My Libertarian Realization

http://news.yahoo.com/first-person-libertarian-realization-004700829.html

Although I have only considered myself a libertarian for a little over a year, I have never been more certain about one of my personal beliefs. This realization came about as a result of an equal level of disillusionment with both major parties.

Ever since I became interested in politics at a young age I had associated myself with the Democrats, mostly due to my strong opposition to the Republicans' social conservatism and interventionist foreign policy. However, when I began college almost two years ago, I realized that not only could I not continue to associate with a party that held completely opposite views than mine in terms of fiscal policy, it became apparent that the Democratic Party was not the party of peace that it had so proudly claimed to be, particularly during the 2008 presidential election.

The turning point in my ideological conversion came about in early 2012 when I began following the presidential campaign of Ron Paul. I disagreed with Paul on several social issues, however I felt that he was the only candidate with ideological integrity who truly believed the words coming out of his mouth. I was particularly drawn to not only his steadfast non-interventionism, but also his unwillingness to appease the religious right by taking strong stances on social issues. When Ron Paul said he would end the wars immediately, I believed him. When he said he would keep the government from meddling in our personal lives, I believed him. For the first time, I legitimately trusted a candidate for public office.

When Paul's candidacy came to an end, however, I found myself an even better option in Gov. Gary Johnson. Running on the Libertarian ticket, Johnson not only echoed my support for fiscal conservatism and military non-interventionism, he was also a social liberal, expressing support for marriage equality and an end to the war on drugs.

As a 20-year-old San Jose, Calif., resident, I can honestly say I have never agreed with someone more completely than I agree with Gary Johnson and I was proud to mark his name on my first presidential ballot.

Sometime between the Republican National Convention and the general election, it became apparent to me that the so-called libertarianism being pushed by those attempting to infiltrate the GOP was not libertarianism at all -- the more appropriate term would be paleoconservatism, or as some prefer, constitutional conservatism. At this point I realized that liberty could no longer be pursued via the two-party system and the Republican Party was certainly not the appropriate vehicle. I am now a proud member of the Libertarian Party; I believe it will best serve liberty through education, electing candidates to local offices as well as causing the two major parties to change their positions through spoiling state and federal elections, thereby effecting the implementation of libertarian policies.

Ben Swann: "Today America is questioning, America is waking up, and you are a part of it. You are the reason liberty is rising." -
http://xrepublic.tv/node/2321

Shermann

Meet WND’S ‘Man of the Decade’ : Ron Paul

http://libertycrier.com/politics/meet-wnds-man-of-the-decade-ron-paul/?utm_source=The+Liberty+Crier&utm_campaign=50f32a21c0-The_Liberty_Crier_Daily_News_12_22_2012&utm_medium=email

WASHINGTON – Honoring one of the most inspiring and principled political careers in contemporary American politics, culminating in an extraordinary “farewell address” upon his recent announced retirement from the House of Representatives, WND has named U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, as its “Man of the Decade.”

In addition to his primary focus of keeping government within the confines of the Constitution, Paul’s legacy will prominently feature his unwavering dedication to audit – and ultimately abolish – the Federal Reserve in a decades-long effort to restore America’s economy and monetary system to sound, constitutional principles.

He took no prisoners and abided by no political party dictates while trying to push America back to the ideas of its Founding Fathers regarding privacy, responsibility, limited government and freedom.

Paul’s interest in politics developed in 1971, while he was still working as an OBGYN during the Nixon administration, when the United States went off the gold standard.

“It was overall the whole thing about free market economics, individual liberties and the foreign policy … it was my deep conviction that we were [going] in the wrong direction,” he told WND.

Paul’s rise into politics after these revelations was almost an accident.

“I started speaking out just as a candidate, without any expectation of going to Congress. And then I was surprised, the time must have been right, we got attention, and I did wind up in Congress,” he said.

Paul served in the House of Representatives in three different phases, first from 1976-1977, then from 1979-1985 where he ended his term in the House to run for the Senate. He then re-entered the House in 1997 until his recent retirement from politics at the age of 77.

Paul also uniquely was recognized for his first presidential bid in the 1988 presidential election on the Libertarian Party ticket, as well, of course, as his influential role as a GOP presidential candidate in both 2008 and 2012.

Perhaps, though, the most prestigious title Paul earned was “Dr. No,” reflecting his stalwart commitment to the principles of liberty which he advocated by refusing to vote for legislation that went against the Constitution. He described this position on his website by stating that he “will never vote for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution.”

WND’s “Man of the Decade” award is designated for the man who has, over many years, done the most to represent goodness, perseverance, manliness and character. The recipient should be someone prominent enough to have had an impact on wider American and global opinion. Their successes and failures for the year are to be weighed and considered.

There were no runners-up considered in the category.

In 1987, Paul resigned – for a time – from the Republican Party so he could run for the presidency under the Libertarian Party.



He wrote: “I want to totally disassociate myself from the policies that have given us unprecedented deficits, massive monetary inflation, indiscriminate military spending, an irrational and unconstitutional foreign policy, zooming foreign aid, the exaltation of international banking and the attack on our personal liberties and privacy.”

More recently, back in the Republican Party, Paul’s vehement offensive has been against the Federal Reserve System and what he calls the “warmongering” foreign policy of both the Democrat and Republican parties.

His rise in influence, which helped to create the tea party movement, burst forth initially in 2008 with his presidential campaign bid, and surged again mightily in 2012, when he got 190 delegates at the GOP National Convention.

Though not having won a single state in 2008, in 2012 Paul bounced back and stunned the Republican establishment by carrying delegates from Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada and Louisiana, placing him in third place.

Paul also upset the Republican establishment by scoring two stunning upsets at the Conservative Political Action Conference presidential straw poll in 2010 and 2011.

Since his presidential bids, Paul has come to be characterized as the “intellectual godfather” of the tea party movement – a title he lightheartedly rejects, but which nonetheless has been perpetuated through his actions both inside and outside of Congress.

He was, during his long career, the “tip of the spear” in a growing global movement toward liberty, where other figures such as Dutch MP Geert Wilders, French MEP Marine Le Pen and UK MEP Nigel Farage have all paid tribute to his work and the principles he advocated in the United States, and carried them throughout the European continent.

He is also the author of six books, “The Case for Gold” (1982), “A Foreign Policy of Freedom” (2007), “The Revolution: A Manifesto” (2008), “Pillars of Prosperity” (2008), “End The Fed” (2009), and “Liberty Defined” (2011).

Despite not being able to secure the GOP nomination for president in 2008 and 2012, Paul was highly revered for his ability to draw crowds far larger than his competitors, including Barack Obama, especially among the college youth.

Though now leaving Congress, Paul’s legacy will continue, many believe, through his son, Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky.

“It was very nice and exciting. Both my wife and I were very pleased,” the senior Paul told WND. “We had five children. They all got involved in politics to some degree, but he obviously was the one that got much more involved. He had studied Austrian economics, so none of us was surprised that he was the one kid who got involved in running.”

“I have to admit that I thought it was a big thing he was taking on, running for the Senate for the first time, but his timing was right, the tea party movement was there and he was able to pull it off.”

So is Rand Paul the “heir” to the torch for liberty in Congress?

“I don’t think in those terms. Obviously our views are going to be very similar, but … it is not going to be a very successful revolution if one person is going to carry it on.”

Tea party and Federal Reserve

Regarding the tea party, Paul told WND, “In the early part of the tea party movement, it was much better than it became later on,” lamenting that much of the spontaneity that was there in the early days has been lost.

Yet he said the tea party was “very beneficial” to the development of grassroots activism in the liberty movement, and added that it was “inevitable” there would be attempts by the GOP establishment to “hijack” the tea party movement.

Nonetheless, for the tea party movement to advance, he said, it needs to “do what they are currently doing and not try and have one person or one group speak for the tea party movement, and I think it should be individual and local by the states and little towns … but they have to maintain an anti-establishment attitude.”

“I think that is where our problem is. The two parties are so much alike, we hear rhetoric that is different, but those of us who have looked at this for a while, we elect one party or the other, policies more or less stay the same.”

He noted specifically that, when it comes to foreign policy, the Federal Reserve System and monetary policy, both parties are virtually identical.

Regarding the Fed, he said the campaign against the quasi-governmental organization that controls America’s monetary system will continue.

“Absolutely, I think it [the resistance] has only begun. Because I see young teenagers coming into my office and telling me that they are reading about [economist Murray] Rothbard, and I say ‘how old are you’ and they say ’14,’ and I say that ‘you are far ahead of where I was at your age.’”

He continued, “All central banks are under attack right now because of … the bankruptcy of the whole world.”

The Federal Reserve System will end, Paul told WND, “when it destroys itself.”

He then likened the coming collapse of the Fed to the collapse of the Soviet Union, because both systems “lived beyond [their] means.”

Socialism is “not functional,” said Paul, and the monetary system “is the same way.”

“It would be great to get an audit,” he said, “because that would hurry up the collapse, because everybody would realize the benefits of the bailouts and where the money has been going.”

The tipping point will come in “a major, major crisis in the bond market, the dollar market and the derivatives market,” said Paul, who added, ominously, “it will be a gigantic” event.

The global markets will dump the dollar at some point, but that is unpredictable, he said, and “could go at any time.” It will be preceded, he added, by an event that will “precipitate a rush out of the dollar.”

Paul eerily concluded that this rush out of the dollar could occur “during this next four years … I would think that something big is going to happen.”

Civil liberties, the NDAA, drones and false-flag attacks

In specific reference to the growing threat to civil liberties – through drone monitors, airport body image scanners, email monitoring and the like, Paul confirmed he shares some of the growing fears of millions of Americans that the nation is becoming a police state.

“I do think so. Essentially getting rid of posse comitatus and saying that the military can arrest citizens and hold them in secret prisons indefinitely,” he said.

He also noted that Americans’ ability to express themselves is becoming much more difficult as other rights fade away. The nation’s citizens now face gross violations of the right to privacy, the right to a fair and speedy trial, the right to a trial by jury and loss of due process, he said.

“Executive orders,” he added, warning of the imposition of a president’s will irrespective of constitutionality, “are already there.”

“They can declare emergencies. The fact that the president issued an executive order and killed [Anwar] al-Awlaki and his 16-year-old son, I mean those executive orders are there. And they can do almost anything they want.”

Americans also are being subject to unprecedented government surveillance, he noted.

There are “umpteen thousand [drones] deployed that are spying on Americans, and it is only beginning.”

