments; check ‘em out by going to the links for each article. And maybe leave some here too, while you are at it…

Texas governor advocates secession, backtracks

Rick Perry has recently spoken out about Texas seceding from the Union. From the New York Times:

“When we came into the Union in 1845, one of the issues was that we would be able to leave if we decided to do that,” he told reporters on Wednesday. “My hope is that America, and Washington in particular, pay attention. We’ve got a great Union. There’s absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, who knows what may come of that?”

Democrats have already begun making disapproving noises:

State Senator Rodney Ellis, a Houston Democrat, said Mr. Perry had not only opened himself to ridicule but also evoked a time most Texans would rather forget. “Texas has become a hotbed of right-wing political activity,” Mr. Ellis said, “but I think even those folks on the far right think this is over the top.”

And Perry has already begun to backtrack:

After the rallies, Perry downplayed his secession comments, amending them in an interview with the Fort Worth Star-Telegram to say, “I’m trying to make the Obama Administration pay attention to the 10th Amendment.”

So what’s the whole point of this? It’s just another Republican establishment figure going out on a limb to try to grab the Ron Paul constituency before what looks to be a nasty primary fight. Of course, the fact that at least part of the GOP now has to sound like hardcore libertarians on what used to be considered fringe issues can be considered encouraging to the movement.

I don’t know a whole lot about Perry’s record in Texas, so I don’t know if he’s a worthwhile politician and therefore worthy of our support. I would tend to suspect he’s not, just on general principle when dealing with Republicans.

But this, and the broader 10th Amendment movement in general, does represent a sea change in libertarian thought. Back in 2006, the Libertarian Party had a vicious fight between the Radical Caucus and the Reform Caucus. Reform ended up winning, but it seems like a lot of the people in the Radical Caucus ended up reappearing in Ron Paul’s presidential bid in 2008, in the GOP. And now, as an effective component of the Paul wing of the GOP, they are sounding more credible and wield more political power than they could have had by winning the fight for the LP in 2006. Maybe Michael Medved was right.

Tea Party roundup

Posted at IPR here and here:

From The Raw Story by David Edwards and John Byrne:

---

---

As conservatives coalesce in nationwide protests against rising taxes, government spending and what they call the “bailout mentality” of President Barack Obama’s Administration, the ship appears to have sprung a leak.

Speaking on MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow show Tuesday evening, Rep. Ron Paul’s (R-TX) media coordinator Steve Gordon decried what he characterized as an attempt by mainstream conservative Republicans to hijack a long-cherished libertarian cause. Paul was a longshot candidate for the Republican presidential nomination last year.

Gordon brought Maddow a gift of Southern tea bags — using them as a metaphor for what he said was a Southern version of conservatism, sweetened by taxes and deficit spending.

Gordon singled out former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich, a Georgia native, and Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee.

“Newt Gingrich is a good example,” Gordon said. “He could be one of these two tea bags because he likes his tea bags sweetened with TARP [Troubled Asset Relief Program] funding. This other one could be Mike Huckabee, ‘Tax Hike Mike’ because he likes his tea bag sweetened with tax increases. So you see we’ve got a bunch of republican, senior Republican officials in the deep south who can’t tell if their tea bags are swinging from the left or the right.”

Last year, supporters of Paul’s presidential campaign tried to fly a blimp to Boston, where they planned to dump tea in the Boston harbor.

The media coordinator for the Texas Republican says that Republicans have “co-opted” their message.

“Newt Gingrich of all people should not be involved in any movement to decrease deficit spending,” Gordon quipped.

Gordon spoke about a specific Alabama protest event where the conservative 501 (c)(3) Freedom Works tried to set up a rally in Birmingham where “nobody showed up,” but said that his own rally was more successful.

“It’s important the people at the grassroots level stick to our guns and say no when they try to co-opt our message,” Gordon said.

Gordon told The Washington Independent Tuesday, “Bringing in someone like Gingrich takes away from the message. Newt Gingrich enabled George W. Bush, he enabled the big spending, he lobbied conservative Republicans to compromise their principles and support Medicare Part D.”

This video is from MSNBC’s Countdown, broadcast Apr. 14, 2009.

Download video via RawReplay.com

---

---

Here are some of the posters from the Georgia Libertarians discussed in the video, posted at Atlanta’s Creative Loafing:

---

---

Over at http://www.bostontea.us/, Jim Davidson writes

It is with a heavy heart that I report that one of our vice presidential candidates in 2008, Marilyn Chambers, has passed away.

Her story here.

Today we have 1,339 members on this site. We have 1,297 members of our largest Facebook group. Please ask your friends and family to join our party – committed to a smaller government on all issues and at all levels.

Many Tax Day Tea Parties are planned for this week, and another round of End the Fed rallies are planned next week. Get involved. The freedom you save might be your own.

Meanwhile, Carla Howell, a former Libertarian Party candidate who got 12% of the vote against Ted Kennedy for US Senate in 2000 and ran End The Income Tax initiatives in Massacusetts in 2002 and 2008, delivered this speech on April 15, 2009 at the TEA Party Event in Boston:

“I did NOT come here to Protest.

“I did NOT come here to try to change the minds of Democratic or Republican officeholders in Washington – or on Beacon Hill.

“I came here to change politics in America – just like the American Patriots who gave us the first Boston Tea Party.

“The Original Boston Tea Party was NOT a Protest.

“Let me say that again: the Original Boston Tea Party was NOT a Protest.

“The Patriots did NOT just hold up signs, give speeches, and complain.

“The Patriots stopped British ships from unloading Monopoly British Tea – their version of AIG.

“The American Patriots blocked the collection of taxes.

“That is why the Boston Tea Party mattered – and why we remember it today.

“Because it was direct political action, not just protest.

“And it was action that made government smaller.

“Those great American Patriots realized that
what they said and what they wrote – changed nothing.

“But action changes everything.

“Not just any action. Action that shrinks Big Government.

“They were right!

“Deeds, NOT just words.

“Direct political action, NOT just protest.

“Action that moves us forward, that moves us closer to small government – NOT the no-win strategy of holding the line, or just opposing more Big Government.

“This is the lesson of the first Boston Tea Party.

“Now it is our turn to live the lesson.

“Let me ask you a few questions.

“Do you believe that the Wall Street bailout is insane?

“Do you believe that the massive federal government borrowing is hurting your business and your family?

“Do you believe that government is too big?

“Do you believe government debt is too high?

“Do you believe government spending is too high?

“Do you believe taxes are too high?

“Now let me ask you the questions inspired by the Original Boston Tea Party:

“Are YOU willing to take political action?

“Are YOU willing to END the Big Government Insanity – and start voting to make government smaller than it is today?

“Are YOU willing to vote against every Big Government candidate – in every election?

