http://www.ballot-access.org/…

On October 6, Survey USA released a poll for the New Hampshire U.S. Senate race. It shows: Shaheen (Dem.) 48%, Sununu (Rep.) 40%, Blevens (Libt.) 7%, undecided 5%.

If Ken Blevens polls as much as 4%, the New Hampshire Libertarian Party will once again be ballot-qualified. It was ballot qualified between November 1990 and November 1996, back when the vote test was 3%. In 1997 the New Hampshire legislature raised the vote test to 4%, but expanded the vote test so that U.S. Senate would count, instead of just Governor. In the entire history of popular elections for U.S. Senate in New Hampshire, no independent or minor party candidate for U.S. Senate ever polled as much as 4%, except that Blevens himself polled 4.53% for U.S. Senate in 1996. However, the 1997 law change was written so that Blevens’ polling over 4% in 1996 did not count toward making the party ballot-qualified.

In the entire nation, the best Libertarian showing in a U.S. Senate race with both a Democrat and a Republican in the race was in 2000 in Massachusetts, when Carla Howell polled 11.9%.

The reason I post this story at all is due to what I emphasized above. Many many people think that political rules are uniform and that the reason third parties don’t do better is purely due to lack of interest by the public.

As one can see here, likely as a result of Blevens doing well enough to make a significant impact on an election, the rules were made more strict. The Ds and Rs do their best to keep third parties as insignificant as possible by making asymmetrical laws which are completely biased in favor of those already in the majority. Worse still is the biased enforcement of those laws. Should the Ds and Rs break them the courts rule in favor of them. Should a third party, more often than not, they are ruled against. Take for instance the issues in Texas where the Ds and Rs submitted candidates after the deadline. The Barr campaign took it to court and lost. In West Virgina where the LP was unable to get enough signatures in time for the deadline but did within a few days was disallowed from the ballot. Then you have places like Pennsylvania where the Rs are suing to keep Barr off the ballot and Louisiana were the Socialist party and Libertarian Party were just bumped off. The former not being able to get back on.

http://www.armytimes.com/…

The 3rd Infantry Division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team has spent 35 of the last 60 months in Iraq patrolling in full battle rattle, helping restore essential services and escorting supply convoys.

Now they’re training for the same mission — with a twist — at home.

Beginning Oct. 1 for 12 months, the 1st BCT will be under the day-to-day control of U.S. Army North, the Army service component of Northern Command, as an on-call federal response force for natural or manmade emergencies and disasters, including terrorist attacks.

It is not the first time an active-duty unit has been tapped to help at home. In August 2005, for example, when Hurricane Katrina unleashed hell in Mississippi and Louisiana, several active-duty units were pulled from various posts and mobilized to those areas.

Ah yes. After Hurricane Katrina. When they went around unconstitutionally taking people’s firearms and checking old women into walls.

As far as I understand using the military for policing was not legal. It had been made legal between 2006 and 2008 but due to the controversy it was repealed. Perhaps the Bush administration missed that.

http://radgeek.com/…

http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/…

Unless a police officer is dutifully enforcing a legitimate warrant, or has unassailable probable cause to believe that an individual has committed a felony, he has no business attempting to arrest anybody. That was the understanding that prevailed in the Anglo-Saxon world, in one form or another, from 1215 until the mid-1960s to mid-1970s, at least here in the United States.Fifty years ago, the statutes of nearly every state recognized the right to resist unlawful arrest. Today, it is recognized only Michigan, Wyoming, Oklahoma, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, North and South Carolina, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Mississippi.* The question has been examined, and upheld in remarkably candid terms by courts in Mississippi. This is ironic, given that Mississippi is the same state where Cory Maye was convicted of first degree murder for killing a police officer who invaded Maye’s home in a late-night paramilitary raid at the wrong address.

A 1963 Mississippi Supreme Court decision (King v. State) favorably cited a legal scholar’s conclusion that “the right of personal liberty is one of the fundamental rights guaranteed to every citizen, and any unlawful interference may be resisted. Every person has a right to resist an unlawful arrest; and, in preventing such illegal restraint of his liberty, he may use such force as may be necessary.”

