“…Greens believe health care is a human right, not a commodity to be manipulated for private gain by corporate interests…”

AND—

“You could use the bully pulpit of the presidency to push for a Full Employment jobs program that would create 25 million new jobs. While it is true that 25 million jobs at $30,000 per year would cost $62.5 billion per month, it is also true that putting that money into circulation would stimulate the local economies of communities across the U.S…”

AND—

“Warming oceans, melting glaciers, drought, and massive storms are all clear indicators of climate change. The time for action is now…”

Just to cite three of many examples…

But if we edit those out—

We get this:

January 9, 2013.

President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 30500-0003

Mr. President,

As you begin your second term, we ask that you consider what your legacy will be for the people of the United States and the people of the world. Please try to imagine some of the questions that future generations, including Malia and Sasha’s children, may be asking about your tenure as president. Questions such as: What did you do to deserve the Nobel Peace Prize? What did you do to make the U.S. a more just and democratic society?

…You could cut our military and war spending by closing military bases that are nonessential to our national defense, and cut the bloated spending on a global military empire that has no real purpose except to enrich the war profiteers and fossil fuel industry that have hijacked our nation’s foreign policy. Bring home the troops from Germany, Japan, Korea, the Middle East and other bases around the world…

…U.S. arms sales in 2011 were $85.3 billion, with Russia a distant second at $4.8 billion, only 5.6% of U.S. sales.9 Military spending by the U.S. accounts for 41% of the world’s military spending10 and 4.7% of our GDP.11 Other countries that spend over 4% of their GDP on their military are linked to the United States by recent, ongoing, or potential war. Every dollar that is spent on building an ever-expanding global military empire is a dollar added to this nation’s debt, and a dollar that is unavailable for building a better United States and a better world.

U.S. military interventions in the Middle East and in Asia have produced disastrous results, including the unnecessary deaths of thousands of our soldiers and the maiming of tens of thousands more. Thousands of Iraqi and Afghan civilians have died, and millions have been displaced, and now U.S. drone strikes are killing and maiming thousands more in Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan, with announced plans to dramatically expand the U.S. military presence in Africa. You have continued U.S. military and economic assistance to Israel, in effect subsidizing a brutal and illegal occupation. How many more enemies of the U.S. will these policies create?

It is time to bring an end to the insanity of war, and by abandoning these militaristic policies…

…Since the attacks of September 11, 2001, the traditional rights and freedoms of U.S. citizens have been undermined and eroded, not by terrorists, but by our own government. Government agencies now routinely spy on telephone, email and other communications by the millions. Legislation has been approved that essentially renders the Bill of Rights moot. The rights to speak, assemble and protest are all under assault, and your administration has continued, and in some cases expanded, the Bush-era policies that strip Americans of our rights and grant dictatorial powers to government.

Your signing of the National Defense Authorization Act is a violation of your oath to protect and defend the Constitution.12 The NDAA codifies violations of the Constitution, such as military detention of U.S. citizens within the U.S., and nullifies many of the Bill of Rights and disregards the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.13&14

This action seriously puts in question your sincerity, and jeopardizes your legacy. Greens are among the millions of U.S. citizens from diverse ideological backgrounds who have opposed this Draconian legislation, and who hold you accountable for it. We remind you that your job is to uphold your oath to defend the Constitution. Your legacy should be one of defending the core principles of liberty and democracy. Your signing of the NDAA was a giant step in the wrong direction.