“Now here’s the really hard question: Are you willing to vote against them even when you hate the other Big Government candidate more?

“Are you willing to vote FOR small government candidates and FOR small government ballot initiatives?

“Most political candidates who tell you they’re against Big Government, who tell you they are for ’smaller government’ talk your way — and vote the opposite. They vote for tax increases, debt increases, spending increases, and more Big Government programs. They vote for each year’s higher government spending. Their votes raise your taxes.

“The only way we can protect ourselves against these phonies and fakers is to ASSUME THAT EVERY ELECTED OFFICIAL IN AMERICA IS GUILTY OF VOTING BIG GOVERNMENT – UNTIL OR UNLESS HE PROVES HIMSELF INNOCENT by showing you his voting record. By proving to you that he voted small government while in office.

“Are you willing to vote against every officeholder who refuses to show you their voting record?

“To reclaim the American Dream, we must vote out every Big Government officeholder in our federal, state, and local governments. Every one. Democrat AND Republican.

“But we must NOT stop there.

“We must vote FOR candidates who campaign for, promise, and vote to reduce and remove today’s Big Government social and economic programs – and GIVE BACK EVERY DOLLAR SAVED TO THE TAXPAYERS.

“We must vote for candidates who campaign for, promise, and vote to reduce and END government borrowing, reduce and remove government overspending and waste. Starting now. Small government candidates who will give back every dollar saved to the taxpayers.

“We must vote for small government candidates.

“We must vote FOR ballot initiatives that shrink Big Government.

“Candidates and ballot initiatives that cut or end taxes.

“Candidates and ballot initiatives that drive down today’s Big Government spending.

“Just protesting Big Government will never give us what we want. Voting against Big Government will. Voting FOR Small Government will.

“Every Election. Every time. No exceptions. No excuses.

“This is the ONLY way we can fulfill the promise of the Original Boston Tea Party.

“I’m Carla Howell. I head the Center For Small Government. We’re on your side. Please join us.

“Because ’small government is possible’.”

---

I’m back.

Hi dudes. I’m Stu, the guy who founded Last Free Voice. After an extended sabbatical from blogging, I’m back and ready to rumble.

I’ll be blogging here and on my new personal blog, and maybe, God willing, on Last Free Voice too. Politically, I guess I’d be best described as a left-leaning geolibertarian. I generally either vote Libertarian, don’t vote at all, or vote for Ron Paul and his supporters in the GOP. That said, I’ve got quite a bit of respect for Obama, and occasionally agree with him from time to time. I’m a utilitarian, a rationalist and a skeptic except in matters of religion, and I look forward to posting up some articles here and getting back into the swing of things.

The Antelope Valley Tea Party

The Antelope Valley Tea Party – Or – A Republican Circle Jerk

I hope that in other parts of the country tea parties are more representative of a true anti-tax or anti-government attitude than they are here. In spite of the best efforts of the Campaign for Liberty and the Libertarian Party to focus the Antelope Valley Tea Party in Lancaster, California, this one was little more than a pep rally for mainstream Republican Party members.

Perhaps I shouldn’t have expected much given that prominent local politicians were involved. In attendance were two State Assemblymen and one State Senator, all Republican, as well as the chairman of the local Republican Party. While the mayor of Lancaster was supposed to have been there but had to bow out at the last minute, conspicuous by his absence in any of the event literature was the mayor of Palmdale, a relatively better sort of Republican. (Not better enough to be Libertarian, but better than the average Republican … kind of like saying “taller than Deep Roy” but I mean it in a nice way.) Then again, he did have the gall to oppose a ruling family Republican in a primary race not long ago.

The event planners ensured that there would be no official question and answer session. I should have known that the politicians would not have shown up had they been faced with the risk of an unprepared question while the press was there to cover it.

I handed out fliers with twelve very pointed questions about the Republican Party’s support for the recent California tax increases and the ballot proposition that would extend those increases from two years to four years. I was told that if I was handing out fliers I could not do it in the official tea party area but had to do it out in the parking lot.

It was good to see that people were heckling Assemblyman Steve Knight. He voted to put the tax extension proposition on the ballot. The next speaker was Assemblyman Cameron Smyth who, seeing the way Knight was fiercely heckled, instead talked entirely about our valiant troops overseas defending our freedom. Trying to get him to explain why he voted to put the tax extension proposition on the ballot by my own heckling led to someone nearby hushing me for not showing support for the troops.

Most of the rally afterwards centered on how illegal immigrants were to blame for all of our financial problems, or how we should concentrate all our attention on the Democrats in Washington. There was almost no attention paid to the Republicans and Democrats in Sacramento. It would seem natural for local politicians to discuss local issues, but that would reflect too poorly on their own behavior.

The last thing on anyone’s mind (except for the LPers and the C4Lers) was how the Republican Party contributed to this mess. This pep rally was for the Republicans to convince themselves that they are not to blame for the mess they made. Sorry, I didn’t fall for it. I hope other Tea Parties are better, but the Antelope Valley is were ideas go to die.

I did corner Assemblyman Knight after the rally.  Apparently he knows my name because as soon as I introduced myself he talked to everyone but me.  But I can be quite patient and after every single last distraction had finished talking to him he was willing to angrily defend his voting to put the tax hike on the ballot.  Apparently the bill had some good stuff and some bad stuff, and for the sake of the good stuff he voted for the bill with the bad stuff in it.  Also he angrliy said he does indeed endorse the Republicans who voted to raise taxes because otherwise the Democrats would get 2/3 in the legislature and taxes would be raised.

Libertarian Party HQ: Outreach at Left of Center Conferences

Posted at IPR. See comments/discussion there.

---

---

From: Robert Kraus
Subject: LPHQ Attendance at Left of Center Conferences

All:

Please feel free to share this email.

We have been asked by several LP Members to look at “left of center” or “alternative” conferences in the DC area which we could attend to counter the image that we only attend CPAC like events (8,500 attendees).

We have assigned several interns to review the more than 700 such conferences and conventions in the Mid-Atlantic area to determine what might be best for us to attend.

The list includes:

· Powershift 2010 (Powershift 2009 had over 10,000 attendees)

· ACLU Membership Conference (over 5,000 attendees)

· Netroots 2009 (over 2,000 attendees)

· America’s Future Now (formerly Take Back America which had a little under 2,000 attendees)

· National Young Women’s Leadership Conference (500-1000 attendees)

We estimate the cost of attending one of these events at $1500-2500 including booth and materials. We are looking for sponsors who will at least pay for the booth or arrange for a free booth. Obviously the better attended events, which in turn draw more media attention, would be our preferred option.

