Click here to sign in to the show.

You’ll be able to access the call online and make comments, ask questions and give your opinion!

And you can also call in by phone between 8:30 and 9:00pm Eastern Time at (347) 884-8634!

Please join us!

Nancy

I’m not kidding…

A big thank you to Glenn Beck and Fox News for helping create this. Very entertaining.

By the way, Libertarians need to run FAR away from these folks if they ever want to build a viable third party.

(h/t: BTB)

Just found a comment left by the Transportation Security Administration in the post I wrote yesterday about that situation in St. Louis where a Ron Paul supporter was held and questioned because he had $4,700 in cash on him (which is roughly represented in the picture above).

From Evolution of Security:

At approximately 6:50 p.m. on March 29, 2009, a metal box alarmed the X-ray machine at Lambert-St. Louis International Airport, triggering the need for additional screening. Because the box contained a number of items including a large amount of cash, all of which needed to be removed to be properly screened, it was deemed more appropriate to continue the screening process in a private area. A Transportation Security Administration (TSA) employee and members of the St. Louis Airport Police Department can be heard on the audio recording. The tone and language used by the TSA employee was inappropriate. TSA holds its employees to the highest professional standards. TSA will continue to investigate this matter and take appropriate action.

Movements of large amounts of cash through the checkpoint may be investigated by law enforcement authorities if criminal activity is suspected. As a general rule, passengers are required to cooperate with the screening process. Cooperation may involve answering questions about their property, including why they are carrying a large sum of cash. A passenger who refuses to answer questions may be referred to appropriate authorities for further inquiry.

A few things…

1. I applaud the TSA for reaching out like this and responding so quickly. And the fact that they said some of the employees were acting inappropriately is a MASSIVE shift from what we’ve seen the past several years.
2. I still would like to see what law requires passengers to answer questions about why they have cash on them. Because the officers on the tape never answered the question and this blog post doesn’t either.
3. Why would $4,700 in a metal box constitute criminal activity? I can understand if this guy was hiding it the lining of a suitcase or in his underwear, but from I’ve heard of the story, it was your basic lockbox.

So yes, there are still some questions to be answered and I still think the TSA needs to think about revising some of their policies, lest they receive an inordinate amount of backlash for incidents that never needed to happen in the first place.

I think I’ve said this before, but the Republicans definitely run the risk of being fractured between the social and the fiscal conservatives. Because call him whatever you like, but Bush was not a fiscal conservative. And there are A LOT of fiscally conservative folks who really despise the less tolerant aspects of social conservatism.

Now Newt is weighing in on the obvious split and since I’m moderately cynical…I think he’s starting to lay the groundwork for a 3rd party run.

From CNN:

“If the Republicans can’t break out of being the right wing party of big government, then I think you would see a third party movement in 2012,” Gingrich said Tuesday. The speech, to a group of students at the College of the Ozarks in Missouri, was recorded by Springfield TV station KY3.

But Gingrich, bemoaning President Barack Obama’s “monstrosity of a budget,” acknowledged that Republicans are partially to blame for the escalation in federal spending.

“Remember, everything Obama’s doing, Bush started last year,” he said. “If you’re going to talk about big spending, the mistakes of the Bush administration last year are fully as bad as the mistakes of Obama’s first two, three months.”

Want more proof that Gingrich is thinking 3rd party? His American Solutions group is starting to get its hooks into the “Tea Party” movement.

Long story short, Newt knows a movement when he sees it and if there’s a chance he could use it to raise his profile, well, all the better.

More as it develops…

Is Missouri’s militia/Ron Paul tie still in full effect?

One note, the commentator in the middle who tries to tie this to Obama’s economic policies at the very end was a truly hacky move. He didn’t need to go there, but there it is nonetheless.

Otherwise, a very good clip.

(h/t: Below The Beltway)

This was definitely troubling, so it’s good to see that some real action was taken after the report was revealed.

From McClatchy:

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. — The Missouri Highway Patrol this week retracted a controversial report on militia activity and will change how such reports are reviewed before being distributed to law enforcement agencies.

The Highway Patrol also will open an investigation into the origin of the report, which linked conservative groups with domestic terrorism and named former presidential candidates Ron Paul, Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin.

The Lt. Gov has also suggested that the Director of Public Safety be put on leave pending an investigation into how the report came about. I think that’s harsh, because there probably are some ties between 3rd party supporters and militia members, but the big thing here was the profiling based on bumper stickers. That was just a lazy move and the DoPS should have known better.