Mass incarceration and the Failed “War on Drugs”

The U.S. has more people in prison than any other country, and we have, by far, the highest rates of incarceration…

You could provide leadership by publicly acknowledging that the War on Drugs, based on Prohibition and mass incarceration, is a failed policy. You could take immediate action by advocating for the reclassification of cannabis and hemp, and by directing federal law enforcement agencies to stop enforcing federal prohibition laws. You could pardon federally held nonviolent drug offenders and encourage governors to do the same. You could advocate for reform or repeal of laws that criminalize nonviolent drug offenses, and mandate that federal authorities will respect the city, county, and state laws that legalize or decriminalize cannabis and hemp. You could publicly oppose the dangerous trend toward prison privatization, which makes mass incarceration a profit-driven industry with corporations taking over the running of U.S. prisons…

Unfortunately, President Obama does not care about these parts, either…

[Their closing, unedited…]

None of the suggestions above were seriously discussed by the two major parties during the 2012 presidential campaign. That is a sure sign that our democratic process is not working.

Ballot-qualified candidates who did raise these issues, such as Jill Stein (Green) and Gary Johnson (Libertarian) were excluded from the debates and essentially ignored by the corporate media.

We recognize that implementation of these suggestions will require broad support from the 30 percent of voters who supported you as well as the 44 percent who did not cast a vote. But with such pressure you could overcome the resistance from the Republican-controlled House and leave a formidable legacy of progressive programs. Should you choose to inspire and motivate your base of support, you will leave an enduring legacy about which you will be proud to tell your grandchildren.

Please feel free to refer to the summary of the Green New Deal,22 and the Green Party Platform,23 for additional ideas for your legacy.

Towards a better tomorrow,

Green Party of Florida

—————————————————-

…and while you cannot petition The Lord with prayer…

to this I must say—

Great work, my Green friends and neighbors!

—The Bikemessenger

Never mind the courage to vote for a 3rd party candidate…

…as I did.

AS I DID—DO YOU HEAR ME MISTER PRESIDENT????

Of course you don’t hear me—but you sure want me to WORRY about you hearing me, don’t you?

Has THE AMERICAN SPIRIT—or should I say american—
[as in georgewbush] spirit degenerated to the point that ousting an incumbent and replacing him with the other major party candidate is too much to ask?

Apparently…

Again, to all the Obamabots of my aquaintance, congratulations on your
[pyrrhic] victory.

Enjoy it while you can. It looks (3:36AM, EST—based on Fox “News”

[I suppose we can trust them for this—just don’t use terms such as “Iran”, or “foreign policy”–HA])

like Obama gets a blowout in the electoral college (as I predicted)—while eking out a popular vote victory (I expected a blowout here as well).

Here’s the problem for you Obamabots. For the sort of amoral sociopath that can win the nomination of the two major parties, individual human beings such as you are mere smallest units of currency at best…

Perhaps Romney may have been forgiving to some extent to those who voted for the incumbent…

But Obama will not be kind to those who voted for other candidates.

If you wish to build a particular type of society, you must kill all the people who do not fit in.

Obama will not be kind to those of us who voted for Romney—not to mention, those of us of the unspeakable sin…

But it is the nature of governmental authority that it is a most blunt instrument. It is the only hammer in Obama’s tool box…

And at the order of magnitude that he wields it, it is a very LARGE hammer—

As you were flippantly careless in your voting, you should be nervous about those around you…

Do you think you can tell the difference amoungst yourselves,

Romzombies

and whole human beings?

Rest assured, your demigod won’t care…

—The Bikemessenger

I keep thinking of our conversation recently on the upcoming election. I sympathize with your anxieties over the prospect of four more years of an Obama presidency.

But you are misapprehending two matters.

Contrary to what you are told by the media, this is not a close election; Barack Obama is certain to win—I regret that as much as you do.

Robert Shrum is a Democratic party insider and an Obama supporter, so his bias is clear. However, his conclusions are correct. I agree, but for different reasons.

I see too much popular support for the charismatic, well spoken Obama, as contrast Romney.

Obama will win for the same reasons that Kennedy beat Nixon and Reagan beat Carter. The only difference is that this effect is far more powerful today than during those elections.

“Why Obama Will Win”
by Robert Shrum Oct 26, 2012

Secondly, You expressed confidence in Gov. Romney’s capacity to improve the economy. But it is a mistake to take his business successes as an indication that he would implement policies that would lead to prosperity.