We are currently scheduled to attend these two “alternative” events (which we already have a sponsor for):

· Capital Pride in DC (200,000 attendees)

· Equality Forum 2009 in Philadelphia (75,000 attendees)

We encourage our regional reps to ask their state chairs to also look at events other than the typical gun show or “CPAC” type conventions as well. The office is here to support them in promoting their event to our email and media lists, on our events page, and enlisting volunteer support. Please remind your states to let us know about their events by simply sending an email to events@lp.org and to email Austin at Austin.petersen@lp.org if they need assistance in staffing their booths.

Thank you!

Robert

Robert S. Kraus

Acting Executive Director

Operations@LP.org

Libertarian National Committee

2600 Virginia Ave NW #200

Washington, DC 20037

Ph: 202.333.0008 x 231

Fx: 703.935.8015

In Praise of the Employee Free Choice Act

For far too long the union movement has been hampered from growing into the large retail sector by the ridiculous reason that their employees don’t want to be in a union. Thanks to the efforts of the unions to support the Employee Free Choice Act, such petty reasons to not form a union will finally be dispensed with.

In our current unfair system, once a sufficient number of employee check card signatures are gathered a period of campaigning begins, during which time the employer is allowed to try to give reasons why a union would be bad for the employees, but is not allowed to make threats or to make bribes. Nor is he allowed to fire union organizers without exceedingly good cause. The union is able to make promises of higher wages or better working conditions. Then a secret ballot election ensues, monitored by the government to ensure it is fair.

The secret ballot is horribly unfair, it allows employer to intimidate the employees even though the employer has no way of knowing who voted which way. Instead we can have the intimidation free union recruiting when Sal the Shiv, Moose, and Knuckles walk up to an employee and say “Youze gonna sign this union card? Youze gonna sign it cause youze don’t want no ‘accidents’ to happen.”

Some contrary types are going to claim they were threatened, from the safety of the anonymity of police protection. They are going to claim that their health or life or family were threatened. We know they’re actually just trying to cause trouble. The only reason they are anonymously reporting that their life was threatened was to ensure that they don’t get served court papers for defamation after they drag the good name of Bruno the Bruiser through the mud. If they really meant what they were saying they’d be proud to say it publicly.

Under the current unfair system, the initial round of union talks require both sides to act in good faith and gives both sides time to prepare for the initial negotiations. If the EFCA passes, a union can organize in secret (and it had better be in secret says Kneecapper Gus) and present its demands as a fully formed union at the negotiation table as the first indication that a union is forming in the first place – and good faith won’t even be demanded of the union. Unions always negotiate in good faith, they never make unrealistic or unreasonable demands.

Resistance to the EFCA shows that employees really don’t know what they want, and need to be told to be in a union even if they mistakenly think that they don’t want to be in one. They just don’t know what is in their own best interests, no matter how much they think they do. Who cares if less people are hired due to higher union wages? They’ll be compensated with welfare that is probably higher than what any non-union employer would pay. It doesn’t matter where people get their money, as long as they get it, so it will all work out. Plus they’ll need those higher welfare payments to afford the higher prices at the now-unionized stores. If they ever wished they could afford expensive items their wish will be granted as the items they shop for will be the expensive items.

Knowing all of that, there is no reason for anyone to oppose the act which gives Unions the free choice of Employees.  And they’d better know there’s no good reason to oppose this if they know what’s good for them.

How restrictive will location control get?

The former colonial powers of the world are feeling a consequence of colonialism in the relocation of formerly colonized people to their own shores: Asians and Africans to Europe, Latin Americans to the United States.

In Russia, many of the people who are the scapegoats and bogeymen of the anti-migration nationalists come not only from the now independent former Soviet Republics and Soviet client states in places like Africa, but also from areas which are still part of Russia, and which Russia is still fighting to control – Chechnya, Dagestan, etc. In Moscow, the rallying cry of the xenophobic separatists is not just “Russia for Russians,” but also “Moscow for Muscovites.”

And that brings in mind a point….will migration control freaks in other countries also soon seek to restrict internal migration? Do the arguments they make for restricting migration freedom apply equally to movement between states, counties, cities, neighborhoods, blocks, or even houses?

It’s not as if anti-internal migration sentiments would be entirely new in, for example, the US. Northerners moving to the south are still sometimes called carpetbaggers, many Western states disparage “californication,” Floridians have “Florida Native” car decals, California once grappled with Okies in the first great depression.

With another depression showing signs of getting underway, will the US once again see efforts to restrict movement of people from parts of the country that are harder hit?

Resisting With A Mall Pillow Fight Waged To Aid The RNC 8

At least The Flagstaff police seem to have been pretty laid back about it.

At 3 p.m. on March 28, 40 people dressed in black and red arrived with a shopping cart blaring music in tow at Flagstaff’s Heritage Square and began swinging cushions at each other. The feathers and fluff flew, but the mass of people also collided with the cops.

Part protest, part pillow fight, the event aimed to raise awareness of and protest the arrest of the “Republican National Convention Eight” (the RNC8).

The RNC8 protested the criminalization of dissent in Minneapolis and St. Paul during the 2008 Republican National Convention.

They were charged under the Minnesota PATRIOT act in response to their political organizing. They all face up to seven-and-a-half years in prison under the terrorism enhancement charge, which allows for a possible 50 percent increase in the maximum penalty. The legal expenses for those involved with the RNC8 are estimated to be $250,000.

The last time such charges were brought under Minnesota law was in 1918, when Matt Moilen and others organized labor unions for the International Workers of the World, also known as “the Wobblies.”
[. . .]
Aaron Levy, a second-year English graduate student at NAU donning a cat-ear cap, stood atop one of the Square’s benches and gave a speech through a megaphone.

“When we come to the pillow fight today, we want to show the world there is a better way to do things,” Levy shouted into his bullhorn. “You don’t need guns, you don’t need Tasers, you don’t need handcuffs, you don’t need politicians and we don’t need anybody but ourselves to operate in a world of peace and justice.”

The crowd cheered, and the cops crossed their arms.
[. . .]
The cops took Levy aside and began to question him about the complaints they received.

“You just gonna leave that out there?” Officer Condon pointed to the chalk.

“It will just kinda take care of itself,” Levy said.

“Nobody wrote anything vulgar or anything?” Condon asked.

“No sir. It’s just peace, love,” Levy said.

The cops let Levy go, and the group began to clean up the mess with borrowed brooms and bare hands.

Troy Farah and Matt Roberto, “Protestors ‘resist state terrorism’ with pillows“, JackCentral (NAU online news), April 2, 2009

Copywrong

h/t Delaware Libertarian

My April Fools post at IPR: Former US President Bill Clinton joins Libertarian Party

In a move that few, if any, people saw coming, former US President William J. Clinton is set to announce today that he is joining the Libertarian Party. Clinton first hinted at his new political direction back in 1997, but Libertarians didn’t believe him, and not long afterwards called for his impeachment.