As a solution to the growing threat, Paul said, “What I hope and pray for is the technology to come along where there is a good defensive weapon on this – where we as citizens get worried about drones over our house that we might have electronic waves to disable these things.”



Such would be a nonviolent defense against drones, he said.

“Of course, the ones that are causing the most damage to us as a country are the ones that are flying around the world. I think this is going to build up tremendous hatred toward us and when we get on the ropes all that pent-up frustration on us will come out and we will be under attack.”

On liberty – his favorite subject – Paul expressed his fear of rising world government as a key agenda of the American elites.

“That is another trend I think is a very dangerous trend … [where] … there is less control by the people than ever before.”

If a person truly believes in individual liberty, said Paul, one cannot believe in one-world government. He gave examples of how America goes to war under a U.N. banner or NATO resolution and noted that the IMF regulates American monetary policy and that these are all stepping stones towards world government.

Manipulating not just social issues or economic factors, but actual war events, he said, is part of what governments do.

“I think they have [used false-flag events] in the past and they are quite willing to use something that may have not been deliberate. I think Vietnam was a false flag that we later found out our vessels [in the Gulf of Tonkin Incident] were not attacked … and there is a lot of controversy over the Spanish-American War,” he said.

“I think almost always governments lie to their people,” he said

Secession

Regarding the current sentiment toward secession, since Obama’s re-election, Paul said: “I don’t think in the real sense of the word [secession], I talk about de facto secession and nullification, if the federal government becomes totally inept because they can’t pass out any more money, because the money has no value, that I think people might just ignore the government. I think it could be a good thing that way.”

About decisions in Washington state and Colorado to legalize marijuana, he said, “I think nullification is getting a healthy discussion right now” in seeing how states are continuing to defy the federal government.

“One thing that people can do in states … is personal secession,” he said.

Paul cited the developing mass movement of people from California to Texas, over economic and social conditions, and said citizens are moving from oppressive, economically poor states to liberty-loving rich ones. That, he said, is a way to promote the values of liberty.

And he said people soon will be wanting to leave the U.S., because of an oppressive economic atmosphere, but will face obstacles.

“[It] you want to leave even now, there are a lot of restrictions; they don’t want you to pick up and take your money with you. They’ll be cracking down on that,” he said.

The veteran congressman said he doesn’t expect to see another secession movement like what preceded the Civil War, but noted it should be possible.

“The Founders recognized it was an option,” he said. “I think that this principle is a great principle with us.”

2nd Amendment

When asked about the recent shootings in Oregon and Connecticut and how to formulate the best response, Paul said it’s not complicated.

“Last year I introduced a bill to eliminate this concept of gun-free zones. If there is a gun-free zone, this is where all the killing occurs. I would start there, by not limiting the ability of people who are law-abiding citizens to have a gun and defend themselves. I would make sure they are able to. I think the Second Amendment has to be honored and protected. On that same day about 95 people were killed by automobiles, but you don’t hear anybody getting up saying, ‘Oh I think we should eliminate the automobile.’”

“I think it is sad that they politicize this,” he added, “[as though] we have too much freedom to defend ourselves.”

He said while communities with strong firearm ownership don’t have such problems, he expected the politicization of the tragedy to continue, on the part of those who follow Rahm Emanuel’s famous statement, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.”

Regarding Obama’s current push for new congressional gun control, Paul said his hope is that the Second Amendment will prevail.

“There is an unbelievable amount of support for the Second Amendment and … it is not going to be very easy to take our guns away,” he said.

Parting words

Though the picture remains bleak at present for the United States, Paul did say, when asked if America has passed the point of no return, “I don’t think we’re past that point. I think we’re past the point economically [of] expecting Congress to solve their fiscal problems and monetary problems.”

“We’ve already gone off the fiscal cliff,” he said. “But that doesn’t mean we can’t come to our senses.”

The people will have to decide their future, he said.

“I do believe there will be breakdown of law and order, the economic system will be fragile, and the question the American people are going to ask [is], are we going to just tolerate more, bigger government and more totalitarianism.”

Citing his own popularity among the young, he said he holds a lot of hope that there will be a turnaround.

“I never set out to stir up trouble on the campuses, it just seemed to happen. It seemed like the more I went to the campuses, the larger crowds got. That to me was very encouraging, because we talk about revolution, but I am convinced that revolution is still occurring, when you excite a new generation to bring about the changes you want.”

Among issues that will have to be changed are entitlements and welfare.

“They will only be convinced when they government can’t provide,” he said. “This is very important … to see the failure of the transfer system.”

“We should be a giant Switzerland,” he said. “Where we have tremendous free markets, and civil liberties, prosperity and sound money and we will have a greater influence around the world than we do today. We should want people to emulate us, but do it in a voluntary way.

“We should be something new and different and it is available to us.”

He said his foes won’t find him suddenly vanishing, even if he’s not holding an office.

“To me, the solution to all this mess that we have is to believe in and understand what personal liberty is all about. Our lives, and our liberties, come from our Creator – not our government – and the purpose of government should be to protect those liberties,” he said.

“And the follow through on this is private property and sound economic policy, which is sound money. And also a basic moral principle is, you can’t do anything to other people that you wouldn’t want done to you. That means you want to protect your life and liberty, which means you cannot impose yourself on others, whether it’s on a personal basis or an international basis. That to me is the most important thing to do.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/meet-wnds-man-of-the-decade/#iP86ijtzebB2Ah2i.99

FAIR TAX NATION

Special Guest Governor Gary Johnson on Fair Tax Time Radio
Wednesday, Dec. 12?

Special Guest Governor Gary Johnson. Be sure to join us on Fair Tax Time Radio this Wednesday for an exciting discussion about Fair Tax. We are again pleased to have Governor Gary Johnson as our featured guest. We will be talking about politics, education, youth and the Fair Tax. Offering commentary; Dr. Adrian B. Early; Professor Scott Murphy; Gubernatorial Candidate Christine Dudley Chrysler. We have booked 90 minutes this week should we run over our regular program.

Join us on Fair Tax Time Radio LIVE every Wednesday
9:00 -to- 10:00 pm eastern time,
6:00 -to- 7:00 pm pacific time.

Call in numbers; (619) 393-6478 or toll free (888) 436-1206.
All episodes are recorded for future play and you are encouraged to copy and share with your friends.
Our chat room will be open, and you can participate by signing in at the show.

Link to the show: Special Guest Governor Gary Johnson
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/fairtax4ca/2012/12/13/special-guest-governor-gary-johnson
Brought to you commercial-free by The Fair Tax Time Team!
Listen at: http://FairTaxTime.com
Enjoy!
Marilyn Rickert
708-687-9412
Visit Fair Tax Nation at:
http://www.fairtaxnation.com/?xg_source=msg_mes_network

The Bankruptcy of The United States - James Traficant

To whom it concerns. My subscription ends in a few days. Who ever wants to take over as moderator, It is yours. Let administration know. See you in 2015

Ron Paul 2016 Petition

http://www.ronpaul16.com/

Enough is Enough! Obama and his ilk continue ruining the country, and the “alternative” offered by the GOP (Obama-lite aka Mitt Romney) might have been even worse.

Is all hope lost now that Ron Paul is retiring from politics? Not as long as we keep fighting. If 100,000 supporters pledge by June 2013 that we will support Ron Paul 2016, it might still be possible to convince Ron Paul to run for President again.

Join us in expressing our approval of Ron Paul’s candidacy by signing our powerful message of support. Feel free to include your comments and suggestions for his campaign.

Saving Liberty: The Future After Ron Paul And Gary Johnson

http://undercoverporcupine.bangordailynews.com/2012/11/13/politics/saving-liberty-the-future-after-ron-paul-and-gary-johnson/

2012 was an incredible year for politics. The political arena was not only exciting in Maine, but it was in all of America. The excitement came due to a series of storylines that played out over the course of the year, with one of the major ones being the unique nature of the Ron Paul movement.

An influx of new activists joined the Republican Party to help advance liberty and nominate Ron Paul for President. They are a diverse group of people, largely libertarians, but many not Libertarians. Some within this push for liberty are also conservatives, or even liberals and anarchists. It’s a political melting pot full of individuals who just want to live free from government interference. Government, first and foremost, protects the people and their interests, not controls them.

Early on in the primaries, back in 2011 when it was less clear there would be this much of an impact, the liberty movement faced two potential directions: Ron Paul or Gary Johnson. An early rift in the liberty movement that Congressman Paul would win, with Johnson bowing out of the race and later joining the Libertarian Party. Paul would become a political legend for the immediate impact and will likely be remembered in history for the long-term influence his philosophy and career wields over the political arena.

Gary Johnson has his own legacy however. After Paul failed to secure the nomination in a bitter delegate fight, with the resistance of the Republican establishment fracturing the party, supporters looked elsewhere to cast their vote in November. The clear choice for many was the 5% threshold needed to open the door for the Libertarian Party in the mainstream. Johnson, who already had a name as a successful governor in New Mexico and former candidate for the Republican nomination, stood out to many Ron Paul supporters. While some would write-in Paul in the end, Johnson also picked up a huge number, exceeding one million votes.

While neither Johnson or Paul will become President in 2013, they have a lasting legacy that millions of people across America will carry on. Here in Maine, the Libertarian Party is quietly restructuring and preparing for a rise. The Republican Party is undergoing an identity crisis with an ongoing philosophical civil war raging within. All the while, the Democratic Party has the short-term political control. The future looks grim for them however, as the liberty movement is slowly advancing through the political arena and working to forever change the game.

There are a number of issues to address and consider moving forward to the liberty movement, which Undercover Porcupine will cover here in a series of articles. The liberty movement needs to assess leadership, future candidates, its principles, and strategy moving forward.

Stay tuned here to Undercover Porcupine starting November 14th, for the discussion into the future of liberty.

Gary Johnson On Fox News, Talks About His Influence On Election Results – 11/11/12

Former Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson scored tens of thousands of votes in key swing states and over 1.2 million votes nationwide. Johnson became the presidential candidate with the most amount of votes in the Libertarian Party history.

http://libertycrier.com/politics/gary-johnson-on-fox-news-talks-about-his-influence-on-election-results-111112/?utm_source=The+Liberty+Crier&utm_campaign=d12dbb0811-The_Liberty_Crier_Daily_News_11_13_2012&utm_medium=email

Shermann

Gary Johnson on Getting Over a Million Votes 11/11/12

Ron Paul: A New Beginning

In my Email Basket

by Ron Paul

America is over $16 trillion in debt. The "official" unemployment rate still hovers around 8%.

Our federal government claims the right to spy on American citizens, indefinitely detain them, and even assassinate them without trial.