You seem to think that somehow, economic well-being filters down from the mega-wealthy to the rest of us—but this is the opposite of the truth.

A truly prosperous economy is a free, unrestricted one, where all are free to engage in mutual voluntary cooperation to fill each other’s needs and desires.

The true source of prosperity is not the government-privileged oligarch such as Romney—who’s wealth comes to him through the deft manipulation of authority.

But rather, the productive individual such as you and I, who apply our time and effort not to manipulating government to channel the already-produced wealth of others to themselves, but to producing value for the direct benefit of our customers.

If you still have faith in Gov. Romney in this regard, please consider the opinion of David Stockman, head of the Office of Management and Budget during Reagan’s presidency:

“Is Romney really a job creator? Ronald Reagan’s budget director, David Stockman, takes a scalpel to the claims.”
“Mitt Romney: The Great Deformer”
by David Stockman

If this still does not serve to shake your confidence in Gov. Romney, please consider some background on his business dealings:

“Though Mitt Romney has been campaigning for president since 2006, it’s alarming how little is known about critical chapters of his business biography. Nothing spells that out more clearly than his ties to Monsanto…”
“Mitt Romney, Monsanto Man”
Wayne Barrett September 12, 2012

“…Romney’s point regarding dependency on government was essentially correct…
But the Republicans are every bit as guilty as the Democrats of promoting government dependence. Both parties have worked to expand unsustainable federal entitlement programs, and both support corporate welfare on a massive scale. Neither wants to derail the federal gravy train — even though it’s headed over a fiscal cliff.
Romney’s rhetoric rings especially hollow when you consider that both he and his running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan, supported TARP, the Bush II scheme to bail out Wall Street. Talk about dependence on government.”
“Government Dependency and Corporatist America”
by Tim Kelly, September 26, 2012

“The political controversy surrounding private equity spotlights the intentions of investors.
But Adam Smith’s insight is overlooked: In a free market without government privilege, people
seeking profit are led as if by an invisible hand to create general benefits that may be unintended…
…Ironically, Romney seems not to understand this. He boasts of the jobs Bain created
directly, but he has yet to say his activities likely created jobs indirectly by freeing up resources
and labor for new projects. This indicates a significantly shallow understanding of how
economies work.
We don’t live in a free market, but rather in a corporatist economy where government
favors may convert activities that would serve the general interest into activities inimical to it.”
“Romney and Bain Capital”
by Sheldon Richman

Please contrast this with the candidate I will vote for, Gov. Gary Johnson—he has a proven record of promoting prosperity through free enterprise and restraint of government…

GARY JOHNSON-America Needs A Handyman

GARY JOHNSON-Job Boom

No, I don’t expect Johnson to win—but that does not change my obligation to vote for him. The moral implications of voting aside, if Johnson can achieve just 5% of the popular vote, the Libertarian Party will receive $20 million for the next presidential campaign.

That would fundamentally alter the political landscape.

On November 7th, you and everyone who intends to vote for Obama and Romney may view the results and see that any change in your vote—whether to the other of the two, to another candidate, or to simple absention from voting—will not alter the result.

At least not as far as the first and second place finishers are concerned. Obama still wins; Romney still finishes second.

But how well Johnson does may have crucial historical implications. And it is here where you truly have an opportunity to make your vote count.

Regards,
—Robert

They run a video about a Minnesota Vikings player’s outspoken support for gay marriage.

At the end of the interview, great pains are taken to point out that while he is not “wild” about “either” candidate, Chris Kluwe plans to vote for President Obama as the “less terrible” of only two possible choices; that he is not “punting” [what he does for the Vikings] this election.

The clear implication being that abstaining from voting is the only other alternative—it would constitute “punting”, a strategy football coaches generally prefer to avoid.