“What really did it for me this time was the recent “Monday message” from LP communications director Donny Ferguson that said winning is the most important principle,” President Clinton told IPR’s Paulie over a few lines of coke in a Bessemer, Alabama truck stop restroom. “That’s been my view for many years, and I’m glad to finally find a political party with the balls to say it openly.”

Clinton acknowledged that people may be skeptical of his conversion, but he pointed out “look at my old nemesis Bob Barr. Back in 2002 y’all were working to get him out of Congress. By 2006 he was on your national committee, and two years later he’s your Presidential candidate. If Ol’ Bob can do it, why can’t I?” He also pointed out that former Democratic US Senator Mike Gravel switched from running for the Democratic Party Presidential nomination to that of the Libertarian Party just last year while remaining consistent in his views.

Bill mentioned that he is working on getting his wife Hillary to switch as well, pointing out that she was a Goldwater girl in 1964, and that her best bet to beat Obama in 2012 will be in the general election rather than in the primaries. He also sent a shout out to Alan Greenspan for introducing him to the works of Ayn Rand.

Asked about his future political plans, Clinton told Paulie that he was considering running for LNC as well as a future run for US Congress, and will be starting a new civil rights organization to repeal the 22nd Amendment to the US Constitution. “I was hoping to be appointed Ambassador to the UN, but Obama’s being a total dick about it,” he said. “Just because I was the real first black President doesn’t mean he has to be that way.”

Kubby sent me this…

Here’s One For You, Paulie

You’ve probably seen it already, but it’s worthy of note just the same:

Blowing It Out Of Lenin’s Ass

It seems there hope in this world yet. Is there an award for the best use of a shaped charge? Somebody deserves to receive it for this.

odds and ends

Brad Spangler sent a message to the members of Center For a Stateless Society: Supporters.

——————–
Subject: C4SS Fundraising Drive Success and More Good News

Dear Supporters of the Center for a Stateless Society,

THANK YOU! You’ve stepped up to the challenge and made us reach our fundraising goal! There’s also more good news!

CARSON IS BACK!

Your financial support has allowed Kevin Carson to return to writing weekly commentaries for C4SS. We’ve met our fundraising gopal for the coming quarter, so Carson’s commentaries (as well as his quarterly research study) is funded through the end of June 2009. Check out the following:

Seeds Sprouting in the Rubble
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http://c4ss.org%2Fcontent%2F184

Enemies of What State?
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http://c4ss.org%2Fcontent%2F211

WELCOME C4SS NEWS ANALYST THOMAS KNAPP!

Thomas L. Knapp has accepted the position of News Analyst at the Center. This part-time job makes him our second paid staff member, after Research Associate Kevin Carson. In this role, Tom will be focusing on creating more hard-hitting market anarchist news commentary for C4SS to publish and promote. Your support has made this possible.

SMASHING THE STATE IN 90 SECONDS OR LESS…

We have a new podcast audio feed, available in the sidebar on our web site. I aim to publish a short “Clip of the Day” audio news commentary from an undeniably anarchist perspective most weekdays — under 90 seconds in length and licensed for free use by podcasters and radio producers. The first few have been published this past week. Find them here:

http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http://c4ss.org%2Fcontent%2Fcategory%2Faudio-commentary

YOUR SUPPORT IS THE KEY TO EVERYTHING

I set a second quarter fundraising goal of $1300 for the Center and listed exactly what the money would be spent on in my appeal to you. You responded! We reached (and exceeded!) that goal several days before the scheduled end of the Spring 2009 Fundraising Drive. It’s now our turn to show you that money being spent well. We will not let you down.

As we step up our operations, we will continue to produce hard-hitting, explicitly anarchist news commentary. We aim to build further trust and support by giving you what you pay for. I’m going to ease up on fundraising appeals between now and the start of our Summer 2009 Fundraising Drive. However, I can tell you now that when it comes time for the Summer 2009 Fundraising Drive, I will come to you with a larger, more ambitious goal that I believe you will be able to help us reach.

Your continuing overall support, not just financial support, is what will allow us to grow.

* Send our stuff to your friends and e-mail groups.

* Post it on Facebook, MySpace or your blog.

* Or any of several social news sites like Digg.

* Ask your local newspapers, particularly alternative news weeklies, to republish our content. They have permission!

* Consider hosting a house party for our Summer 2009 Fundraising Drive.

In closing, thank you. We’re starting small and growing in what may seem like baby-steps right now. Perseverance and hard work will change that, though. We aim to accomplish great things for freedom, with your help.

Warm Regards,

Brad Spangler,
Director, Center for a Stateless Society

---

---

MIAC:

The text of Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and Chuck Baldwin’s letter to Governor Jay NixonThe text of Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and Chuck Baldwin’s letter to Governor Jay Nixon

Is The LP Covering For Porkulator Ron Paul?

On March 3, 2009 the Libertarian Party website issued a press release and published a blog clearly stating that earmarks in the 2009 Omnibus Spending Bill were pork, and the politicians responsible for them were not fiscal conservatives, nor libertarians.

LP Press Release – Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Libertarians urge Obama to veto pork-ridden spending bill
Libertarians stand with taxpayers against earmark abuse

LP Blog – March 03, 2009, by Donny Ferguson
Six of the top ten Senate ‘porkers’ are Republican
Taxpayers for Common Sense released a database Monday of the 8,570 earmarks, totaling $7.7 billion, in the FY09 omnibus spending bill.

Ferguson’s March 3 blog post cited the H.R.1105: Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009, earmarks data codified by The Taxpayers for Common Sense. The Taxpayers for Common Sense’s latest release of this data is the March 13, 2009 Update, Version 5 (xls file). Here is the listing of the top 10 earmarkers by total dollars in both The Senate and The House from that update:

Senate

• 1. Thad Cochran(R-MS) – $473,707,775
• 2. Roger Wicker (R-MS) – $396,012,300
• 3. Mary Landrieu(D-LA) – $332,099,063
• 4. Tom Harkin(D-IA) – $292,360,036
• 5. David Vitter(R-LA) – $249,182,063
• 6. Kit Bond(R-MO) – $248,160,991
• 7. Dianne Feinstein(D-CA) – $235,027,932
• 8. Daniel Inouye(D-HI) – $225,077,157
• 9. Richard Shelby(R-AL) – $219,398,750
• 10. Chuck Grassley(R-IA) – $199,144,486

House

• 1. Mazie K. Hirono (D-HI 2nd) – $139,720,002
• 2. Rodney Alexander (R-LA 5th) – $128,628,563
• 3. Chet Edwards (D-TX 17th) – $117,926,271
• 4. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI 1st) – $111,434,800
• 5. David R. Obey (D-WI 7th) – $98,802,000
• 6. Marion Berry (D-AR 1st) – $90,001,643
• 7. Mike Honda (D-CA 15th) – $87,703,143
• 8. Earl Pomeroy (D-ND) – $80,955,928
• 9. Ron Paul (R-TX 14th) – $75,175,750
• 10. James Moran (D-VA 8th) – $74,754,928

Six of the ten biggest Senate earmarkers, and eleven of the twenty listed are from the South. Even more remarkable: Ron Paul is the ninth largest earmarker in the House of Representatives. Is this why the LP has stopped firing away at Congressional earmarks?