However, 3rd party supporters should take note at how quickly this was reversed once it was discovered. In other words, try not to fall into the trap of thinking this is part of a conspiracy. We’re still a nation of checks and balances, and this situation demonstrates that.

Still, I think somebody should keep an eye on the guy who put all those stickers on his car in the picture above. :-)

I’m just saying…

(A series on little-known candidates for President)

Alan Keyes is not a little-known candidate, but many people may be surprised to know he is on the ballot in three states this general election - California, Colorado and Florida. The real news is not that, but how many times Keyes has run for President this year.

Keyes ran in the Republican primaries, eventually putting together his best showing in North Carolina when he gathered 2.7% of the vote and two delegates. Prior to that, Keyes complained that the media ignored him and excluded him from the Presidential debates. In the debates he did appear, Keyes complained that the moderators did not ask him questions.

In April, Keyes announced his departure from the Republican Party. He sought to get the Constitution Party’s nomination, but was defeated by Chuck Baldwin. Party leaders criticized Keyes for being out of sync with Constitution Party issues and lingering in the Republican Party until a week before the Constitution Party’s convention.

After that defeat, Keyes announced, “I kind of represent, in political terms, the abortion.”

After two failed tries for President in one year, most people would move onto another cause. That is not Alan Keyes. After his Constitution Party defeat, Keyes immediately announced his intention to run as an independent candidate and notified the FEC he was doing so.

In the process, he started America’s Independent Party. You have to give Keyes credit there. If he cannot win a party’s nomination, he may as well start his own. At least that way the nomination cannot be denied to him.

Yet Keyes was not through with his nomination pursuit in 2008. One of the state delegations at the Constitution Party’s convention was California’s American Independent Party. Since 1988, it has aligned itself nationally with the Constitution Party or its predecessor the U.S. Taxpayers Party. The AIP delegation backed Keyes at the convention.

Keyes had the backing of the chair and 14 of the 23 members of the AIP executive committee. Back in California, they hastily convened a meeting breaking their longtime affiliation with the Constitution Party and nominated Keyes. The remaining nine committee members met at a separate convention, two to three times larger than the pro-Keyes convention, and reaffirmed their support to the Constitution Party.

In the end, a ruling by California’s Secretary of State and a judge gave the coveted ballot spot to the Keyes’ faction. It is a good bet that the AIP’s legal woes are just beginning as its two factions fight it out.

In this busy political year for Alan Keyes, he has run for three party nominations and won one. He has announced an independent candidacy. In addition, he has started his own political party.

Yet this story still has a couple of twists. The AIP is segregationist George Wallace’s 1968 party. It is a little ironic that in 2008 the last remnant of that movement nominates a black man. Perhaps that is an indication just how far this country has come.

That brings up the last twist to the bizarre case of Alan Keyes –  Barack Obama. In 2002, the Illinois Republican Party carpetbagged Alan Keyes from Maryland to run for a Senate seat no other Republican wanted to waste the effort on. Yes, Barack Obama defeated Alan Keyes in his election to the U.S. Senate. It is a appropriate that in the same election where one man stands at the edge of achieving the highest political office in the land, the other is the political equivalent of an abortion.

(from Foolocracy.com)

(A series on little-known Presidential candidates)

In 2006, The Boston Tea Party broke from the Libertarian Party and adopted the most concise platform of any organized party in the country.

“The Boston Tea Party supports reducing the size, scope and power of government at all levels and on all issues, and opposes increasing the size, scope and power of government at any level, for any purpose.”

Their candidate for President is Charles Jay, a former boxing manager, and for Vice President Tom Knapp. They are on the ballot in Colorado, Florida and Tennessee.

The Boston Tea Party is openly soliciting the support of Ron Paul supporters on their websites.

Jay is best known for his 2004 Presidential run as a member of the Personal Choice Party. Jay’s running mate in 2004 was 1970’s porn star Marilyn Chambers. The duo was on the ballot in, of all places, Utah. They received 946 votes in that election. The Personal Choice Party is backing Jay again this year too.

According to BTP’s website, a Jay-Chambers ticket is being pushed as a protest write-in option in states that forbid write-in voting for President.

In the last few weeks, it seems that all is not well for the fledgling party. BTP claims a membership of 582 on their website, but that seems too many for the party to operate smoothly.  The Presidential candidate, John Jay, and the Florida branch have split from the national party. Apparently, the national committee wants to rescind an endorsement for a North Carolina candidate. The Florida state party does not agree and by a 4-0 vote of its state committee is unaffiliating itself from the national party.

 ”I didn’t involve myself in all of this to play in a sandbox with children,” said Jay on his website.