Mr. Kluwe comes across as a responsible good citizen. Perhaps someone should try to enlighten him on the nature and purpose of voting—it would seem he buys into the common myth that you should account for your expectations of likely victors in deciding for whom to cast your vote…

—The Bikemessenger

“Since the father of RomneyCare isn’t exactly an easy sell to libertarians, first we have to look at the man already sitting in the Oval Office…”

No, stop right there. There is the case against Obama—that’s virtually self-evident.

But the case against Obama is not the case for Romney; therefore, as Green is advocating voting for Romney, he must make the case for him without reference to the qualifications of other candidates .

This does not mean that the various candidates should not be compared. But, this is the responsibility of each voter, individually.

Does he not grasp that as voters, we are the judges of the competition—not participants?

This is nothing more than wasted-vote-syndrome cowardice.

You cannot get further way from the libertarian perspective of objective reality than to fail to do the moral imperative when this is the difficult course.

Additionally, why is ObamaRomney the privileged candidate in his mind?

Simple, it’s not really his mind—he prefers to allow the mass-media ownership of what ostensibly is “his” mind.

Go ahead and vote for Romney…

But please refrain from referring to yourself as a “libertarian”, you clearly lack the moral fiber.

And to the extent that his argument persuades, he should not take comfort in the failure of those persuaded by his craven sophistry.

His weaknesses shared are weaknesses none the less.

This is a tiresome old argument that John Hospers, the Libertarian Party’s first presidential candidate made for voting for georgewbush.

Every four years, it’s the same crap—it would be nice to do the right thing, but we just can’t afford victory for the “greater” of two evils. So we must abandon principle and vote for the Republican.

So, four years down the road, the Republican having won and fulfilled all our best hopes, we may now stab him in the back and vote for the Libertarian?

I guess so, since it would be the wrong thing to do…

—The Bikemessenger

“I don’t see how anyone who confronts Obama’s record with clear eyes can enthusiastically support him. I do understand how they might concluded that he is the lesser of two evils, and back him reluctantly, but I’d have thought more people on the left would regard a sustained assault on civil liberties and the ongoing, needless killing of innocent kids as deal-breakers.

Nope.”

Read it the night of November 5th. Go to the polls November 6th—vote for Barack Obama.

Feel free to doubt his charges against Obama. Research them. I have. You’ll find them 100% accurate.

Then get back to me. Explain how you can claim to be a person of good conscience; how you can live with yourself at all…

“The whole liberal conceit that Obama is a good, enlightened man, while his opponent is a malign, hard-hearted cretin, depends on constructing a reality where the lives of non-Americans — along with the lives of some American Muslims and whistleblowers — just aren’t valued.”

This author advocates voting for Gary Johnson, as do I.

But Johnson is not the only alternative. Green Party candidate Jill Stein stands for much of what you Obamabots claim to want.

Or do you?

—The Bikemessenger

But lately…lately, I keep thinking of YOU.YOU know who YOU are…

YOU intend to vote this November…

YOU intend to vote for Mitt Romney or Barack Obama…

YOU are convinced the other of the two as President would be an unsurmountable calamity…

YOU are driven by fear…

YOU choose not to think rationally…

…and so, YOU act under the direction of the professional manipulators…

YOU are SHEEP…

YOU are the problem…

COURAGE is the solution…

Instead of OBEDIENCE…

Show DEFIANCE!!! Take control of your fate…

REJECT Obama/Romney…

Vote your conscience…

YOU know that whomever YOU vote for—

The SAME candidate will still win…

…BUT maybe…

JUST MAYBE…

If enough of YOU SHEEP…

BREAK FREE…

A few lives may be saved…

Some of the dark clouds in the sky that is our future may be blown away…

But…

I guess not—YOU would have to do YOUR part…

…and ironically, YOU don’t have what they had when rebellion established this country…

YOU don’t have what it takes…

To be FREE…

Ride on…

—The Bikemessenger

“The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) was established in 1987 to ensure that debates, as a permanent part of every general election, provide the best possible information to viewers and listeners.”