Here’s Ron Paul’s rationalization for his rampant earmarking: Earmarks Don’t Add Up, although he doesn’t mention why he publicly grandstands his opposition to funding bills he knows damn well are a shoe-in to pass, while he works like a busy beaver behind the scenes assuring his district gets more than their fair share of his earmarking largesse.

Wake-up Paul Sheeple and smell the abattoir’s entrance straight up ahead…ROTFLMAO

Dude, where’s my bailout?

h/t Delaware Libertarian.

Stimulus without happy ending

Posted by Jim Davidson at bostontea.us

Jim is signed up to write here, but says this site is crashing his computer.
Anyone else having access issues? Please comment if you are able to get that far with the site.

---

Chris Wood over at CaseyResearch.com has done the yeoman’s work of analysing the current act.

http://www.caseyresearch.com/pra1.php?id=108&ppref

Here are a few things he’s found:

Agriculture, rural development, FDA: $16,744,500,000
About $10.5 billion for section 502 unsubsidized guaranteed loans and another billion for direct loans under section 502. Don’t you wish you were rural? Broadband as part of rural electrification (?) gets $2.5 billion in loans, loan guarantees, and grants.

Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies: $15,922,000,000. Includes a billion for community policing and a billion for periodic census work. Also $4.7 billion for more of that broadband stuff, interfering in the successful Internet industry because government can’t keep its hands off a successful business model. I can’t wait to find out what $2.5 billion in research gets us.

Department of Defense Operation and Maintenance: $4,549,000,000.

Energy and Water Development: $51,175,000,000.

Financial Services and General Government: $6,858,000,000.

Heimatlandsicherheitsdienst: $2,545,000,000.

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: $10,950,000,000.

Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies: $70,465,000,000.

Military Construction and Veterans Affairs: $4,276,000,000.

Transportation and Housing and Urban Development: $59,745,000,000.

State Fiscal Stabilization Fund: $53,600,000,000.

You can go through and see how worthless and ineffective agencies like the Army corps of engineers and the department of education are being rewarded with multi-billion dollar boondoggles. I expect the states which were fiscally stable aren’t going to get much of the stabilisation fund, huh?

Altogether, it looks like a spend and spend Democrat’s wet dream.

The Money Pit

H/T Knappster

Indianapolis councilman quits GOP for Libertarians

City-County Councilman Ed Coleman is leaving the Republican Party to become a Libertarian.

Coleman will make his official announcement today during a speech at the Columbia Club, where he will be flanked by members of the Libertarian Party of Indiana.

“This is not a decision I take lightly, nor did I come to it without deep reflection,” Coleman said in a statement released Monday by the Libertarians.

“I have found that the direction of the Republican Party has changed, and it is not the same party I joined many years ago,” he said. “Nor do I believe its current leaders truly represent the ideals that the party markets and advertises to voters.”

Vic Ryckaert, “GOP councilman goes Libertarian“, Indianapolis Star, February 17, 2009

Also covered by Radley Balko at Reason Magazine.

Rope, Dope, Hope, Nope, Cope, Mope, Pope

“This is not change,” ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero correctly told the Associated Press. “Candidate Obama ran on a platform that would reform the abuse of state secrets, but President Obama’s Justice Department has disappointingly reneged on that important civil liberties issue.”

Rope…

A Gallup Poll released February 12 revealed that 62 percent of Americans want to investigate or criminally prosecute Bush administration officials who authorized torture in the so-called “war on terror.” But even hough President Obama has said numerous times that “nobody’s above the law,” on February 10 he used the Bush administration’s “state secrets” gambit to quash a lawsuit attempting to penalize some of those involved in renditioning torture subjects.

Dope…

Vice-Admiral Albert Church: US abused/tortured prisoners to death in Afghanistan

The ACLU has managed to acquire incompletely redacted Federal documents that substantiate charges that US interrogators indeed did abuse/torture prisoners to death in Afghanistan as early as 2002.

Find the documents here.

http://www.aclu.org/images/torture/asset_upload_file293_38710.pdf

A chilling passage from the report by Vice-Admiral Albert Church:

The behavior alleged in the Deember 2002 Bagram death cases was clearly abusive, and clearly not in keeping with any approved interrogation policies or guidelines. In both instances the deaths followed interrogation sessions in which unauthorized techniques were allegedly employed, but in both cases these sessions were followed by further alleged abusive behavior outside of the interrogation booth.

The second page of the report details prisoners

being handcuffed to objects above their heads in order to keep them awake. Additionally, interrogations in both incidents involved physical violence, including kicking, beating, and the use of “compliance blows” which involved striking the PUC’s legs with the MP’s knees. In both cases, blunt force trauma to the legs was implicated in the deaths. In one case a pulmonary embolism developed as a consequence of blunt force trauma…

Hope?
@ OnTheWilderSide

from Greens for Greens

CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

On the Rocks

By ALEXANDER COCKBURN

I write these words at the end of a week in which:

A new Democratic president, Barack Obama, via his Attorney General, has explicitly endorsed Bush’s policy on renditions and Bush’s refusal to recognize the jurisdiction of US courts in any legal proceedings in this regard; also a week in which Obama’s solicitor general has explicitly endorsed Bush’s policy on enemy combatants.

I write not long after the New York Times reported that state welfare rolls are actually shrinking in months when unemployment has risen to real totals of 17 and 18 per cent – 1.7 million in Dec and Jan, hence when more and more people are in desperate straits.

Nope…

I told ya….

• William Grigg predicts that Obama will be worse than Bush.



• Steve Funk writes
  • Less foreign military interventionism? NOPE
  • Ending the insane war on drugs? NOPE
  • Defunding G.W. Bush’s “faith-based initiatives”? NOPE
  • Halting illegal government wiretaps and repealing FISA? NOPE
  • No more taxpayer bailouts of Wall Street and big business? NOPE
  • Cutting reckless government spending and reducing the $10+ trillion federal debt? NOPE
  • Reforming our doomed Social Security program? NOPE
  • Reducing the influence of PACs and lobbyists? NOPE
  • Lifting the Cuban trade and travel embargo? NOPE

  

• Becky points out that Obama was partially responsible for the passage of gay-bashing Prop. 8 in California. He did nothing to stop pro-Prop 8 forces from calling millions of people with a recording of him saying “I believe marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God is in the mix.” He did not campaign against the measure.