(from Foolocracy.com)

However, he could definitely siphon off crucial votes in New Hampshire and Georgia.



So, will Barr help bring about an Obama landslide?

(A series on little-known Presidential candidates)

The small United States Pacifist Party has run a Presidential candidate as a write-in candidate in previous elections, but this is the first time they are on the ballot in a state. That state is Colorado, which has 16 candidates for President — the most crowded Presidential general election ballot in history.

Why is the ballot so crowded? That is because Colorado, like Louisiana, requires only a $500 fee to get on the ballot. Apparently, no signatures or other symbol of support is needed. So if you have an extra $500 in 2012 and want a footnote in political history or just want to embarrass your family…

The Pacifist Party seems to take some pride in running a Senate candidate in Colorado in 1998 who came in last with 1,900 votes. Somehow they have extrapolated this out to mean that there “are at least 100,000 in the U.S.” who would support their party. That would equal about 1 out of every 3000 Americans; that will not win very many elections.

The party’s founder and Presidential candidate Bradford Lyttle has also written a paper called “The Apocalypse Equation.” It is explained here, but basically spells out the risk of a nuclear disaster in a mathematical equation. It is supposed to mathematically prove that unless nuclear weapons are eliminated civilization is doomed. The only hard fact to come out of it is “that in 50 years the probability of the launch of at least one missile is about 52%.” Since that only suggests a nuclear disaster is about as likely to happen as not to happen, it is rather meaningless.

Lyttle received notoriety after 9/11 when he was interviewed by CNN and Bill O’Reilly. He proposed the pacifist response to the 9/11 attacks. Knowing the tone of the country at the time, Lyttle must have made for an interesting interviewee.

The Pacifist Party platform is what one would expect, such as “Preparation for nonviolent resistance against possible invasion and occupation attempts.” They also support a crash program to create a global solar power program, Canadian-style healthcare, unrestricted immigration, full employment and a guaranteed minimum income. Of course, all this is going to be paid for by eliminating the defense budget.

Interestingly enough, while they support banning handguns and assault weapons, it appears they will leave rifles alone.

(from Foolocracy.com)

(A series on little-known Presidential candidates)

What is America’s third oldest political party?

The Prohibition Party.

One would think that with the repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment in 1933, the Prohibition Party would have died long ago. Not quite. It is still twitching.

The Prohibition Party has run candidates in every Presidential election since 1872. Its best showing was 1892 when John Bidwell pulled 271,058 votes or 2.3%.

In 2003, five time Presidential nominee Earl Dodge split from the Prohibition Party to form the National Prohibition Party. At that time, some members accused Dodge of financial irregularities and refusing to accept new members because they would vote against him.  The split was precipitated when Dodge held the 2003 nominating convention at his home by invitation only. Dodge was nominated for a sixth time by eight people, including himself and his two daughters.

Word leaked out of Dodge’s actions, and a new national convention formed that selected Gene Amondson as its candidate.

The two competing factions continued to squabble with both parties separately nominating Dodge and Amondson for 2008. Dodge was nominated in a secret convention rumored to number about three attendees. Amondson was nominated by about two or three dozen. The death of Dodge last year has apparently ended the secession. Dodge’s faction then nominated Amondson for President as well.

The Prohibition Party is on the ballot in Colorado, Florida, and Louisiana. Leroy Pletten is the Vice-Presidential candidate.

The Prohibition Party’s platform is against foreign involvement by the United States in the affairs of other nations and supports the withdrawal of the United States from the World Bank. It has a “We pray for peace” plank in its platform.

The Prohibition Party seeks to abolish the Federal Reserve System. The party is against death taxes. It is against funding to the National Endowment for the Arts. It is against illegal immigration. It appears to oppose agricultural subsidies. The party opposes the sale, advertising and use of alcoholic beverages, tobacco products and illegal drugs. It opposes gambling, state lotteries, pornography and commercialized vice. The Prohibition Party also opposes the promotion of unnatural lifestyles.

In the 2004 Presidential election, Amondson received 1,944 votes while Dodge gathered 140.

(from Foolocracy.com)

(Note from Glenn Church: Within two hours of posting this article, Calvin Dodge, Earl Dodge’s son, commented that I had only given one side of the Prohibiition Party split. As an ardent anti-prohibitionist myself, I do not want to be perceived as biased towards one prohibiitionist faction over the other. Here are Calvin Dodge’s comments.)

You have only one part of the “split” story there. One other reason for the split was Leroy Pletten (this year’s VP candidate). He engineered a takeover of the party, resorting to such tactics as threatening board members with lawsuits, then getting his own people those positions after the existing members resigned to avoid those lawsuit threats.