Domestic drones fly over the country for civilian surveillance.

Twelve million fewer Americans voted in 2012 than in 2008, yet political pundits scratch their heads.

It’s not hard to see why, though.

To go along with endorsing a never-ending policy of bailouts, "stimulus packages," and foreign military adventurism, the establishment of neither major party questions the assaults on Americans’ liberties I’ve named above.

As my campaign showed, the American people are fed up. Many realized heading into Tuesday that regardless of who won the presidential election, the status quo would be the real victor.

GOP leadership is now questioning why they didn’t perform better.

They’re looking at demographic changes in the United States and implying minorities can only be brought into the party by loudly advocating for abandoning what little remains of their limited government platform and endorsing more statist policies.

My presidential campaign proved that standing for freedom brings people together.

Liberty is popular – regardless of race, religion, or creed.

As long as the GOP establishment continues to not only reject the liberty message, but actively drive away the young, diverse coalition that supports those principles, it will see results similar to Tuesday’s outcome.

A renewed respect for liberty is the only way forward for the Republican Party and for our country.

I urge all my Republican colleagues to join the liberty movement in fighting for a brighter future.

Ron Paul Legacy Could Trigger a Libertarian Takeover in the 2014 Midterm Elections

http://www.policymic.com/articles/18917/ron-paul-legacy-could-trigger-a-libertarian-takeover-in-the-2014-midterm-elections

At the close of this election cycle, it is evident that the Liberty Movement is still finding its way.

When prominent libertarian icon Ron Paul failed to clinch the 2012 Republican nomination, many supporters weren’t sure where to throw their support for the general election. Some held their noses and voted for Romney. Others obstinately wrote-in Dr. Paul. A significant amount of them backed the Libertarian Party’s nominee, former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson.

Those who came to embrace Johnson had one goal in mind for this election: to secure 5% of the vote, and thus break the duopoly long enjoyed by Democrats and Republicans.

Capturing this much of the electorate would have fractured our current system by granting third party candidates equal access to federal funding and ballots for the next election cycle. And, it would have possibly put the Libertarian party on the trajectory toward polling at 15%, which would have allowed future Libertarian candidates to appear in the presidential debates.

Sadly, Johnson only claimed 1% of the vote. Furthermore, Ron Paul will not be attempting to win over the Republican Party again, as he is vacating his House seat this January.

Given this turnover in leadership, and the apparent futility of penetrating the two party system, does the Liberty Movement still have traction in modern politics?

Yes, it does. And not only does it have traction, it is actually gaining momentum.

The untold story in this election is the quiet infiltration of a small, new liberty caucus in Congress. These newly elected officials, all Republican and all backed by Young Americans for Liberty PAC, are just the beginning of what could possibly turn into a stealthy libertarian takeover of the Republican Party – and the federal government.

This electoral success illuminates the path for libertarians going forward. The most pragmatic route for libertarians is not found in abandoning the two party system or setting their sights on the highest office in the country. The best course of action is to slowly take over the most receptive party available – the Republican Party – from the bottom up and use it to steadily take over all levels of government.

Yes, doing so will undoubtedly be difficult. I experienced the difficulties firsthand when I served as a Ron Paul delegate at the Louisiana State Convention, where many of us were blocked out of proceedings and even assaulted and arrested. But it is important to note that in spite of these difficulties, or perhaps even because of them, we have gained ground.

It is very true that the country will unlikely be receptive to a libertarian Republican nominee for president in 2016, but the political climate will be ripe for a wave of libertarians in the 2014 midterm elections.

Indeed – as Tuesday’s election results showed – it already is.

Gary Johnson With John Stossel: His Future In Politics

Former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson talks about the future of his political career and the economy.

On Election Day, Johnson surpassed 1 million votes, becoming the presidential candidate with the most amount of votes in the Libertarian Party history.

http://libertycrier.com/politics/gary-johnson-with-john-stossel-his-future-in-politics/?utm_source=The+Liberty+Crier&utm_campaign=d2b5b2c3ba-The_Liberty_Crier_Daily_News_11_10_2012&utm_medium=email

Shermann

Gary Johnson's Future in Politics on Fox Business' John Stossel

Gary Johnson runs most successful Libertarian campaign in party’s history

He may have received only about 1 percent of the national vote, but Gary Johnson is already the most successful White House candidate in the Libertarian Party's nearly 41-year history.

"Ours is a mission accomplished," Johnson told FoxNews.com. "We put a true small-government, individual-freedom option on the ballot in virtually every state and have assembled an organization that will carry that message forward."

With final vote tallies still being calculated, Johnson's current total of 1,139,562 puts him significantly ahead of any of his party's nine other presidential candidates.

Interestingly, the only other Libertarian Party candidate to receive more than 1 million votes was Georgia Public Service Commission candidate John Monds, who received 1,076,726 votes, or 33.4 percent of the vote, during his 2008 campaign.

The most successful third-party candidate runs have historically been done by independents, most famously by Ross Perot in 1992 (19,743,821 votes, 18.91 percent) and John Anderson in 1980 (5,719,850 votes, 6.61 percent).

1980 was also a good year for Libertarian candidate Ed Clark, whose 921,128 votes and 1.06 percent share of the total vote was the most successful performance by a presidential candidate in his party until Tuesday night.

Still, the Libertarians' first-ever presidential candidate, John G. Hospers, is their most successful candidate by a different measurement. Though he received only 3,674 total votes, he's still the only Libertarian Party presidential candidate to win an Electoral College vote.

Most candidates from the Libertarian Party, which was founded in December 1971, have typically garnered about 500,000 votes in their respective runs.

Johnson said he's buoyed by the results and plans to maintain his role as an advocate for limited government policies. However, when asked, he was unwilling to say whether his historic performance was enough to guarantee another run in 2016.

"It's too soon to be talking about 2016," he said.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/gary-johnson-ran-most-successful-libertarian-campaign-party-193500973--politics.html

Gov. Gary Johnson will be hosting an on-line town hall tonight.

Gov. Gary Johnson will host a special on-line event tonight, Thursday, November 8th, at 6:00 p.m. PST / 9:00 p.m. EST.

The event will be hosted via Vokle and streamed live on garyjohnson2012.com

Join us for a 90 Minute Q&A with Governor Gary Johnson.
Governor Johnson is excited to discuss the 2012 Election results and answer any questions you may have.


Please join us on-line!

MSNBC, Republicans Are Irrelevant Without The Liberty Movement

MSNBC’ Chris Matthews Says You’re An Idiot, For Not Supporting Two Party System

Libertarians Not Ready to Make Nice with Romney and the GOP
ALBUQUERQUE – The Mitt Romney bashing started when I caught up with Gary Johnson as he was doing a walkthrough of his Election Night party Tuesday night.

“It’s just remarkable to me that this is who Republicans put up. This was cast ahead of time. All the criticism of Romney which is that he really is not conservative and then on the social side, it’s a little scary,” Johnson said.

Johnson repeated comments he made earlier in the week that he thought the Romney campaign was doomed to failure.

During the election night party, snide comments from Johnson supporters watching Romney’s early poor showing in states like North Carolina and Virginia could be overheard from my perch at the mostly empty press table.

“I can’t believe he’s losing to this guy! What a bum!”

“How do you not beat Obummer?!”

“Man, Romney is a loser!”



After Ohio was called one Johnson staffer came over to chat about the results coming in from the Midwest states. He couldn’t resist a dig at Romney’s campaign. “We wanted to be spoilers tonight but unfortunately Romney spoiled himself in every swing state,” he laughed.

Another staffer who has worked on Republican campaigns told me as the night was winding down, “I wish the Republicans had us to blame for Romney’s loss.”

A hostile attitude toward the Romney campaign and the GOP permeated the party. There was ill will for the Democrats, too, but it didn’t appear as deeply rooted. The Johnson campaign had problems obtaining ballot access throughout the country, often because of slip-ups, and Republicans were right there waiting to pounce on their mistakes. The ill will harbored by the campaign seems more deeply placed in the lower levels of the operation, among volunteers and supporters, than in the upper echelons.

In the final month of the campaign, Johnson, ever the content libertarian warrior, expressed an attitude of indifference on the outcome of the election, even as Republicans kicked and screamed about him potentially spoiling the race for Romney. Last week in Ohio Johnson told Reason that he didn’t care about the outcome of the election if he didn’t finish on top.

One of Gary Johnson’s regional drivers and body men, Tom Mahon, was disappointed in the result for Johnson. He expected more but didn’t care that Romney lost.

"I am not surprised or disappointed that Romney lost but at the same time I am disappointed that Obama won, so, to me, it was a lose-lose election,” he said. "Romney alienated too many constituencies, from the Ron Paul Republicans to the Latino vote to women, the GOP seems to be on a constant track of becoming more socially conservative."

Some younger Johnson’s supporters in an outdoor smoking area near the hall didn’t even consider voting for Romney.

Ryan Kaszuba, 24, said Johnson was “the only candidate that speaks any sense whatsoever.”

Kate Ayala, 20, said Romney is someone that makes people despise the political process.

“Nothing has felt so right as to go against the flow and really be independent of the majority,” she said.
http://reason.com/blog/2012/11/07/libertarians-wish-they-helped-romney-los

As Gary Johnson Hovers Below 1 Percent, Talk of 2016

Garrett Quinn|Nov. 6, 2012 11:39 pm


ALBUQUERQUE—As Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson continues to hover just below 1 percent of the popular vote, talk of a possible 2016 run permeates his Election Night party.

At a packed dinner sponsored by Johnson’s 501 (c)(4) OUR American Initiative, his running mate Judge Jim Gray implored Libertarians to do everything in their power to get Johnson to run again in 2016.

“I will continue to ask people here and around the nation to help me do everything we can to convince Governor Gary Johnson to run for president of the United States as a Libertarian in 2016,” he said.

When Johnson took the podium at the dinner he explained that after the election he is going to take to the road under the banner of the OUR American Initiative, touring college campuses and doing media appearance all through 2013. Johnson campaign staffers as well as supporters have mixed things to say about a potential 2016 run but the consensus appears to be it is a course Johnson is seriously considering. Johnson hinted about it during his speech.

“I feel flattered about doing this again in 2016. I just want you to know that when it comes to that question I think the the last thing anybody wants to hear is you’re going to run again when this election is just upon us. I think everybody is ready to throw up when you talk about politics!” said Johnson.

“We’re going to take to the road with a whole lot of momentum. Where does it end up? Who knows,” Johnson said.
http://reason.com/blog/2012/11/06/as-johnson-hovers-below-just-1-talk-of-2

Live Now Election Night with Gov. Gary Johnson

Live From New Mexico, It's Gary Johnson's Election Night Party!