  Becky writes:

  Ironically, it was the huge black turnout, triggered by their enthusiasm to put [Obama] in the the White House, that ensured passage of Proposition 8. Exit polls show it was opposed by whites, Latinos were evenly split, and favored overwhelmingly by African-Americans.

(Much) more to come…..

Cope:

Knappster’s post on Liberaltarians, and my comments…

“Liberaltarianism” in its 2008 regeneration simply meant that libertarians placed dismantling the Bush Administration’s catastrophic civil liberties and foreign affairs policies so much higher on the agenda than fiscal restraint (which neither conservatives nor liberals embrace today anyway) that they were willing to hold their noses, close their eyes and pull the lever for Obama — despite knowing full well what the budgetary ramifications would be.

Think of the Republicans and Democrats like the meth and heroin a junkie shoots.

Junkie gets too spun out on meth, and shoots some H to come down. Junkie gets too low with H and shoots some more meth to spin back up. It’s a toxic mix.

“placed dismantling the Bush Administration’s catastrophic civil liberties and foreign affairs policies so much higher on the agenda than fiscal restraint”

What about the Bush gang’s lack of fiscal restraint, worst since either LBJ or FDR in growth level terms, and worst ever in absolute terms? What about the Clinton gang continuing the Iraq embargo for eight years, putting more people in prison for drugs than any administration before him, proposing everything which eventually came to be in the use-a-patriot act, etc? What about Obama voting for all these kinds of policies in the Senate, and promising more of the same on the campaign trail (IE more war in Afghanistan and Pakistan, no timetable or complete withdrawal in Iraq, no marijuana legalization, etc.)

Whether you vote for a Democrat or Republican, either will make foreign policy, civil liberties, *and* government spending much worse.

Democrats as a cure for Republicans and Republicans as a cure for Democrats are both very bad ideas.

… which puts them in the position of having to deal with a whole new set of problems, this time coming from the direction that, in desperation, they endorsed.

Yes, kind of like a pit and pendulum situation.

I’ll be interested to see which ways today’s “liberaltarians” go over the next couple of years.

I suppose that would depend on which ones.

More Liberaltarianism discussion at NFV posted yesterday by Deaconstruck…

---

---

Mope….

Kn@ppster:

Year: —8.

An outgoing president has escalated a long conflict into full-blown war, ultimately to popular displeasure. He is not seeking re-election. His party rejects its anti-war wing and nominates a “stay the course” candidate.

The opposing party nominates, and elects, a candidate running on nebulous “new leadership will end the war and win the peace” rhetoric.

The new president introduces “bold” economic policies, including wage controls.

1968 or 2008?

LBJ or GWB?

Eugene McCarthy or Ron Paul?

Richard Nixon or Barack Obama?

The more things change …

Same guy? Think about it … ever seen’em together?

---

---

What does that leave? The Pope? Well, hear ya go.

Bdee, bdee, bdee….

Free and Sexy

One of the things that has come out of meeting Doug Casey and participating in several of the Eris Society conferences over the years was getting to meet, in Aspen in 2005, Scott and Cyan Banister. My friend Sean Hastings and his wife Jo introduced us. Fun people.

Last year, Cyan started a new project called Zivity.com which I very highly recommend. It is dedicated to the ideal of feminine beauty. It is based on a very attractive business model.

You can participate by purchasing votes. Ten votes costs $10, I think. Anyway, that was during the beta test mode. When you vote for a photo set, part of the dollar goes to the model featured in the photos. Part of the dollar goes to the photographer. And part of the dollar goes to keep Zivity going.

As you can imagine, this business model has attracted a number of very fine photographers. It has also attracted some truly sexy ladies.

One of my problems with the business model during the beta test period was their use of PayPal. I do not like Paypal for many, many reasons. In my direct experience, they freeze accounts arbitrarily. Several merchants with whom I have worked have been put out of business by Paypal actions. The process for unfreezing accounts can be tedious, in the experience of these associates who have tried. I also think very little of PayPal’s approach to relations with government.

Happily, I can now fund my account directly through the simple task of sending a check along. Sweet. Problem solved.

If you’d like to see some beautiful women free themselves from clothing, give Zivity a look. I think you’ll be glad you did.

Site updates, new authors – updated

I’ll just quote the old post, and add stuff.

• I’m looking for more bloggers to write here. If you are interested, drop me a note in the comments.

  I’ve already added Less Antman, Robert Mayer, Matt Harris and Jim Davidson. Michelle is still signed up to write here, but has not in quite some time. I still cross-post at her blog.

What’s new: she kicked me off her blog. And she also bought LFV and removed me from the blogroll there. I haven’t kicked her off here, but I’m not exactly expecting new posts from her here.

Also posting since then: DeaconStruck, AynRKey, S. Greffenius, Peter Orvetti, Mike Seebeck, Todd Barnett. A lot of people have only done one post, so I’m hoping they’ll come back and post more. Also, I can do an “about” page for you if you want to send me a blurb. Other folks: Drop a comment if you haven’t been added to blog here yet and would like to be.

The about page is out of date.

It includes some youtubes which have since expired. I haven’t done much with Crazy for Liberty or myspace in quite a while, and the Steve Kubby radio show is no more.

I am mostly at IPR these days. I’ve been Kicked off LFV and Michelle’s blog. Still signed up at Crazy for Liberty and TPW, as far as I know, but I have not been posting at those.

Since I am no longer at LFV (see below), here is my about blurb that used to be listed there:

Paulie was born in Siberia, part of the former USSR in 1972 and the USA is reminding him more of the country his parents took him out of every day. Growing up in the epicenter of the 1980s crack cocaine explosion in NYC, Paulie got caught up in the available business ventures and saw some of his friends die, and then became an activist against the drug war.

Through his involvement in the drug peace movement, and college studies in free market environmentalism, he became interested in libertarianism, and abandoned the Democrats after they picked the military-industrial-corporate-statist DLCer and drug warrior hypocrite Bill Clinton as their nominee in 1992, thus finally disproving the idea that 60s radicals were merely infiltrating the establishment in order to change it.

Paulie became an LP member in 1995 and a life member in 2000, and has occasionally been on the executive committee of the Alabama LP. Since 1998, he has traveled the country as a professional activist. Between that and his earlier travels in the import-export business as a teenager, he has been to 49 US states and about 20 countries, and lived in a number of them. As a life long entrepreneur, he has also started hundreds of businesses in a wide variety of fields.

Paulie recently worked on the Steve Kubby for President campaign, has been an active member of the Libertarian Party Radical Caucus, is an advisory board member of Liberty Consulting, and hopes to start a new national College Libertarian Organizing Committee.