Not quite four decades earlier, a judge presiding over the criminal trial of a police officer accused of murdering a man who resisted arrest underscored the fact that a citizen has the right to kill a police officer attempting to arrest him without probable cause or a valid warrant. The judge instructed the jury that if the officer had been attempting an illegal arrest, the defendant was permitted to employ “whatever force was necessary to avoid the arrest, even to the extent of taking the life of [the] defendant.”

In other words: A police officer who kills a civilian in the course of an unlawful arrest is a murderer; a citizen who kills a police officer when threatened with lethal violence in the course of an unlawful arrest is exercising his innate right to self-defense.

Like jury nullification the right to resist unlawful arrest is something simply not talked about by those in power and generally not know by the public. It’s something which as our nation moves closer and closer to a police state needs to be taught to others in an attempt to counteract some of the government’s abuses.

• 2,380 total delegates
• 1,191 votes needed to win nomination
• less than that results in a brokered convention
• According to CNN.com:
  • John McCain : 663 pledged, 17 unpledged
  • Mitt Romney : 261 pledged, 9 unpledged
  • Mike Huckabee : 173 pledged, 3 unpledged
  • Ron Paul : 16 pledged, 0 unpledged
• As noted on the CNN site says: “Unpledged delegates in the Republican Party do not have to indicate a candidate preference, but a majority are elected just like pledged delegates. Of the 463 unpledged delegates, 123 are RNC members who become delegates automatically.”
• These numbers are estimates. No one knows for sure who all the delegates belong. Some states have yet to finalize them.
• The Paul campaign has announced that in fact they have an estimated 42 delegates.
• There are 2,380 - 1,142 = 1,238 delegates left to get.
• With 680 total delegates McCain needs 1,191 - 680 = 511 more to lock in a win. 551/1,238 = 44.5% of those available.
• The Wikipedia article on the Republican presidential primaries does a wonderful job sorting out when and how delegates are picked.
• Kansas has 36: Paul is the number 1 fundraiser, Rudy 2nd, McCain 3rd. I suspect McCain will do well but with no poll data it’s hard to tell. This poll which matches candidates shows McCain doing the best against Clinton so my guess is he wins. It’s not a winner take all however. If we follow Montana which Paul also was number 1 fundraiser… it went to Romney who raised 2nd most.
• Washington has 40: Paul is doing well there. 2nd in fundraising to Mitt. Hopefully those two pick up most of the delegates.
• Virginia is winner takes all. Looks like McCain will take their 63.
• Maryland looks like Rudy and Romney country. Assuming they move from Rudy to McCain he may pickup a majority of their 37.
• DC looks like a McCain win with 16.
• Louisiana is a cluster fuck. Paul may have gotten 2nd to the Pro-Life slate though McCain may have. Either way it’s split and counted in the 42 the Paul campaign is claiming. There are more (24+) to be selected however.
• Wisconsin should go well for Paul and be fairly split. They have 37 to give.
• Based on $$ raised Romney should pick up a majority of Ohio but Rudy + McCain could take a large chunk of the 85 they have.
• Texas’ 137 appear to be very split. If the Rudy supporters go to McCain he will get many of the delegates.
• I’m counting about 330 for McCain from these states. At that rate it seems likely he will get his 511 but it may be fairly close. I’ve heard rumors that some of his delegates aren’t really his. I doubt it’s all that many but it could be enough to force a brokered convention. Even though I don’t expect Paul to get the nomination the opportunity to address the entire Republican establishment and pitch his platform would be priceless. The whole Republican world would hopefully be watching.

http://ronpaul2008.typepad.com/…

With the results of many of the “Super Tuesday” primaries and caucuses now finalized, the Ron Paul campaign is now projecting that it has at least 42 delegates to the national convention secured.

While much of the focus in yesterday’s Super Tuesday contests focused on preference poll numbers, Ron Paul caucus-goers were focused on securing delegates to the national convention.  With dedicated supporters and an organization focused purely on securing delegates, the campaign has secured more delegates to the national convention in Minneapolis-St. Paul than caucus straw polls might otherwise suggest.

According to campaign projections, a minimum of 24 delegates were won in yesterday’s contests.  When added to projected delegates coming from strong showings in Iowa (4), Nevada (8), Louisiana (3) and Maine (3), that brings the total delegate count to 42 delegates or more.