Welcome to my live blog of Gary Johnson's 2012 Election Night party. Johnson, the likely third place finisher, is aiming to obtain 5% of the vote but after talking to some of his staffers earlier today it appears they are now aiming for just above the Libertarian high-water mark of 1.06% of the vote, set by Ed Clark in 1980.

5:58pm : The hall where Johnson and supporters will gather at the Hotel Albuquerque is sparely filled as festivities here do not commence for another hour.

6:00pm: Johnson has arrived in the hall and is preparing for several media interviews before throughout the night. Johnson has shed his typical peace sign t-shirt and blazer for a suit and tie.

6:14pm - As results have trickled in Johnson was as high as .6% but is now at .4% of the popular vote.

6:40pm - Johnson is gathering with the Libertarians for a dinner before polls close here.

7:01pm - Johnson just topped .7% of the popular vote.

This blog is not written or edited by Boston.com or the Boston Globe.
The author is solely responsible for the content.
http://boston.com/community/blogs/less_is_more/2012/11/live_from_new_mexico_its_gary.html

Johnson satisfied with presidential run, mum on future bid for elected office

Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson spent Election Day wrangling last-minute votes and staying upbeat in the face of possible defeat.

The long-shot candidate, a former New Mexico governor, knew he had essentially no chance of becoming the next U.S. president, but he argued he had delivered his message to the public and still wanted to get 5 percent of the vote, which would give the Libertarian Party equal access to federal funding in 2016 and easier access to ballots in all 50 states.

Johnson ran first as a Republican candidate in the primaries but appeared in only one primary debate because he was too low in the polls.

Supporters think federal funding would help a Libertarian in the next presidential cycle have enough resources to get to 15 percent in national polls, enough to enter the presidential debates.

"Regardless of the outcome today, ours is a mission accomplished,” Johnson told FoxNews.com. “We put a true small-government, individual-freedom option on the ballot in virtually every state and have assembled an organization that will carry that message forward.”

The 59-year-old Johnson thanked supporters and said the 2012 campaign was “just a step in the movement that we will absolutely carry on."

Still, he was taciturn about the meaning of “we” – specifically whether he plans to run again for elected office.

Johnson said he “fully expects” to remain a messenger for a liberty, small-government agenda.

“But this election is not even in the books yet. It is too soon to be talking about 2016," he added.

Spokeswoman Natalie Dicou said Johnson’s only plans right now are getting ready for the ski season and hiking Aconcagua in Argentina with his family.

Pollsters and other political analysts thought early in the general election race that Johnson might play the spoiler -- taking enough votes away from Romney to help Obama win the race. However, he barely ever climbed as high as 5 percent in most national polls.

In 1992, third-party candidate Ross Perot won roughly 19 percent of the popular vote, which many people think cut into GOP incumbent George H.W. Bush's take and put Democratic candidate Bill Clinton in the Oval Office, even though Clinton won just 43 percent of the vote.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/06/johnson-satisfied-with-presidential-run-mum-on-future-bid-for-elected-office/#ixzz2BVFH36LJ

Vote Gary Johnson: Here Are 5 Reasons Americans Need to Wake the F*uck Up and Boot Obama and Romney
Samuel L. Jackson is attempting to bring back the 2008 passion for Hope and Change by instructing Obama supporters to Wake the F*ck Up! and get involved in the reelection of the same president who routinely orders drone strikes on innocent Pakistanis.

Yes We Can! Sixteen-trillion dollars in debt! Unfortunately, there are many well-meaning Hollywood stars who have gone all-in for the Obama reelection. Who can blame them? Obama is hip and trendy. He'll wink at you and say things you want to hear. Romney, on the other hand, is a complete failure. Out of touch and intellectually bankrupt, Mitt Romney has had one awful presidential campaign. The RNC went out of its way to break its own rules, deny Ron Paul's movement, and install Mitt Romney as the Republican nominee. Great job wasting all that Tea Party momentum!
Instead of endorsing fascism, Jackson and the rest of the Hollywood elite need to Wake the F*ck Up! Here's five reasons why:

NDAA

Unless you've been plugged directly into mainstream media propaganda, you've probably heard of the National Defense Authorization Act signed by President Obama. Before the indefinite detention provisions in the NDAA, President Obama proposed prolonged detention of terrorism suspects without trial. This is an important lesson in tyrannical incrementalism (They do this all the time). In fact, the language which protected American citizens from indefinite detention was specifically requested to be removed by the Obama administration. It seems like President Obama loves detaining American citizens in violation of the Constitution he used to lecture on at the University of Chicago Law School. Wake the F*ck Up!

Africa

After Obama's unconstitutional "kinetic military action" that resutled in Gaddafi's removal, Libya became yet another sovereign nation destabilized by NATO. This destabilization campaign resulted in escalated tensions between black Libyans and their Arab counterparts. NATO is responsible for enabling serious human rights violations! But Obama gets away with mass murder with a wink, a smile, and an appearance on The View. We sure do love our dictator!

I'm sure the fact that Gaddafi wanted to start using a gold-backed dinar instead of the U.S. dollar for oil had nothing to do with it ....
Now that Gaddafi is out and Libya is open, AFRICOM has free rein in Africa. Hope and Change? Or has the first black president ever opened up Africa and its people to the wrath of NATO? Wake the F*ck Up!

The Failed Drug War

Obama has betrayed his roof-hitting roots by continuing the failed war on drugs. Instead of allowing medicinal marijuana patients to treat themselves with cancer-curing cannabis, Obama has surpassed the Bush regime in its unconstitutional raids in states that allow medicinal marijuana.
How can these trendy celebrities endorse a president who appoints a former Monsanto VP to the head of the FDA while he simultaneously sends the DEA to destroy private property that may cure the Monsanto-caused cancer? The failure of the drug war is common knowledge. Wake the F*ck Up!

The Economy

Barack Obama is a Keynesian. So is Mitt Romney. They believe government spending is the cure for our economic woes. If we just print enough money, then everything will be alright! Keynesian overlord Paul Krugman has refused to debate Austrian economist Robert Murphy, even though a New York food bank would get over $73,000 when and if the Nobel Prize winning Krugman decides to accept the challenge. You can make a pledge to increase the funds received by the food bank here. The recent actions taken by the Federal Reserve have guaranteed economic hardships in the future: another bubble created, another bubble that will inevitably burst. Obama has showed no significant signs of dealing with economic reality that everday Americans are facing. Wake the F*ck Up!

Goldman Sachs

Ahh, Goldman Sachs. Our benevolent banking oligarchs. Both Obama and Mitt Romney are favored by the banking elite. Neither one of these empty suits question the current monetary policy of the Federal Reserve which props up zombie banks like GS (because they are both funded by Goldman Sachs, get it?). Check out this article I wrote months ago detailing the criminality of Goldman Sachs. Wake the F*ck Up!

Hopefully, somehow, Samuel L. Jackson will read this and have this reaction:
Then maybe Jackson and other Americans will repudiate Obama and his horrendous record. Sure, he seems better than Romney. How hard is that, really? While it may be too late for America to get behind the greatest champion of liberty, Ron Paul, there is another choice besides the two Goldman Sachs frontmen. Gary Johnson is being prevented from participating in the presidential debates. Wonder why?As the Libertarian candidate says, "I'm the only candidate that doesn't want to bomb Iran." Saving innocent Iranian lives should be reason enough for Americans to reject Obama and Romney and vote for Gary Johnson.

Samuel L. Jackson is right, but for the wrong reason. It's time to wake the f*ck up and undestand real economics, real U.S. history, and leave the corporatist two-party system behind. This country was built on a firm understanding of Liberty, it can be saved by the same.
http://www.policymic.com/articles/15467/vote-gary-johnson-here-are-5-reasons-americans-need-to-wake-the-f-uck-up-and-boot-obama-and-romney

"They don't understand how we feel."

"I don't want the blood of America on my hands, so I voted Libertarian."

"I voted straight ticket - Libertarian. If their wasn't an LP candidate, I abstained."

These comments were made to me by various voters standing in line with me today at 12:15 pm . I was the youngest of the folks that I spoke with at the tender age of 37. Typically speaking, when the older voters turnout, they do so for the GOP nominee. So, the quiet line in which I stood for 20 minutes certainly seemed to be voting red, as is typical in the GOP-centric state of Indiana.

Admittedly, I was bothered by the fact that so many people were obviously voting for a duopoly candidate. Only, something happened when I stepped out of the voting booth. As I made my way to the exit and outside, we all kind of chatted spontaneously. What I found out left me in awe. Of the two people in front and behind me, including myself, none of us voted for a duopoly candidate. Let me say that again because it made my day — five strangers quietly stood in line for 20 minutes and all voted Libertarian. Every single one of us. What are the odds of that happening in red Indiana? I don't know, but I'd venture you have just about as good a shot of winning the Powerball.

In Ohio, 1.7 million absentee ballots were ordered. The breakdown was 29% Democrat and 23% Republican. That's barely half of the absentee ballots. So who is asking for the other 800,000 ballots? We'll find out, I suppose.

So I'm left to ponder a fairly obvious question? As media outlets contemplate whether the high turnout favors one of the duopoly candidates, I wonder if it favors third parties. It's possible that both of the main parties will combine for the same number of votes as normal, despite higher turnout. That would mean that for the first time in 30 years, third parties will have a significant voice in the American electoral process. No, we won't get a winner in this election, but getting 5% of the vote is the Libertarian goal. And for that reason, I believe high turnout favors us.

Attaining 5% ensures ballot access to all 50 states and DC in the next election and matching federal funds. These two checkpoints are huge in getting traction in the mainstream for a third party.

So, if you haven't voted yet, and you are still unsure for whom you will cast your vote later today, please consider a third party vote, specifically Gary Johnson as he has the best chance to get to 5%. Now get out there and get this done. Let's change this system once and for all!
http://www.policymic.com/articles/18575/gary-johnson-polls-numbers-5-percent-of-the-vote-will-be-a-win-for-libertarians

Presidential candidate Gary Johnson talks guns, for-profit prisons.
Former Republican governor of New Mexico and current Libertarian Party nominee for president hopes to use his fringe popularity to tear into the current dominance of America's two-party system.

Johnson isn't saying he can win the presidency and transform Washington. Rather, his goal is to earn 5 percent of the popular vote, which, under the Federal Campaign Act, would qualify the Libertarian Party to receive federal matching funds for the next election and provide some competition for the two major parties.