“The goal of the CPD’s debates is to afford the members of the public an opportunity to sharpen their views, in a focused debate format, of those candidates from among whom the next President and Vice President will be selected.”

“…the CPD’s voter educational activities will be conducted in accordance with all applicable legal requirements, including regulations of the Federal Election Commission that require that debate sponsors extend invitations to debate based on the application of “pre-established, objective” criteria.”

The second criteria for inclusion “…requires that the candidate qualify to have his/her name appear on enough state ballots to have at least a mathematical chance of securing an Electoral College majority in the 2012 general election.”

But these goals are fatally subverted by the third criteria for inclusion in the debate:

“3.INDICATORS OF ELECTORAL SUPPORT”

“The CPD’s third criteria requires that the candidate have a level of support of at least 15% (fifteen percent) of the national electorate as determined by five selected national public opinion polling organizations, using the average of those organizations’ most recent publicly-reported results at the time of the determination.”

In light of the stated goals of the CPD and second criteria for inclusion in the debates, a well-informed electorate must, of necessity, enjoy equal exposure through the CPD debates to all of the candidates who, were this electorate to cumulatively deem them the best qualified candidate on sufficient state ballots, be elected President of the United States.

If the CPD allows other sources of information on viable candidates to afford prospective debate participants an advantage based on a certain level of popularity, it fails to keep it’s intended purpose under it’s own control.

In order for the voter to make a well-informed decision, they must be exposed equally by the CPD to all of the candidates who’s names are on sufficient state ballots, that if enough so-well-informed voters deem them the best candidate, they would win a majority of the popular vote.

Clearly, in order for the CPD to achieve it’s stated purpose, it is absolutely obligatory that it strike it’s third criteria.

The American public needs and deserves an opportunity to see Governor Gary Johnson and Dr. Jill Stein exchange ideas on a level playing field with President Obama and Governor Romney.

All of these four candidates meet any reasonable criteria for inclusion in the debates.

The third criteria is NOT reasonable. It employs the inverted logic that a candidate must have already gained a degree of popular support to which the CPD purports to provide singular opportunity.

And it is that singular opportunity for the candidates that the public so urgently needs.

The mainstream news media, with their heavily vested interest in the status quo, focus their attention almost exclusively on President Obama and Governor Romney.

Constantly insinuating these are the only viable alternatives.

State ballot access laws, having been written by the dominant Republican and Democratic parties, are well-known to be heavily skewed in favor of the established major parties.

Yet, through great effort and dedication, the Green and Libertarian parties have overcome these obstacles.

They have created a reality most dread to the elites of the Republican and Democratic parties—

Were enough voters well-informed and sufficiently defiant and courageous, either Governor Johnson or Dr. Stein might well be elected President of the United States.

Ron Paul supporters are fond of pointing out that the Republican party elite would be much better served by the re-election of President Obama than by the ascent of their favorite.

Can anyone doubt this?

The CPD, if it is sincere in it’s objectives, must strike it’s third criteria.

Such a level playing field, I am confident, would leave objective observers of the debates wondering whether to cast their vote for Stein or Johnson.

Obama and Romney exposed as warmongers and phony salesman and opportunistic pretender they respectively are…

—The Bikemessenger

Observations and Reflections on Events a week Ago…

For the last nine of the fifteen weeks of Occupy Miami’s encampment on the west lawn of the Stephen P. Clark Government Center building, I organized a weekly anti-war themed event.

We would meet at the site every Sunday at 4:00PM.

The theme of our last installment seems pointedly prescient now; “A Country At War With Its Own People”.

Most of these events were teach-ins, at which I would read prepared opening and closing remarks.

Usually, we featured extemporaneous presentations by author Sandy Davies.

Other contributors included Vietnam war veteran Chip Sullivan, Iraq war combat veteran and war resister Camilo Mejia, and Sandy’s son Jag, a noted anti-Drug War activist.

