http://www.campaignforliberty.com/

The press conference at the National Press Club had a precise purpose.  It was to expose, to as many people as possible, the gross deception of our presidential election process.  It is controlled by the powerful elite to make sure that neither candidate of the two major parties will challenge the status quo.  There is no real choice between the two major parties and their nominees, only the rhetoric varies.  The amazingly long campaign is designed to make sure the real issues are ignored.  The quotes I used at the press conference from insider Carroll Quigley and the League of Women voters strongly support this contention.

Calling together candidates from the liberal, conservative, libertarian and progressive constituencies, who are all opposed to this rigged process, was designed to alert the American people to the uselessness of continuing to support a process that a claims that one’s only choice is to choose the lesser of two evils and reject a principle vote that might challenge the status quo as a wasted vote.

In both political education and organization, coalitions are worthwhile and necessary to have an impact.  “Talking to the choir” alone achieves little.  I have always approached political and economic education with a “missionary” zeal by inviting any group in on issues we agree upon.

This opens the door to legitimate discourse with the hope of winning new converts to the cause of liberty.  This strategy led to the press conference with the four candidates agreeing to the four principles we believe are crucial in challenging the political system that has evolved over many years in this country.

This unique press conference, despite the surprising, late complication from the Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate, hopefully will prove to be historically significant.

Read More…

The following is a statement presented Wednesday, September 10, at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. It was presented to the media by Rep. Ron Paul, former Republican presidential candidate, joined by Cynthia McKinney, Green Party presidential candidate, Chuck Baldwin, Constitution Party presidential candidate, and Ralph Nader, Independent presidential candidate. At a later press conference, Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party presidential candidate, said he also agreed with the statement (see posting below).

We Agree

Foreign Policy: The Iraq War must end as quickly as possible with removal of all our soldiers from the region. We must initiate the return of our soldiers from around the world, including Korea, Japan, Europe and the entire Middle East. We must cease the war propaganda, threats of a blockade and plans for attacks on Iran, nor should we reignite the cold war with Russia over Georgia. We must be willing to talk to all countries and offer friendship and trade and travel to all who are willing. We must take off the table the threat of a nuclear first strike against all nations.

Privacy: We must protect the privacy and civil liberties of all persons under US jurisdiction. We must repeal or radically change the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, and the FISA legislation. We must reject the notion and practice of torture, eliminations of habeas corpus, secret tribunals, and secret prisons. We must deny immunity for corporations that spy willingly on the people for the benefit of the government. We must reject the unitary presidency, the illegal use of signing statements and excessive use of executive orders.

The National Debt: We believe that there should be no increase in the national debt. The burden of debt placed on the next generation is unjust and already threatening our economy and the value of our dollar. We must pay our bills as we go along and not unfairly place this burden on a future generation.

The Federal Reserve: We seek a thorough investigation, evaluation and audit of the Federal Reserve System and its cozy relationships with the banking, corporate, and other financial institutions. The arbitrary power to create money and credit out of thin air behind closed doors for the benefit of commercial interests must be ended. There should be no taxpayer bailouts of corporations and no corporate subsidies. Corporations should be aggressively prosecuted for their crimes and frauds.

I’ve been wanting 3rd parties to join up on common threads for years. This is a good start. I just hope they continue to work together and keep these issues raised.

http://caucusresults.sos.state.mn.us/…

	Hillary Clinton	0	0.00%
	Jerome Corsi	1	1.22%
	John Edwards	0	0.00%
	Rudy Giuliani	0	0.00%
	Mike Huckabee	3	3.66%
	Alan Keyes	3	3.66%
	John McCain	0	0.00%
	Roy Moore	0	0.00%
	Barack Obama	0	0.00%
	Ron Paul	65	79.27%
	Mitt Romney	2	2.44%
	Undecided	7	8.54%
	Other	1	1.22%

My idea of the Libertarian, Constitution, Independent and perhaps Reform and Green all nominating Paul perhaps isn’t too far fetched.

http://www.ballot-access.org/…

http://www.wcax.com/…

A (New Hampshire) judge has struck down a new law that allowed the state to sell detailed voter information only to major political parties.

Judge Carol Ann Conboy wrote that the law put small parties at a distinct disadvantage.

Before the law went into effect in July, most voter data, such as name and party registration history, had been available only on a town-by-town basis. Under the law, the information was available statewide, but only to parties that have received 4% of the vote in a statewide contest. In New Hampshire, that meant only the Democrats and Republicans.

I got into a discussion at Thanksgiving dinner about ‘wasted votes’ and how a vote for Ron Paul or the Libertarian candidate would be one. The arguments went that a vote for either would siphon votes from the person you dislike least of those who ‘have a chance.’ That reasoning makes no sense to me. Who defines who has a chance? The media? If everyone followed that reasoning it would only take a single individual to claim who could win and everyone else would need to vote for that person. When do you determine who to vote for? Do I support Ron Paul and attempt to get his name an platform out to the voters until the very second I vote for Rudy? Why would anyone invest the time into supporting a candidate they feel more closely matches their beliefs just to vote otherwise? They won’t… and that will create the self fulfilling situation of the ‘one who can win’ winning. Let us not forget that rarely is the propagation of information linear. If I’d never bothered to look into Ron Paul my family would have unlikely had shown any interest in him (not that necessarily support him now.) As support increases so does the acceleration and that will give credibility to the campaign… which unfortunately many people use as a major component in deciding who they will vote for. But even if you ignore all that, which is a major component IMO, there are black and white reasons why third party votes are not wasted. Statutes like this one in NH and the one in NJ and in so many other jurisdictions create completely biased environments for the other partys and independents. You can’t have the government provided tools to help you raise awareness of your party or it’s candidates until you raise awareness of your party. But for those who already have the awareness and means… we’ll subsidize them. Doesn’t seem fair and it’s surely not equal. If any vote is wasted it is when it comes to the popular vote for POTUS where most states’ electors vote with the majority. If 50% of NJ goes D than all those R votes above 5% are a waste… but with laws like the one in the article in effect a vote for Libertarian or Green or Constitution or Socialist wouldn’t be. You’d be helping to level the playing field.