Five percent is not an unattainable number. Although most recent national polls do not include Johnson, state polls conducted by Public Policy Polling show him hovering around the 5 percent mark in several states, including Nevada and Virginia. And a nationwide poll released in September by Reason magazine (a libertarian-minded publication that supports many of Johnson's ideas), had Johnson at 6 percent.

Whether Johnson manages to get 5 percent or not, there is no denying he has built a large following that is reminiscent of Republican congressman Ron Paul's small "l" libertarian crowd. However, much of that following adores Johnson for his stance on legalizing marijuana and taking American troops out of other countries immediately to cut costs and stop wars. And indeed, a pro-pot, pro-peace message is what Johnson has focused on in campaign ads.

But the rest of his libertarian platform, including gun rights, private prisons, climate change, and healthcare might make many of his progressive supporters uneasy while earning him a second look by pro-gun, anti-tax Republicans.

In order to get a clearer picture of Johnson's 'other' ideas, we asked the candidate to explain his platform in an exclusive interview.

Guns protect against a 'growing police state'

After a summer of mass shootings, many gun control advocates felt that enough was enough and stronger laws must be adopted to stop gun violence, including a ban on automatic weapons.

But not Gary Johnson.

"I'm a firm believer in the second amendment and so I would not have signed legislation banning assault weapons or automatic weapons," Johnson said, adding that lines should be drawn when it comes to war-time weaponry such as rocket launchers.

"But how do you stem gun violence? I think that concealed carry was a way to do that," he said. "I go back to 1994 when I was running for governor of New Mexico and I believed that supporting conceal and carry would lead to less overall gun violence. And I think that has actually panned itself out."

New Mexico currently has some of the nation's most pro-gun laws, in part thanks to Johnson's adamant refusal as governor to sign bills putting more restrictions on guns.

Today, New Mexico ranks 13th in the nation in gun murders in relation to population, with 3.29 per 100,000 people, according to FBI statistics.

But while Johnson's gun stance might have a pragmatic goal, it is also inspired by the men who wrote the Second Amendment.

When asked if it was the Founding Fathers' intention for people to own high-powered assault weapons, Johnson said their intention was for citizens to protect themselves from the government - something relevant to today.

"I think [the Second Amendment] was designed to protect us against a government that could be very intrusive." Johnson said. "And in this country, we have a growing police state - if people can own assault rifles or automatic rifles, I think leads to a more civil government."

Johnson said that the right to own high-powered arms can act as a protection against illegal house raids by police and federal agents and act as a deterrent to a growing police state.

"You can look at the most egregious examples of the war on drugs where federal agents have gone in and killed individuals without their being any justification whatsoever," Johnson said. "And if these individuals that were killed were to have known to possess automatic weapons or assault weapons, maybe they would have been more careful and more diligent when it comes to due process."

For-profit prisons not the problem - bad drug laws are

For-profit prison companies like Correction Corporation of America and GEO Group have been in the news for an array of negative issues, including running dangerous facilities and being accused of lobbying lawmakers to create legislation that would put more people behind bars, including having an influence on Arizona's controversial immigration law, which would put more immigrants in detention facilities.

As governor of New Mexico, Johnson was an avid supporter of private prisons. And although he acknowledges that they have problems, he also believes that the positives outweigh the negatives.

"I think good government is offering goods and services at lower prices," Johnson said. "In the case of New Mexico, where we privatized half the state prisons, it was the same goods and services delivered for two-thirds the cost. In my opinions, that's good government."

Aside from lower costs (something that is strongly contested by opponents of for-profit prisons), Johnson believes that by not being tied to a government agency, for-profit prisons would be easier to shut down - something that would happen if people were not put in prison for drugs.

I always said that as governor of New Mexico, if we could adopt rational drug policy and empty out the prisons, then it would be a lot easier to empty the private prisons as opposed to the public prisons," Johnson said, adding that "adopting a rational drug policy would definitely empty out some of the 2.3 million people we have behind bars in this country because of our drug laws. A lot of them would otherwise be tax-paying, law-abiding citizens."

The U.S. prison population increased 722 percent between 1970 and 2009, according to the Justice Policy Institute. Meanwhile, CCA, which was founded in 1983, has grown into a $1.67 billion company that is completely dependent on government contracts.

While Johnson admits that for-profit prisons can have an influence on lawmakers to put people behind bars, he says that public unions are just as guilty, giving Proposition 19 - the 2010 initiative to legalize marijuana for recreational use in California that ended up failing - as an example.

"The largest opposition against prop 19 was the public prison union," Johnson said. "So I it's the public prison union that really has a vested interest in keeping people locked up."

The California Correctional Peace Officers Association, that state's prison guard union, did not officially oppose prop 19, but several publications indicated it had a strong influence on the outcome, as well as police officer and prosecutor unions.

On Sandy and government's role in natural disasters: 'good economy' is key to safety

In the aftermath of Superstorm Sandy, Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney was under fire for saying that federal agencies like FEMA would best be handled by the private sector. As a libertarian, it would seem that Johnson shares this opinion, but he sees the federal government as having a role in matters of natural disasters - as long as it's paid for.

"I think perhaps the federal government brings resources to bear that perhaps states can't," Johnson said. "But of the issues with FEMA is that we don't budget for natural disasters and that we should be budgeting for them. So part of the spending crisis that we're in right now is because we don't budget for natural disasters. We just print the money to fix these things and we should be planning ahead for what inevitably are constant natural disasters that occur from one state to the next.'

Climate change has been blamed for what many believe to be an increase in storms like Sandy, leading to an increased call for government intervention to reduce carbon emissions. But Johnson prefers a free market approach.

"I just think that the best indicator of a good environment is a good economy," Johnson said. "I would not pass cap and trade legislation. I think that would be devastating to the economy. You and I as consumers are demanding less carbon emission, cleaner burning energy, and we're getting it; energy produced 50 years from now will be a lot cleaner than it is today, as it is a lot cleaner than 50 years ago."

He added: "The most effective way to bring about less carbon emission is for you and I as consumers to demand just that…an informed public demands less carbon emission. Do we have coal-burning heaters in our homes? No. We make those choices. We're consuming less oil and less energy, which is a good thing - that's part of the equation also. But a good economy is what leads to a good environment. And if we have a monetary collapse in this country due to our continuing to spend more money than is sustainable, then people will be burning furniture and burning trees to stay warm - that's a result of a monetary collapse. And that's where we're headed and that would be catastrophic to clean air."

Government medicine will kill you

Johnson wants health care in America to be as far removed from Obamacare as possible.

Not only would be repeal Obamacare, but he would drastically cut and reform Medicare and Medicaid - systems he says are unsustainable and will eventually help cause an economic collapse.

Instead of the current model, Johnson favors giving states block grants to help pay for health care.

"It would be spending within our means," Johnson said. "A lot of talk is given to the fact that we have hundreds of trillions of dollars of unfunded liability. Well, if we keep Medicare as a program the same way it is today with the same eligibility going forward, we have more of unfunded liability."

Johnson says that to reduce costs, he would like to see states be able to redraw eligibility requirements for Medicare and Medicaid, but did not specify what they would be. He did say, however, that the biggest danger of the current model is that the government goes bankrupt.

"Wouldn't we like to have a safety net for health care for those who are poor and over 65 as opposed to a monetary collapse of government where no health care would be delivered at all to those that are poor and those over 65?" he said.

To reduce costs, Johnson adopts the libertarian view that a free market would cure the health care industry.

"Health care in this country is about as far removed from free market as it possibly can be," Johnson said. "Government restricts the choices that we have. Government restricts the number of doctors that we have."

In a free health care market, Johnson says, there would be fewer restrictions on medical school admittance, which would double the number of doctors. There would also be more tailor-made insurance options.

"How about giving us a myriad of choices that currently don't exist? Why do we have an insurance model?" Johnson said. "I would not have insurance to cover myself for ongoing medical need in a free market approach to health care. I would have insurance to cover myself for catastrophic injury or illness, and I would pay-as-you-go in a system that is really competitive."

Johnson says that a freer health care market would also increase supply, which would lower costs and force prices to be advertised and transparent.

"You go to the doctor today, you have no idea what you're going to pay and the person at the desk has no idea what you're going to get billed," Johnson said.

According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), U.S. healthcare costs are the highest in the world and about 60 percent more expensive than in other developed countries, including those with socialized medicine.

Part of the reason for the higher costs, the OECD report said, were higher drug prices and additional procedures.

Johnson is on the presidential ballot in 48 states. His campaign lost lawsuits to get on the ballots in Michigan and Oklahoma.
http://www.wlox.com/story/19971785/presidential-candidate-talks-guns-prisons

Ben Swann Explains Gary Johnson and the 5% Rule

Gary Johnson Predicts Obama Win


Libertarian Presidential candidate Gary Johnson is predicting Obama will win his re-election campaign. "I think Obama's going to win, that's what I think," Johnson told POLITICO. "[My vote is] really spread out, meaning I don't think there's any state that I'm going to do better than another." Not that it matters to Johnson which candidate out of Romney and Obama win. He has an idea what the country will get from the major party hopefuls: "Either one of them are elected, although they talk a big game: Continued unsustainable spending."

Gary Johnson is ready to forget about politics for a while after an exhausting campaign that brought him to 20 college campuses in the last 40 days. He is undecided on his exact political future: "I hope to remain a spokesperson but I think the last thing anybody wants to hear right now is talk about 2016 when everybody's just ready to barf over 2012." Johnson clearly does not enjoy the process of running a campaign, a refreshing attitude against a landscape of demanding politicians who seem so eager to rule. Johnson is hoping to obtain 5% of the vote to gain major party status for the Libertarian Party in the next election, thereby getting $90 million in government funding for the 2016 presidential election and guaranteed ballot access. He is on 48 states and the District of Columbia in this election—quite an achievement for a third party candidate.
http://politics.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474981741654

Gary Johnson D.C. Presidential Vote: Libertarian Candidate Seeks To Upset Mitt Romney

WASHINGTON -- Presidential candidates rarely court District of Columbia voters, especially in person on Election Day.

While President Obama and Mitt Romney will be in Chicago and Boston, respectively, on Tuesday, Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson will be in the nation's capital trying to woo voters heading to the polls.

According to a media release, Johnson and Bruce Majors, the Libertarian candidate for D.C.'s non-voting congressional delegate, will be in the Dupont Circle neighborhood on Tuesday morning greeting voters at Precinct 15 at Foundry United Methodist Church, which "boasts an electoral history as one of D.C.'s higher-performing Libertarian polling places."