He is an Anti-war, true leftist, anarchist, left libertarian, agorist, (r)evolutionary.

As many of you already know, I got kicked off LFV. The stated reason for doing so was

I have the message you sent out to individuals and groups behind my back, attempting to damage my reputation and LFV’s reputation (which again, proves only that I was right to downgrade your permissions, since obviously you cannot be trusted at all). As a result of that vindictive email, which wasn’t even truthful [...], I have removed you from LFV.

Here is the only email I sent out during the timeframe in question that pertained to the situation, other than to ENM directly:

Anyone who has issues with ENM is welcome to join me on my blog as contributors.

http://pauliecannoli.wordpress.com/

I realize some of you are busy. It’s an open invitation for whenever.

She just downgraded my status at LFV with no prior discussion/warning. I’m not too happy about that since I’ve been there longer than her, invited most of the people who write there (her included), etc.

This is the full text of the email. Nothing in it attempts to damage anyone’s reputation, or is in any way vindictive. It went out to a very small number of people who had either been kicked off LFV before I was or left on their own, and no “groups” as ENM claims in the portion I did not reprint here (although Brian Miller later forwarded it to Outright Caucus exec comm, without asking me). It did not say anything about reasons why she downgraded my status, another false claim ENM made in her last response, after which she stopped talking to me.

What’s new since then: ENM sold LFV to Michelle. I informed Michelle of the above. She did not respond, but did remove me from their blogroll – most of which I put together. I also spent literally thousands of hours blogging at LFV and promoting it at other sites, talking about it in person and on the phone, writing hundreds of posts and thousands of comments (many of which could have been posts themselves); had recruited most of the people who wrote there, including ENM (but not Michelle – she was one of the few people there before me, although she more or less abandoned it for a long time).

Of course, I have removed ENM from writing any more here. I freely admit that I made a mistake in trusting her to be a co-administrator with me both at LFV and here. I should have taken full control of LFV when I had the chance. I was on the road, with limited internet access, and foolishly put my trust in the wrong person. Luckily, she did not kick me off this site as well.

People ENM kicked off LFV before me include Jim Davidson and Chris Bennett. Others left on their own.

Since that time, ENM has also kicked out Todd Andrew Barnett, and as a result he is starting The Freeman Chronicles, another group blog I have been invited to and might join.

As for my original offenses:

1) I did not volunteer information about my criminal history. True, but she never asked me. She says she “did ask” me, by way of asking why I was trying to dissuade her from publishing a hit piece about Gary Fincher. However, since my reasons were at that time stated completely and truthfully, and had nothing to do with my criminal past, this is erroneous. I don’t exactly hide that I have a criminal past, either:

No, I have not always been a good person. I have lied, stolen, cheated, swindled, literally beaten the shit out of people, just about every bad thing you can think of I have done. No, I am not proud of doing these things. No, I don’t have a time machine. I apologize to everyone that my deeds as well as my words have hurt.

2) I published some articles about top search terms used to find LFV, what articles were being read the most, what links LFV readers clicked the most on, and top referring sites to LFV. She says that “anyone with any common sense” would not have published those. I described what I did to several people, and not one of them thought there was anything wrong in publishing what I did. If anyone is curious, I can publish the same sort of information for this blog.

3) In the aforementioned exchange regarding Gary Fincher, she claims I was “repeatedly, intentionally abusive” to her. This is completely false. I have the email exchange saved and can prove that I was not abusive. If she took it that way, it was most certainly not due to any intention on my part.

Since I’m now publishing this here, she may well say I am provoking her into publishing an article about some of my criminal history. If she does, I’ll consider it a violation of my privacy, and a way of making it easier for an experienced and trained killer who has publicly and explicitly threatened to kill me and feed my corpse to his dogs to find me. I consider respect for privacy to be a two way street.

What’s new: ENM did not publish it, but Sean Haugh did at LFA.

For my response, see Personal note: of saints and sinners

What’s new since the response: Not a whole hell of a lot. I’m mostly over the holiday blues, thanks to some nice folks who called me and talked me down from going on a crack and hookers binge and holing up in the county jail for the winter. I appreciate y’all. Health and career are still mostly in the toilet, but both with some signs of upcoming improvement.

And now, for something completely different, in the spirit of St. Valentine’s day:

And, courtesy of Delaware Libertarian:

Yeah, I’m hating, no doubt.

Liberaltarian Dialog – February 2009

A bit of background about the term, “Liberaltarian”. In December 2006, Brink Lindsey, Cato Institute’s vice president for research, penned an essay in which he posited that Contemporary Conservatism had betrayed its own roots, and no longer truly represented a libertarian worldview. Lindsey went on to muse that liberals had at least, and probably more affinity to true libertarian precepts than the travesty that passes for conservatism presently in America. His essay began with:

The conservative movement–and, with it, the GOP–is in disarray. Specifically, the movement’s “fusionist” alliance between traditionalists and libertarians appears, at long last, to be falling apart. To understand what’s happening, look at the Democratic gains made in previously Republican strongholds on Election Day. In “Live Free or Die” New Hampshire, both House seats–as well as control of both houses of the state legislature–flipped from the GOP to the Democratic column. Out in the interior West, Jon Tester squeaked past Conrad Burns in the Montana Senate race, while other Democrats picked up a House seat in Colorado (along with the governorship) and two more in Arizona. These parts of the country are all known for their individualism and suspicion of officialdom–in short, for their libertarian sympathies.

Libertarian disaffection should come as no surprise. Despite the GOP’s rhetorical commitment to limited government, the actual record of unified Republican rule in Washington has been an unmitigated disaster from a libertarian perspective: runaway federal spending at a clip unmatched since Lyndon Johnson; the creation of a massive new prescription-drug entitlement with hardly any thought as to how to pay for it; expansion of federal control over education through the No Child Left Behind Act; a big run-up in farm subsidies; extremist assertions of executive power under cover of fighting terrorism; and, to top it all off, an atrociously bungled war in Iraq.

This woeful record cannot simply be blamed on politicians failing to live up to their conservative principles. Conservatism itself has changed markedly in recent years, forsaking the old fusionist synthesis in favor of a new and altogether unattractive species of populism. The old formulation defined conservatism as the desire to protect traditional values from the intrusion of big government; the new one seeks to promote traditional values through the intrusion of big government. Just look at the causes that have been generating the real energy in the conservative movement of late: building walls to keep out immigrants, amending the Constitution to keep gays from marrying, and imposing sectarian beliefs on medical researchers and families struggling with end-of-life decisions.