In my opening statement, noting the militarization of local police, I said: “The purpose of municipal police—to keep the peace and enforce the law for the benefit of the local citizenry, now decayed to the “kill the enemy” mentality of the soldier.”

Having read the notification of the previous day’s General Assembly posted on the Occupy Miami facebook page, it was clear the encampment’s days were numbered.

But the tone of the message would lead one to expect an uneventful dissolution. Not a stark demonstration of my “…decay…to the “kill the enemy” mentality of the soldier.”

By Tuesday morning, it was clear this would be eviction day. 5PM was the expected deadline.

At a quarter past four, police began to arrive.

But a 7:05PM posting reports “Well past the deadline, and still no arrests as of yet… Police have said they are waiting to move in after the 200+ crowd disperses.”

On the scene to observe, I’m there around 6PM, surprised to see little happening, save the movement of tents and belongings by the occupiers.

Some mainstream media reports made much of riot police later removing tents and other materials, but they worked from a minuscule supply.

I ask numerous people what might happen next, but no one seems to know the reason for the delay…

By 7:15PM, a group of five or six had resolved to peacefully resist the eviction by sitting in a circle, arm-in-arm in the middle of the now nearly empty lot, requiring police to physically remove them.

Make-shift barricades were erected around the group. As the crowd is ordered to disperse, supporters form a hand-in-hand circle around the resisters.

Sympathetic, I’m tempted to join, but resolve to remain an outside observer, to the extent that I could.

I notice that there seemed to be no one watching from the north side, as a group of observers on the south are moved behind a fence on the south side of the lawn. So from there, I watched the main event unfold.

As I stood alone, along the north side of the lawn and adjoining fountain, I was told at least twice by police to move back.

Clearly a gratuitous exercise of authority, It occurred to me I was fortunate they settled for immediate compliance. Reading the experiences of journalist Carlos Miller the next day confirmed my suspicions…

An uneventful span is broken by what an 8:18PM Occupy facebook posting describes as “Nearly 100 police in riot gear have been dispatched to confront 6 peaceful protestors practicing civil disobedience.”

It was quite an imposing sight; police running in single file along the north side of the field, gathering in precise formation.

But “…dispatched to confront 6 peaceful protestors…” would prove a grave misapprehension.

For the focus of this mass of riot police was not the little handful of resisters, but their small crowd of supporters.

The ensuing events have been chronicled in detail by members of the crowd, my view of them largely blocked by the main body of county riot police.

As the main county police contingent pushed the demonstrators back in stages to the west sidewalk, where I stood, I looked to my left. At the N.W. 2nd street and 2nd Avenue traffic light, just north of the line of confrontation, a group of at least twenty city of Miami riot police gathered in tight formation.

Two county riot police officers shortly arrived for consultations.

The purpose of this odd over-staffing began to crystallize…

The city and county forces would work in concert to force the crowd down to the corner, N.W.1st street, and west, towards the the bridge across the river, about two blocks down…

As they reached the middle of the block, I had ridden my bicycle around to the west (back) of the crowd.

I heard an announcement: “Everyone here is under arrest!”.

Finally, what remained of the demonstrators dispersed. I turned and crossed the river, intent on going one block down, to the next bridge and re-entering downtown.

As I turned the corner of S.W. 2nd Avenue, on to S.W. 1st Street, an unexpected sight…

Three or four of the little circle of six resistors walked the street, unfettered.

Before I left my northern vantage point, I noticed about three of the riot police standing over the the resistors, still seated behind their ramparts. I assumed the three were charged with their arrest.

But the resistors complained of being “ignored”; of feeling they were being “held hostage” in lieu of being arrested.

What had become clear to them was that rather than play their role in the resistor’s heroically symbolic act, the authorities would spoil it by simply waiting them out.

Seeing the futility, they wisely walked away.