There's a good reason why Johnson is putting extra pressure on D.C. voters: The former New Mexico governor wants to place second in the nation's capital and upset Romney. A third-place finish for the Republican presidential nominee would be a huge symbolic victory for Libertarians.

"Beating one of the major parties would be a shot in the arm for any alternative party," Libertarian political strategist John Vaught LaBeaume previously told The Huffington Post. "And it would be evidence that the Libertarian Party has appeal in precincts of growing influence, and the GOP is on the wane, its appeal almost extinct with urban electorate."

Democratic candidates have traditionally held an overwhelming advantage in District of Columbia elections. No Republican has ever won D.C.'s electoral votes since the 23rd Amendment gave residents in the nation's capital the right to vote for president starting with the 1964 elections.

Roughly 6 percent of D.C. voters are registered Republicans, according to the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics.

Johnson's campaign spokesman told HuffPost in October that the candidate is in favor of "full voting representation" for D.C. voters, in addition to D.C. budget autonomy.

Will those local issues be enough to boost Libertarians in the nation's capital on Election Day? Stay tuned ...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/05/gary-johnson-dc-presidential-vote_n_2080388.html

Final US Presidential Third Party Debate (Gary Johnson & Jill Stein)

Ralph Nader Moderates Third-party Presidential Debate Sunday (NOV 4)

http://libertycrier.com/politics/ralph-nader-moderates-third-party-presidential-debate-sunday/?utm_source=The+Liberty+Crier&utm_campaign=51c60142a4-The_Liberty_Crier_Daily_News_11_05_2012&utm_medium=email

Shermann

Gary Johnson Debates Barack Obama And Mitt Romney

http://libertycrier.com/politics/gary-johnson-debates-barack-obama-and-mitt-romney/?utm_source=The+Liberty+Crier&utm_campaign=0720704a5c-The_Liberty_Crier_Daily_News_11_03_12&utm_medium=email

Shermann

Ron Paul Supporters Should Vote For Gary Johnson on Tuesday: It Makes Perfect Sense

http://www.policymic.com/articles/17999/ron-paul-supporters-should-vote-for-gary-johnson-on-tuesday-it-makes-perfect-sense

Don’t get me wrong, Ron Paul is a great guy – it’s unfortunate that he got screwed over by his own party.

I voted for him in the primary and was excited at how well he was doing during that process. Now that Ron Paul is no longer running for president, I want to urge his supporters to look toward Gary Johnson, who will be on the ballot in all 50 states (a couple are not confirmed yet but let’s be hopeful), and Washington, D.C.

I see a lot of comments from people who are planning on writing in Ron Paul on their ballot – that’s a bad idea. Ron Paul is not registered as a write-in candidate. Writing him in would do nothing other than (possibly) send a message that what the RNC did to him was wrong.

There’s a better way to send that message. Instead of writing in Ron Paul, check the box next to Gary Johnson. He shares many of the same stances as Paul and even endorsed him in 2008. Ron Paul sort of returned the favor, though he didn’t officially endorse Johnson, saying “I think [Gary Johnson is] wonderful, and I think he’s doing a good job and people should look at him and every individual should make up his own mind.” Close enough, right?

Ron Paul and Gary Johnson in a New Movie Criticizing Washington Politics: OfByFor is a Must See

http://www.policymic.com/articles/17301/ron-paul-and-gary-johnson-in-a-new-movie-criticizing-washington-politics-ofbyfor-is-a-must-see

By the end of President Bill Clinton's presidency, many voters had become disenchanted with the Democrats. Despite his efforts to keep deficits low, Clinton's moral mistakes, his civil liberty mishaps, and his foreign policy failings gave way to a shift toward Republicans. Bush didn't seem to know where they had placed the veto pen in the Oval Office, and thus the deficits ballooned. He decided to start more major wars than any Democrat before him. Greenspan and Bernanke were pumping up the housing bubble so everyone felt great about their economic future, and we gave Bush another 4 years. He expanded Medicare and the Department of Education just to earn his big government credentials. By 2006, the Democrats had taken back Congress.

Many millenials became inspired in 2008 by a message of hope and change. By now, though, both parties were losing members as the registered Independents became the majority. Disapproval of both parties in Congress has risen to a supermajority. As that message of hope and change evaporated, support for a third political party gained majority status again.

The problems this country faces need serious solutions, and the two majority parties bicker like school children (no disparagement of school children intended). This seems to have led, in part, to the making of the new film, Of By For. It is a behind the scenes look at Washington, D.C., and the landscape of American politics. It has well known figures from all political views: Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, Dan Rather, Newt Gingrich, Al Sharpton, Dennis Kucinich, Jack Abramoff, Lanny Davis, Michael Steele, Gary Johnson, Bill Hillsman, Mickey Edwards, and Jonathan Haidt. Of By For: Promises, Power & the Political Parade opens on Inauguration Day (Jan. 21, 2013) with screenings in New York and Los Angeles between Thanksgiving and Christmas 2012. Chad Monnin, the producer, had the help of the creative team at Old Machine, and director, Christopher Kay. I was able to catch up with Christopher earlier this week for a quick interview.

When did you start filming?

We began filming in April of this year with our trip from Chicago to LA along Rt 66.

Who came up with the idea for the documentary?

This has been an extraordinarily organic process. Chad Monnin, the producer, had the original idea to take a cross-country trip along Route 66 to document everyday Americans and their thoughts regarding the state of our political system. We were astonished by the unity we found. The main thing being that regardless of who is in office, the same things get done. So we decided to head to Washington and New York to talk to some of the country’s most powerful politicians, campaign consultants, and psychologists about why that is. From there it became clear that we needed to document the remainder of the election as we watched the two parties limit ballot access, use wedge issues, fear, and tremendous amounts of money to convince people once again that they must choose between the lesser of two evils.

What's the message you are trying to convey?

This film is about what really motivates the status quo in Washington ... namely power and control ... and the use of promises, division and fear in order to retain both. We firmly believe that true change must begin not in Washington but between neighbors, brothers and sisters. So it begins with me and you. If we the people keep buying the lies and division, and thinking we can elect change into Washington we're going to witness the same cycle. And if this is a government Of, By and For the people, we need to be the change we want to see in Washington.

What was your vision as the director?

Honesty. I have insisted from the start that we weren't going to use "gotcha" tactics. That we would honestly ask and humbly accept everyones opinion and simply place them on the screen for reflection. I don't want anyone in the film to watch it and feel like we twisted their words or took them out of context in order to make a sensational film. The results were very compelling but not because of trickery. There are plenty of documentary film makers that do that with great success, make a lot of money and push their agendas forward. But I think something much more important is sacrificed when you do that.

________________________________

I leave you with the trailer. We can only hope that this film helps change the political landscape. With the recent Third Party Debates, and the leveraging of the people's media, the internet, maybe we can give people more choices, more solutions, and a better future. It's going to require that those of us who are tired of the results of voting for the lesser of two evils start working together and find our common ground.

Nationwide Gary Johnson Debate Watch Party! (Nov. 5th @ 6 pm PST / 9 pm EST)

Public Event · By Gary Johnson.










Monday, November 5, 2012.





9:00pm in EST.
.








On Monday, November 5th, FreeAndEqual.org and RT.com will host another debate between Gov. Gary Johnson and Dr. Jill Stein, and you are invited to the debate watch party... at home!

All Gary Johnson supporters from coast to coast are invited to host a Gary Johnson/Jill Stein Debate Watch Party at home, starting at 6:00 pm PST / 7:00 pm CST / 8:00 pm CST / 9:00 pm EST.

The debate will streamed at www.rt.com and www.youtube.com/RTAmerica.


This is a perfect time to invite friends, family, and anyone else who may be interested in learning more about Gov. Gary Johnson. We especially encourage you to invite anyone who's unhappy with Obama, Romney, and the status quo, to your Gary Johnson Debate Watch Party.

Please visit www.garyjohnson2012.com/downloads for material to download and share. Have a great debate watch party!

https://www.facebook.com/events/223572557772994/

The libertarian predicament

http://www.columbiaspectator.com/2012/10/31/libertarian-predicament

During the primaries, many of the members in the Columbia University Libertarians were unified in support of Congressman Ron Paul. Now it seems that our libertarian front has become divided. Even though Dr. Paul has said that this is only the beginning of the intellectual revolution to restore our civil liberties in the United States and that there is much work to be done in the future, many of us feel dismayed at voting in the upcoming presidential election. Upon the request for a presidential endorsement from the Spectator, we found ourselves at odds and we therefore feel the need to explain our libertarian predicament in this op-ed.

Despite identifying under the same political party, many of our organization’s members have opposing views on the main party candidates. Some of our members claim that it would be better to vote for the lesser evil of the establishment candidates, either stating that Obama seems worse because they believe that his welfare plans might reduce the middle class and make people dependent on handouts, or rather that Romney may be more of a threat on a global scale—after all, he has shown himself to have no qualms about bombing Iran, and has called Russia the U.S.’ “number one” geopolitical enemy.

However, many of us CU Libertarians won’t be able to hold our noses and accept the system, deducing that neither Obama nor Romney have a concrete plan to lower our $16 trillion debt. We fear that they would engage in “crony capitalism” and that their policies might be dictated by Wall Street—and according to an NPR article this year (“Romney’s ‘Crony Capitalism’ Charge May Ring True for Leaders of Both Parties,” July 18), these are not unreasonable fears at all. Besides just the economy, the CU Libertarians are also concerned about Obama and Romney’s mutual support for the National Defense Authorization Act, the crippling sanctions on Iran, and the drone strikes in Pakistan that have killed many civilians.

With all these concerns in mind, some of us will abstain from voting this year as a protest against the two-party system and follow Lew Rockwell, whose 2008 article “The Only Choice on November 4th” makes clear his refusal to give consent to the government and states that choosing not to vote “is one of the few rights we have left.” These non-voters may argue that they haven’t signed a social contract, and therefore they should reclaim their individual sovereignty by withholding their consent to be ruled by this government system.

But for those of us who wish to exercise our freedom of speech through a vote, the fact that the Libertarian Party is finally getting recognition, however small, is exciting. Candidate Gary Johnson may only have been allowed into the third-party debates, but he will be on the ballot in 47 states. Johnson does have many libertarian policies, even though he is sometimes criticized for holding establishment positions, especially regarding military interventionism. Many of us realize, however, that to unify under the Libertarian Party would be to break into the system and be further recognized as a relevant entity in political discussion.