Since Dad’s (Earl Dodge) death, Mr. Pletten has dedicated at least part of his time to posting his slanders on Dad’s Wikipedia page, using “sock puppet” identities

(A series on little-known Presidential candidates)

The McCain campaign has made socialism a buzzword in the last week. However, if they want to find a real socialist, they need to look no further than the Socialist Workers Party.

The SWP is on the ballot in Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Iowa, Louisiana, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Vermont, and Washington. Their candidate is 39-year-old Roger Calero. Calero was also the 2004 nominee. He collected 10,791 votes in 14 states.

In several states, Calero had to have James Harris fill in as a surrogate nominee because Calero is constitutionally ineligible to be President. Calero is not an American citizen. He was born in Nicaragua, although he does have permanent resident status. Harris is once again the surrogate nominee for Calero in 2008. If the SWP won, that could make for an interesting constitutional crisis. However, that is one scenario no one needs to worry about for this election.

The SWP was formed in 1938 as a pro-Trotsky faction after its members were kicked out of the Communist Party on the orders of Stalin. Since the 1980’s, the SWP has drifted toward Fidel Castro style Marxism. The SWP has called Castro’s Cuba “a shining example for all workers.”

Calero and his running mate, Alyson Kennedy, want to shorten the work week with no cut in take-home pay. They also want an emergency halt to farm and home foreclosures, a massive infrastructure rebuilding program with union-scale wages, withdrawal of all U.S. troops in foreign countries and, of course, normalization of relations with Cuba.

Calero was convicted of a felony for the sale of marijuana in 1988. In 2001, he was arrested after reentering the United States and threatened with deportation because of the conviction.

(from Foolocracy.com)

(A series on little-known Presidential candidates) 

Richard Duncan is an independent candidate on the ballot in a single state – Ohio. In 2004, he ran as a  write-in candidate for President and received 17 votes. Duncan expects to do considerably better this year.

The most notable thing about Duncan’s campaign is how he picked his Vice-Presidential running mate. The Constitution states that a Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidate must be from different states otherwise their joint home state can only cast its electoral votes for one of the candidates.

With that in mind, Duncan picked up a list of independent voters from next-door Pennsylvania. He proceeded to call voters asking if they wanted to be his Vice-Presidential running mate.

Not surprisingly, most people did not take Duncan seriously. After about 500 calls, Duncan had his man. Ricky Johnson lent his name to the campaign. And to think some people thought John McCain did not properly vet Sarah Palin.

Duncan is not a one-issue candidate. He places homeland security and jobs as his main issues. Duncan favors committing U.S. troops to U.N. peacekeeping missions but does not favor increasing our military presence in Afghanistan. On trade issues, he supports NAFTA and CAFTA but is undecided on GATT. He favors establishing English as the national language. Duncan favors maximizing alternative and traditional energy sources as well as opening ANWR to drilling. He backs medical marijuana and mandatory drug sentences for selling illegal drugs.

In 2006, Duncan ran for the U.S. Senate in Ohio against Sherrod Brown and Mike DeWine. Duncan polled 830 votes out of 3.8 million cast.

(from Foolocracy.com)

Yes…the Chuck Baldwin, candidate for the Constitution Party.

So why not the Libertarian candidate Bob Barr?

Well, it appears as if Paul didn’t like the fact that Barr didn’t show up to his press conference recently…

The Libertarian Party Candidate admonished me for “remaining neutral” in the presidential race and not stating whom I will vote for in November. It’s true; I have done exactly that due to my respect and friendship and support from both the Constitution and Libertarian Party members. I remain a lifetime member of the Libertarian Party and I’m a ten-term Republican Congressman. It is not against the law to participate in more then one political party. Chuck Baldwin has been a friend and was an active supporter in the presidential campaign.

I continue to wish the Libertarian and Constitution Parties well. The more votes they get, the better. I have attended Libertarian Party conventions frequently over the years.

And yet, let’s not forget that Paul remains a Republican and draws a salary as a Republican…even though his views align almost exactly with the Libertarian party.

Folks, I know he got everybody excited, but at this point you have to admit that this will probably be the last chapter in the book of Paul. Oh, their may be some brief epilogue, but this guy so badly squandered all the love and support thrown his way over the course of this campaign season, and what’s left of it he has thrown to somebody who’s sympathetic to 9/11 truthers.

And scene.