“Our goal has always been to walk into the national GOP convention with as many delegates as possible,” said Ron Paul 2008 campaign manager Lew Moore.  “The number of delegates we won yesterday could very well be the difference in a Convention where no one has a first-ballot majority.  With Dr. Paul’s home state of Texas coming up, we feel we can enter the convention with a substantial number of delegates.”

In an agreement first reported by West Virginia television station WSAZ, three Ron Paul delegates were secured through an agreement with the Mike Huckabee campaign at the West Virginia state convention early Tuesday.  Ron Paul delegates to the state convention swung their sizable support to Huckabee – putting Huckabee over the top – in exchange for the delegates.

According to campaign projections from last night’s results at least 3 delegates were won in Alaska, 5 delegates were won in North Dakota, 9 delegates were won in Minnesota, and 4 delegates were won in Colorado.

Additionally the results of the Louisiana Caucus may still change in favor of Ron Paul, where an ongoing legal challenge may result in most of that state’s delegates going towards Ron Paul after state GOP officials violated their own rules to improperly put delegates from other campaigns on the ballots.

Still 4th of 4 but we could pick up enough to force a brokered convention. Nick Bradley over at LRC has an interesting and optimistic projection.

1. After all the delegates are allocated in California, McCain will have well over 700 delegates; he won all but two of the counties (lost by a hair to Romney in Fresno and Shasta), so he should get all 173 delegates. In order to secure the nomination, he’ll need about half of the remaining 1,035 delegates, an unlikely feat.

2. As a result of the delegate reality for McCain, he will take Huckabee onto his ticket at a brokered convention that turns out to be little more than a formality. As the delegate count currently stands, McCain-Huckabee needs less than 300 delegates out of the remaining 1,035 to secure the nomination, less than 30%. I cannot envision any scenario where Paul and Romeny score enough delegates over the rest of the primaries to prevent a McCain-Huckabee majority.

3. If Huckabee has not already agreed to accept McCain’s VP slot, he will do so in a heartbeat. First, I have read repeatedly that McCain has made a private pledge to serve only one term, giving Huckabee a cleared field for 2012 if McHuckabee wins in November. If McHuckabee loses (which it probably will), Huckabee is “alive” for 2012, just like Edwards was for 2008 despite being out of office; Huckabee can go around the counrty for four years, extolling the virtues of the FairTax (during a severe recession, no less) and building grassroots support for a 2012 run.

4. Many conservatives will absolutely revolt over a McCain-Huckabee ticket, and will sit out the general or become suicide voters” and pull the lever for the democrat. This conservative angst, however, provides an excellent opening for a true conservative in the Goldwater-Taft mold to lead the exodus out of the party — Ron Paul. And if Hillary, who most democrats see as generally pro-war, is the democratic nominee, many of them will throw their lots in with the disgruntled conservatives and support Paul. Under such a scenario, Paul should have enough support get into the debates and take home a sizable chunk of the vote in Nobember. If Bloomberg jumps in and slices off the nanny state vote, probably split 60-40 to Hillary over McCain, Paul may even have a chance at winning. At this point, there aren’t many other options left.

I’m not sure if that or a 3rd party run starting after February makes more sense. Without knowing if Bloomberg or Nader will run it’s hard to decide. A 3rd party Paul run could pick up a decent chuck of votes but I doubt the 18% that Perot was able to get. The problem is time. By the time the R’s pick their guy the L’s will have chosen theirs. At that point I’m sure it’s too late to get yourself on the ballots anyway. I want to be able to vote for Paul in the general election… I just don’t know whether the almost guaranteed ballot access of the Libertarians is worth giving up the possible brokered convention where the revolution’s message could be argued at length and could grow the RLC and the libertarian wing of the party. While I appreciate what 3rd parties do and myself a member of the local Manhattan Libertarian Party, I believe given the current political state of affairs the path of least resistance for shrinking the state is by utilizing one of the two major parties. That or facilitate the Republican party’s downfall and absorb into the Libertarian party the libertarian wing or create a new liberty oriented party from it. That would allow traditional Reagan like conservatives from the LP to join that party and the LP could become what the Radicals want it to be.