Still yet, some of us feel slighted when we hear that any of our members would even consider these options. Many of us who joined the group after discovering Ron Paul and feel that it would not make sense to vote for anyone besides him. Unfortunately, there is no hope that he would win since the end of his active campaigning in May. However, this will not stop some libertarians who will vote according to their conscience from writing him in. Ron Paul himself has not publicly endorsed anyone and has rather let his supporters choose their own options.

In effect, the CU Libertarians will not endorse any candidate. We do not think this is the most important election of our generation. But it certainly is the scariest. Because we liberty-minded citizens have already lost this battle. The hope which remains is that we will be able to win the war. As Dr. Paul reminded us at the end of his previous campaign, “Elections are short-term efforts. Revolutions are long-term projects.”

The author is a Columbia College junior majoring in film studies. She is a member of the Columbia University Libertarians and the co-founder of the Youth for Ron Paul chapter at Columbia University. This op-ed is written on behalf of the Columbia University Libertarians.

PBSNewsHour

Answer the following questions to see which presidential candidates you side on most issues with.
http://www.isidewith.com/presidential-election-quiz

Gov. Gary Johnson at Colorado University, October. 29, 2012

GARY JOHNSON Be The 5 Percent

v for vendetta november 5th speech

Free and Equal Hosts Final US Presidential Debate. Free and Equal is proud to host the final US presidential debate between Libertarian Party candidate Gov. Gary Johnson and the Green Party’s Jill Stein. The two will go head-to-head and discuss foreign policy live from RT’s Washington, DC studio on Monday, November 5th. Voters can catch the show-down live on RT America, RT.com and right here on YouTube from 9:00 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. Eastern http://freeandequal.org/events/final-presidential-debate/

Gary Johnson on why Ron Paul backers should vote for him.

The debate will occur on Monday, November 5 at 9:00-10:30 p.m. EDT at the RT America studio in Washington, DC. RT America will broadcast the debate. The moderator will be announced on October 29. This debate is expected to be the final presidential debate of the 2012 election season, and the topic will be international issues. The debate was originally scheduled for Tuesday, October 30, but was postponed due to Hurricane Sandy.
http://www.examiner.com/article/gary-johnson-and-jill-stein-to-participate-foreign-policy-debate

Gary Johnson and Jill Stein to participate in foreign policy debate

On Tuesday, Free and Equal sponsored a presidential debate without the exclusionary entrance requirements of the Commission on Presidential Debates. At the end of the debate, Christina Tobin, the founder and chair of Free and Equal, announced an online instant-runoff vote between the four candidates who participated in the debate, which closed on Wednesday night at 10:30 p.m. EDT, with the top two candidates moving on to another debate.

Mrs. Tobin announced on Thursday that Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson and Green nominee Jill Stein were the winners of the vote. The result of the first round of instant runoff voting was 26,187 votes for Johnson, 15,013 votes for Stein, 3,938 votes for Justice Party nominee Rocky Anderson, and 2,698 votes for Constitution Party nominee Virgil Goode. Therefore, Goode was eliminated, and the people who chose him as their first choice had their second choice counted in the next round. The second round result was 28,149 for Johnson, 15,305 for Stein, and 4,382 for Anderson. Therefore, Anderson was eliminated, leaving Johnson and Stein as the winners of the vote.

Location: Washington, DC
38.890369415283 ; -77.031959533691 .
The debate will occur on Monday, November 5 at 9:00-10:30 p.m. EDT at the RT America studio in Washington, DC. RT America will broadcast the debate. The moderator will be announced on October 29. This debate is expected to be the final presidential debate of the 2012 election season, and the topic will be international issues. The debate was originally scheduled for Tuesday, October 30, but was postponed due to Hurricane Sandy.

Suggested by the author:
Highlights of the third party presidential debate
Third party debate presents opportunity for Obama and Romney
Gary Johnson sues the Commission on Presidential Debates, part 2
The Green Party presidential ticket gets arrested
An overview of the 2012 gubernatorial elections
http://www.examiner.com/article/gary-johnson-and-jill-stein-to-participate-foreign-policy-debate

Gary Johnson is Not on the Oklahoma Ballot, But Here is How to Fix It With the 2012 election looming in the near future, Oklahomans are asking themselves, "Why do I only have two choices for president on my ballot when my friends in other states have more?"

Oklahoma's ballot in 2012 only features President Barack Obama of the Democratic Party and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney of the Republican Party. In fact, Oklahoma is the only state to feature no third party candidates on its 2004, 2008, and 2012 ballots. No state has gone three consecutive years with only the Democratic and Republican candidates on their ballot since 1956-1964. Oklahoma is also one of only seven states that do not allow write ins.

As an illustration of the problem, Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson will be featured on every state ballot this election except for Michigan and Oklahoma. However, Michigan has affirmed Gary Johnson as a declared write in candidate.

The requirements in Oklahoma for recognition of a party not appearing on the ballot in the previous election are that a petition be filed with the Secretary of the State Election Board bearing the signatures of registered voters equal to at least five percent (5%) of the total votes cast in the last general election either for governor or for electors for president and vice president. Each page of such petitions must contain the names of registered voters from a single county. Petitions may be circulated a maximum of one year after notice is filed, provided that petitions shall be filed with such secretary no later than May 1 of an even numbered year. Such petitions shall not be circulated between May 1 and November 15 of any even numbered year.

Many have criticized Oklahoma as having the most stringent ballot laws in the nation, as they also include closed primaries. This means that only voters who are registered members of a recognized political party may vote for the party's candidates in primary and runoff primary elections. The only political parties currently recognized in Oklahoma are the Democratic and Republican parties, though voters may also register as independent.

Oklahomans almost had third party candidate Gary Johnson on their ballot this election despite these legal barriers. The Americans Elect party gained ballot access in March after a successful petition campaign with several high profile supporters, including University of Oklahoma President David Boren. However, the Oklahoma State Election Board removed Johnson from the ballot in August at the advice of the state Attorney General's Office.

Assistant Attorney General Neal Leader advised the Oklahoma State Election Board that it “should not place the Americans Elect Party president and vice-presidential candidates or presidential electors on the November 2012 general election ballot in Oklahoma.”

Richard Winger, editor of national ballot access publication Ballot Access News, said the assistant attorney general’s written instruction “contains no references to any court cases to justify his opinion.” Winger also contends the Oklahoma State Election Board and assistant attorney general “have acted in a deceitful manner.”

Oklahomans have sought change for quite some time through organizations such as Oklahomans for Ballot Access Reform, but new efforts are taking full advantage of internet resources such as Change.org and social media sites to build national and state awareness.

Signatures are being sought nationwide for the petition "State of Oklahoma: Allow third party candidates for President on the Oklahoma ballot." The goal of the petition is to raise public awareness nationwide of the limitations imposed on Oklahoma voters, and to rally support for change within Oklahoma itself. The signature goal is 50,000.

There is also a Facebook page dedicated to providing news on the effort and networking opportunities for ballot access proponents called Americans United for Oklahoma Ballot Access Reform.

It is too late for this effort to bear fruit before the 2012 election, but by starting now the organizers hope to capitalize on national election interest to build awareness of the plight of Oklahoma voters. Some of the comments left by petition signers are very illustrative:

"Voters at least need a 3rd option to keep the main two honest." — David Norton of Tulsa, Oklahoma

"We need open-minded people that make decisions not by party line but by what is right for America and it's people." — Patsy Dickey of Tulsa, Oklahoma

"The choices we have are poor and not representative of my views. I currently have no voice in our political process." — Steven Wooley of Chelsea, Oklahoma

Most telling of all is a comment left by Lyndsi Long of Holdenville, Oklahoma:

"It isn't right that Oklahomans, Americans, should be denied the option to vote for who they want in office. It takes away the very rights of the people that the United States was founded on. It isn't fair and it does nothing but deplete the want to even vote in an election, causing our nation's democracy to crumble under the government's want and need to control the people."
http://www.policymic.com/articles/17527/gary-johnson-is-not-on-the-oklahoma-ballot-but-here-is-how-to-fix-it

Gary Johnson bio
Gary Johnson

Running mate: James P. Gray

Party: Libertarian

Born: Jan. 1, 1953

Alma Mater: University of New Mexico (B.S.)

Political experience:

Republican Governor of New Mexico (1995-2003).

Political Views:

Johnson wants to repeal the Affordable Care Act and reduce regulations in the healchare industry.

He wants to stop government subsidies and incentives for energy-specific programs, is a strong believer in Second Amendment rights and would like to simplify legal immigration for a stronger economy. Johnson believes that in order to reduce illegal immigration, the government needs to legalize marijuana but manage it like alcohol and tobacco.

Johnson believes in a “nation of many peoples and beliefs” which includes accepting many religious views, legalizing same-sex marriage and allowing women to choose to have an abortion up to a certain point in the pregnancy.
http://www.iowastatedaily.com/election2012/article_61fa5a22-1e3e-11e2-b87c-0019bb2963f4.html

Gary Johnson at America's crossroads: Is government inherently evil

TAMPA, October 28, 2012 – Nine days before Election Day, Americans are hunkering down into their traditional Republican/Democratic camps. Supposedly, the future of American society rests upon which corporate-backed candidate wins the presidency. Americans of the past would have regarded this as complete nonsense.

In late 1775, the shot heard ‘round the world had been fired and the American colonists had Boston under siege. Still, most Americans either favored reconciliation with Great Britain or were undecided.

Then, in January 1776, Thomas Paine released his instant bestseller, Common Sense. It is this pamphlet that is credited with persuading a critical mass of American colonists to support American independence from Great Britain. In it, Paine laid out his arguments about the role of government and why the British constitution failed in fulfilling this role for American colonists.

The very first plank he laid down in his argument was that government was evil.

“Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil;”

Paine, Jefferson and other founding fathers recognized government for what it is: the pooled and organized capacity for violence of the whole society. This idea comes straight out of John Locke’s Second Treatise on Civil Government. There is no law, no matter how minor, that is not ultimately backed up by the threat of violence.

This is no less true today than it was in 1776. Despite “social contract” theories and other linguistic gymnastics that attempt to euphemize the nature of government, it remains merely organized violence. This is apparent to most people when the government wages war, but somehow it escapes them otherwise.

Yet, even when the government runs a healthcare program, you pay for it or they will come to physically force you to pay. If you resist, you will be killed. It is no different for education, housing, or the ultimate canard, “job creation.” Even a parking ticket is backed by the threat of violence. Yes, you will get many “reminders” if don’t pay before any real action is taken, but eventually the government will come and physically force you to obey.

That is the inescapable nature of government. That’s why Paine and the founding fathers believed it was evil.