Brink Lindsey, “Liberaltarians” Cato Institute reprint of an article first published by The New Republic, December 4, 2006

This started up a dialog within some of the libertarian movement; notably at the Volokh Conspiracy, and Reason Magazine. Much of the dialog died down, although Reason Magazine has continued publishing articles. Some of the younger libertarian thinkers also published their thoughts about Liberaltarianism. Will Wilkerson and Julian Sanchez are two fine examples.

Dialog about Liberaltarianism was largely left on the back-burner for close to two years, until recently, when National Review’s Jonah Goldberg started it up again, followed by NRO’s John Hood:

• Jonah Goldberg, “Whither Liberaltarianism?“, NRO – The Corner, February 11, 2009
• John Hood, “Re: Whither Liberaltarianism“, NRO – The Corner, February 11, 2009

That Jonah Goldberg is considered to be a conservative pundit is direct evidence of contemporary conservatism’s continuing plunge into the dark well of moral relevancy. That the CaponHawk Goldberg has the audacity to pretend he is able to speak for libertarians is personally defamatory to me. At least Goldberg’s inanity started up new dialog about Liberaltarianism. The following are a few links, listed alphabetically, by date:

• Will Wilkinson, “Missing the Point of Liberaltarianism“, February 11, 2009
• Reihan Salam, “The Point of Liberaltarianism“, The American Scene, February 12, 2009
• Andrrew Sullivan, “The Long Angle“, Atlantic, February 12, 2009
• Matt Welch, “‘Liberaltarianism’ in the Age of Obama“, Reason, February 12, 2009
• Ross Douthat, “The Future of Liberaltarianism“, The Atlantic, February 13, 2009
• Ross Douthat, “The Future of Liberaltarianism (II)“, The Atlantic, February 13, 2009

Taxpayers get the dog knot in Cali

“Artist Scott Donahue of Emeryville, Calif., was paid $196,000 by Berkeley’s public arts program to create two large statues, which feature small, artistic medallions that show dogs doing what dogs do best.

“‘Various things,’ Donahue said. ‘Biting each other, chasing each other…. One dog is defecating, two dogs are fornicating.’

All that spending comes with one hell of a dog knot.

I wonder if taxpayers will finally have had enough of being the government’s bitch, or will they be like these fratboys and keep lapping it up? (warning: disgusting)

Rethinking Alan Greenspan

Like many libertarians, I’ve come to hold a low opinion of Alan Greenspan. Austrian libertarians loathe him. Objectivists regard him as a traitor. Those who hate the free market alternate between thinking him a genius for allegedly giving us prosperity and saying that the current downturn is the result of his alleged free market ideas.

If he had free market ideas, why do so many free market libertarians despise him so?

But nothing destroys a good hate-fest like pointing out that Greenspan might not have been a traitor at all.

As strange as that may sound to libertarians, Bob Murphy makes that argument.

How could that be? Every act taken by Alan Greenspan has been one that Monetarists and Keynesians would approve of. During the entire eighteen years of his tenure his every act has been anathema to free market proponents.

Perhaps, argues Bob Murphy, Greenspan was motivated by his Objectivist beliefs to act like the perfect unrestrained Keynesian in order to show us that Keynesianism does not work. He was deliberately trying to break the system instead of thinking, as his admirers did during his tenure, that he was trying to find the winning combination that would result in unending prosperity.

In short, his Objectivist beliefs caused him to act like a Keynesian so he could destroy the economy. When the statist say his Objectivist beliefs caused the meltdown, they are right for the wrong reasons. They left out the middle term because that would cause them to doubt their own beliefs.

It’s a hard concept to grasp, because libertarians have spent the last twenty years hating Alan Greenspan. But we have to remember that Objectivists like to demonstrate that they are right. They like object lessons. The trashing of the economy is the San Sebastian Mines writ large.

If Bob Murphy is right that is. Unfortunately if he is there’s no way to find out. Alan Greenspan won’t admit it on this side of the grave.

Stimulis: Because All Economies Have Performance Issues

Facilitate Change – a nonviolent communication program with a focus on social change

Email From Kimberly Wilder. I know Kimberly through writing at Independent Political Report. She is the source of a good chunk of our Green news, although she recently resigned from the Green Party.

(I am not sure it they might extend the deadline. But, ideally, I think people are supposed to sign up today or tomorrow. Thought you might be interested, but also, it would be of great help if you could blog about this/spread the news –tonight???? Thanks for any help. Peace, Kimberly)

Facilitate Change – an NVC program with a focus on social change
facilitatechange.org

Facilitate change is a 9-month Nonviolent Communication Social Change intensive training program in New York. This project-based program includes three residential retreats and weekly gatherings by phone.

Using Nonviolent Communication as a primary activist tool, in Facilitate Change you’ll develop practices to boost the effectiveness of grassroots projects and nonprofit organizations in how they function and achieve their goals.

The Facilitate Change program supports the development of social change leaders and their organizations to create the change they wish to see in the world. By applying the consciousness and skills of compassionate, Nonviolent Communication to social change projects, Facilitate Change fosters “compassion in action” at a personal, group, and international level, taking tangible steps towards creating a world where human needs are peacefully met.

—

P.S. I have taken a course with Dian who is one of the leaders of this. She is very good. I think that this program would be invaluable for activists. It seems likely to lead to profound discussions about how can people have a politics of change in a new way, with profound listening and profound compassion.

peace, peace, peace, peace
peace, peace, peace, peace
Kimberly Wilder
Long Island, NY

Our family web-site of politics, art and culture:
http://www.onthewilderside.net

Lincoln’s Legacy

The more you learn about Abraham Lincoln, the more you learn to admire him. He deserves his praise. Today is the two hundredth anniversary of his birth day, February 12, 1809. February 12, 2009, is only twenty-three days after another leader from Illinois stepped into Lincoln’s large shoes.

We all know that Lincoln managed to hold the Union together through victory in a protracted civil war. The standard stories often don’t relate how much that outcome depended on Lincoln’s determination and tenacity. Right up to the fall of 1864, when Atlanta fell, people pressed Lincoln to negotiate with the South to end the war. They even suggested that he retract the Emancipation Proclamation to conciliate the South.

Outcomes of war look inevitable in retrospect, but they don’t look so certain when you still have to fight for them. When we praise Lincoln now, and thank him, we recognize the material part he played to keep the United States one country and all free. The house did not divide and it did stand.

Interestingly, Lincoln’s ambition to lead brought the sectional crisis over slavery to a turning point. The country split because of his election, though Lincoln himself never recognized the separate status of the Confederate states. He regarded the Confederacy’s call to arms as a rebellion that had to be defeated. With wisdom and force of character, he succeeded.

Thank you, Mr. Lincoln, for the continuation of this great experiment. We may feel somewhat pessimistic about our prospects right now, but we have reasons to be hopeful, too. If Mr. Obama follows your example of leadership, as he wants to do, our hope may have some foundation.