And while it’s been suggested that this event was intended as a practice run for the Republican convention in Tampa at the end of August, and may very well serve that purpose, the broader and more sinister underlying purpose becomes clear.

To intimidate, stifle and thwart dessent.

Why else ignore the resistors? Why else focus on their supporters?

This entire drama stretched out over more than five hours.

In retrospect, the small contingent of regular police officers on the scene from the beginning could have managed the matter on their own, without on-site riot police. Off-site alert and preparation may have been sufficient prudence…

A crowd this size and emotional bent may have become agitated and loud, but once the resistors were taken away, it would have dispersed, deflated.

I personally know enough of the six resistors and many of their supporters well enough to be convinced of their peaceful intent. From the heart, a frequent chant that night: “there’s no violence here take off that stupid riot gear.”

But this was taken as an opportunity to show that even peaceful dessent carries risk. That in the face of public opposition, authority will have it’s way.

Many times I pointed to the riot police and told bystanders, “these are not police officers, these are soldiers!”

Miami may be a long way from Cairo, but are we not clearly on that path?

—The Bikemessenger

For those Libertarians who are not familiar with LibertyMix, here’s a brief recap. In early 2006 (or maybe late 2005) Stephen Gordon and Stephen Van Dyke (who at the time ran a successful blog called HammerOfTruth.com) embarked on a fundraising exercise seeking $10,000 in donations and/or pre-subscriptions to a new web site/Internet community that would revolutionize Libertarian movement (or so they claimed). They raised $12,000+, more than they asked for. They announced that they would release the new site, LibertyMix.com, on 6-6-6 (June 6, 2006). They said they would release the beast – aligning themselves with something traditionally recognized as evil. On the morning of June 6, 2006, Van Dyke announced that he accidentally deleted a file and the release would be delayed. As the November election neared, Van Dyke announced that the site was done but he was not ready to “pull back the curtain just yet.” A few days later he announced that his blog, HammerOfTruth.com would be taken down for conversion to the new site. It was taken down and never came back. LibertyMix.com never appeared and Van Dyke wasn’t really heard from again. Occasionally he pops up to defend himself but there really is no defense. Stephen Gordon subsequently took a position in the national Libertarian Party and continues to deny any responsibility. For more information on this, visit http://libertymix.nfshost.com/ (a mock site created by an unknown author).

I don’t know what intention these two folks had with their actions, and I don’t know what happened to the money that they raised. However, statements about accidentally deleted files, project done but not ready to pull back the curtain, and sites taken down for conversion, seem to be outright lies.

If Stephen Gordon and Stephen Van Dyke were sincere, they wouldn’t have made up so many lies along they way. It’s time for these two to come clean. Take down the LibertyMix.com web site (it currently says “COMING SOON, FOR REALS.” And then either refund the money to the donors or donate the $12,000+ to the national Libertarian Party – but in any case guys, prove your sincerity by not profiting from this fiasco. It’s four years later and time for you to man up.

Now let’s get back to the other Libertarian of questionable integrity. You will find lots of information about Joe Seehusen at this site (SmallGov.org). Joe Seehusen is currently running for Maryland State Senate as a Republican (see http://www.joeseehusen.com/). While Joe was Executive Director of the national Libertarian Party, part of his pay/bonus was based on membership growth. And while the vast majority of Libertarian Party state affiliates were reporting falling membership, Joe was going to national committee meetings and reporting rising membership and collecting bonus.

While I was handling Libertarian Party of Michigan membership and saw the numbers declining (based on the database tables sent to me by the national party), Joe was claiming those numbers were increasing. Joe and his crooked sidekick, Robert Kraus (who still works for the national party) claimed that the numbers were generated on different days and that was the reason for the discrepancy. I asked which day they generated their numbers on and I would include all lapsed members as of that date so I could reconcile the numbers, but Joe and Robert refused to discuss the matter any further.

Here’s my question for the voter of Maryland: Do you want to elect somebody who has already proven he will twist the facts to line his pocket?