Then why constitute a government at all? The founders believed that although government was evil, it was also necessary. Although society, meaning people voluntarily associating and trading their various products with one another, is always a blessing; some of the people will commit violence against the life or property of others, at least some of the time.

So, as Paine wrote, man "finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest." The government’s job is to defend peaceful citizens against violence committed by others. It is society’s bouncer.

While the term hadn’t been coined yet, the founding fathers were libertarians.

The bouncers aren’t the source of fun in a nightclub any more than government is the source of general happiness in a society. Neither do the bouncer’s run the nightclub. They are employed by the owners, and not for their creativity, ingenuity or compassion. They are employed for their ability to use brute force and are told to stay out of the way unless they are needed. Bouncers are a necessary evil in a nightclub for the same reason that government is a necessary evil in society, if necessary at all.

Yet, judging from the rhetoric of both parties’ politicians and the poll results, social media posts and other expressions of opinion by most of their supporters, most Americans don’t seem to see government this way anymore. One can only conclude that most Americans believe that government is good in and of itself, and that it just happens to be populated with corrupt or incompetent people at the moment.

Not only do most Americans seem to view government as a good, but they seem to want government to solve just about every societal problem, all of which were caused by government in the first place. The bouncers have been running the nightclub for a long time and Americans don’t seem to be able to figure out why it isn’t any fun anymore.

The most disturbing aspect of this belief in the goodness of government is the conversation surrounding the presidential election. Most Americans not only believe that the government can solve problems, rather than just employ force, but that the election of one man can actually save or destroy the republic. If that’s true, then any difference between America and the most barbarous empires in history is gone.

It is generally believed that the United States transformed itself from a relatively poor, agrarian society to the wealthiest nation in history because of the individual freedom available to its citizens. That freedom resulted from Americans recognizing that government is evil. It resulted from a libertarian theory of government.

America is at a crossroads, but Mitt Romney and Barack Obama don’t represent the fork in the road. They are both the same road. Whether you are looking for “Hope and Change” or “Smaller, Simpler and Smarter Government,” neither Romney nor Obama will provide it.

The first step in changing course is to rediscover America’s founding, libertarian idea that government is evil. If you think the presidential election can make a difference, why not take Gary Johnson up on his proposition? Be libertarian with him for one election. What do you have to lose?

Tom Mullen is the author of A Return to Common Sense: Reawakening Liberty in the Inhabitants of America.


Read more: Gary Johnson at America's crossroads: Is government inherently evil | Washington Times Communities
Follow us: @wtcommunities on Twitter http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/reawakening-liberty/2012/oct/28/gary-johnson-americas-crossroads-government-inhere/

A Vote for Gary Johnson Definitely Not a Waste
Kenneth Brown, an economist, attempts to make the cast that Gary Johnson’s libertarian candidacy for president may peel votes away from Mitt Romney. While portraying this as a blow to limited government, he fails to explain exactly how Romney would bring limited government and economic freedom to the White House.

Instead, as seems to be the case with most Romney supporters, the only case they can make for “their guy” is that “the other guy” (Obama) is so bad that supporters of limited government should abandon their principles and support Romney. I strongly disagree. In fact, throughout this campaign, I have seen far more examples of agreement between Romney and Obama.

It is only Johnson who will, if elected, bring the ideas of limited government to Washington.


On the economy and health care in particular, there is virtually no daylight between Obama and Romney. “Obamacare,” as we all know, has many of the same characteristics as does “RomneyCare” in Massachusetts. Now, of course, Romney says he would “repeal and replace” Obamacare, but his record as governor shows that he believes that government bureaucrats, not patients and their doctors, should control health care. Johnson would repeal Obamacare and work to restore free market principles in American health care.


In terms of economic growth, the real problems with our economy today is not the tax burden, rather it is bipartisan, out-of-control spending growth in Washington. Unlike Romney, whose specific budget cuts are limited to Big Bird and a few other trivial items but who wants a massive increase in military spending, Johnson would submit a balanced budget immediately upon taking office and would put the major spending areas – the entitlements and the military – on sustainable footing while eliminating boondoggles like farm subsidies and the War on Drugs.


Continuation of the War on Drugs is yet another area of agreement between Romney and Obama with which Johnson disagrees. Federal spending on the drug war amounts to over $15 billion annually and that isn’t even the real problem with it. The real problem is that the War on Drugs costs all of us our civil liberties, destroys poor and inner-city families (predominantly minorities), and costs us far more in terms of prisons, joblessness and other social harms than what Americans know.


Speaking of privacy, Obama and Romney would do nothing to reform or eliminate the absurd Transportation Security Administration which makes regular headlines groping grandmas and generally making life miserable for travelers, all with little to no impact on our security. Johnson will eliminate TSA, saving taxpayers $40 billion annually. The private sector – airlines, airports, or private security companies – will do a much better job for far less money.


And then there is foreign policy. Nowhere is the difference between Obama/Romney and Johnson starker.


Obama and Romney have pledged to continue this needless war which has no clear objective, has seen American troops gunned down and killed by their supposed “allies,” and will waste another $120 billion this year alone. Johnson will bring the troops home immediately.


Also, while Romney and Obama seem determined to start a war with Iran, Johnson will work to resolve the conflict with Iran peacefully as Iran has never threatened the United States and does not present a military threat to this country.


The case is clear. The only vote you are “throwing away” is a vote for four more years of bipartisan spending, violations of personal liberty and tragic soldier deaths in Afghanistan.


Our former governor, Gary Johnson, is easily the best choice for president!
http://www.abqjournal.com/main/2012/10/29/opinion/a-vote-for-gary-johnson-definitely-not-a-waste.html

The endless wars of the future: Why votes for Gary Johnson matter now more than ever

WAIKIKI, October 30, 2012 – Both President Obama and Vice President Biden gave the American people a stunning revelation of their view of the military during the debates. The Obama Administration wants to bulk up on special operations forces and unmanned aerial vehicles, sharpening the post-9/11 transition towards anti-terrorism, counterinsurgency and combating non-state actors in asymmetric warfare. This paradigm places the United States on a slippery slope towards endless military engagement and raises troubling questions about whether or not Congress even retains war powers in our 21st century.

The framers of the Constitution fully intended for the American people to be in the loop when the United States goes to war. Nothing imperils a nation so terribly as committing military forces to combat. This is why Article I, Section 8 grants Congress alone the power to declare war: so that the American people through the House and the States, through the Senate, make the call on whether or not a conflict is worth spending treasure and shedding blood over.

Today, the ongoing War on Terror has eroded the original intent of the framers and has given rise to a near-imperial presidency where commandos and drones are routinely employed in combat all around the world without the American people being given the opportunity to determine whether or not these campaigns are even in their best interest. Congress has effectively been placed in the backseat to the expeditions of the President, left only to retroactively approve whatever conflicts he starts.


The Global War on Terror has revolutionized both America's military operations and the nation's view of war. (U.S. Air Force file photo)

With America sixteen trillion dollars in debt and 6,500 servicemembers or more killed in the ongoing War on Terror, this country needs to have a serious fiscal, legal and moral discussion about the proper role and function of our military. Is our military for national emergencies only – as the framers intended – or is it a global police force? Just when can our forces finally “declare victory” and come back home? When does the War on Terror actually end?

In January 1954, President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s Secretary of Defense John Foster Dulles spoke at the Council on Foreign Relations and aptly warned, “If the enemy could pick his time and his place and his method of warfare – and if our policy was to remain the traditional one of meeting aggression by direct and local opposition – then we had to be ready to fight in the Arctic and in the tropics, in Asia, in the Near East and in Europe; by sea, by land, and by air; by old weapons and by new weapons.”

America’s policymakers once feared the prospect of fighting a global war but today no such reservations exist. Contrast Dulles’ words with present-day SECDEF Leon Panetta who, when asked by CBS’ Scott Pelly “In how many countries are we currently engaged in a shooting war?” responded “I’ll have to stop and think about that, because you know, obviously we’re going after al Qaeda, wherever they’re at.”

The implications of fighting a global, never-ending war against non-state enemies that can seamlessly blend in with populations should concern every single man and woman in America. In the past, America fought wars that were properly declared by Congress, won, and quickly went home. Today, we have no such homecomings to look forward to and no shortage of “enemies” to fight.

One Russian officer who fought during the Soviet war in Afghanistan remarked that he and his forces would go out every day and annihilate their opponents on the field of battle – but the next day, their enemies would emerge again from the caves, as if nothing had happened the day before. We ought to listen to that warning and ask ourselves whether fighting an apocalyptic-minded enemy that keeps coming back for more is really worth fighting all around the world.


In the past, America's policymakers feared committing troops to combat around the world and sought to deter rather than engage in endless war. (U.S. Air Force file photo)

You don’t have to be a member of the Libertarian Party to see that America needs to urgently change its attitude and policies towards war. We need to stop putting our young men and women in harm’s way, bring our troops home and focus on rebuilding America’s ever-weakening economy. Even the RAND Corporation released a report in 2008 which asserted no battlefield solution to terrorism exists. In that study, of 268 terrorist groups studied, 43% of them were terminated as a result of politics and only 7% ended as a result of military force.

It’s time to stop wasting our existence on endless war and start living in peace again.

Our military should serve the purpose of defense of our territories and use in national emergencies only – not police actions around the globe. As one retired U.S. Navy captain put it, “success in military strategy lies in not fighting. The ideal outcome is to deter and avoid war without surrendering national security or yielding on vital national interests.”

The Bible’s prophet Daniel had an alarming vision in which an angel told him “War will continue until the end”. But we also know from Scripture that “the work of righteousness shall be peace; and the effect of righteousness quietness and assurance forever.” Seeking peace is the right thing to do and will bring honor and prosperity back to our nation.

In this year's presidential election, there is only one candidate who gets it when it comes to the right and proper role of the U.S. military, and that man is Gary Johnson. Now more than ever, votes for Johnson matter because they declare to the world that there are some of us in America who still want peace above all else.


Read more: The endless wars of the future: Why votes for Gary Johnson matter now more than ever | Washington Times Communities
Follow us: @wtcommunities on Twitter http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/making-waves-hawaii-perspective-washington-politic/2012/oct/30/an-end-to-endless-war/

Streaming Live... 10/29/12

Gov. Gary Johnson will be speaking and taking questions from students at the University of Colorado-Boulder...

Gov. Gary Johnson will be streaming live from the University of Colorado-Boulder tonight, October 29, at 7:00 p.m, MDT / 9:00 pm EDT. The event will be hosted live at GaryJohnson2012.com.

http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/