At a Denver café on July 27, Ralph Nader plans an issues oriented debate. The issues are many—nuclear disarmament, same-sex unions, healthcare, Iraq and so on. A debate involves more than one, and Nader has a surprise opponent. Obama? McCain? Barr? No, none of these candidates. They are too verbose for Nader. No, Nader’s opponent is…a dummy.

Questions will be asked, Nader will answer and the dummy will signify the silence of the major parties on the issues. Yep, Nader and a dummy. He should be able to win this one.

(For more foolish stories visit Foolocracy.com)

Denver — Georgia’s Bob Barr won a long and tense battle Sunday for the 2008 Libertarian Party’s presidential nomination and now faces the daunting task of doing what no third-party candidate has done: Win in November.

It took six ballots and nearly five hours of voting at the Libertarian National Convention before the former four-term congressman defeated Texas business consultant Mary Ruwart for the party’s bid.

Barr, who until 2006 was a Republican, took 54 percent of the vote after Las Vegas odds-maker Wayne Allyn Root dropped out following the fifth ballot and endorsed Barr. Delegates subsequently selected Root to be Barr’s running mate.

So, can he capture a segment of the Ron Paul supporters who want to actually vote for somebody on the ballot instead of just writing somebody in?

And more important, will Barr be McCain’s Nader? Can he strip away enough fiscal conservatives to make a difference in some key states?

Let the speculation begin in earnest…

I’ve been dying to draw a Ron Paul cartoon, especially as a lesbian! The Libertarian convention is happening this week, and with Georgia congressman Bob Barr coming out of the closet, the Republicans are afraid…very afraid of the L word.

From Philly.com:

Bob Barr, former GOP congressman from Georgia, is an all-but-announced presidential candidate – as a Libertarian.

The possibility of a run by Barr has sent shudders through the mainstream of the Republican party.

Barr, who will probably not declare his intentions for several days, has already been labeled a “spoiler.”

In an interview with the Inquirer, Barr dismissed those accusations as whining.

“The notion that Republicans see a third-party candidate as spoiling their chances simply illustrates the arrogance of the two-party system,” Barr said.

Republicans may have good cause to worry.

A run by Barr could be to John McCain “what Ralph Nader was to Al Gore – ruinous,” wrote George Will in Newsweek. Some party experts believe Barr could siphon off essential conservative votes from Sen. John McCain, about whom many rightward voters have been less than enthusiastic.

Then, here’s him at CPAC 2008 introducing Ron Paul, and it’s a love letter to the congressman.

Think Ron Paul will tell his supporters to get behind Bob Barr? Think those Paulites who might be considering voting for McCain could swing to Barr as a real alternative? Quite possibly

Perennial candidate and hyper-conservative gadfly Alan Keyes has decided to move on to a party that believes the Constitution suggests America should be a Christian state.

From their website…

The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States. We hereby appeal to Him for mercy, aid, comfort, guidance and the protection of His Providence as we work to restore and preserve these United States.

This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been and are afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.

The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations and to limit the federal government to its Constitutional boundaries.

Yeah…I know…it’ll be a perfect fit.

And now the story from USA Today:

HAZLETON, Pa. (AP) — Former Republican presidential candidate Alan Keyes announced Tuesday night that he has left the GOP and is considering joining the Constitution Party.

Keyes, who also ran as a Republican to challenge Barack Obama’s U.S. Senate bid in Illinois in 2004, says he is talking with leaders and rank-and-file members of the Constitution Party.

“They’re considering me, I’m considering them,” Keyes said in a conference call late Tuesday night. “We have so much in common that I find it hard to believe we won’t be able to work out a common basis for working together.”

And here’s an interesting bit…

Keyes declined to say whether he will seek the presidency with the party, which holds its nominating convention April 23-26 in Kansas City.

Kansas City? Nice! I heard those Constitution Party folks can really party!

Which is this: you cannot presume to judge a person’s politics by the church they attend. That’s truer than ever today, thanks to a variety of reasons: disenchantment with partisanship in the church; more open dialogue about faith and politics, largely taking place in cyberspace; and a greater freedom to question and challenge religious authority.

And yet, as recently as three years ago, I was pegged a Republican solely on the basis of the church I attended. Ironically, at the same time but several hundred miles away, I was pegged a Democrat because I chose to spend several days at a particular retreat center. There I was, a die-hard independent, with the stench of partisanship all over me. I would have none of that. The only way I knew to cleanse myself was to write We the Purple — and walk away from church for a good long time.

Over the next few weeks, I’ll be blogging not just about the relationship between faith and politics from an independent perspective but also about independents in general, particularly those who are politically active, savvy, and making a difference despite the major parties’ attempts to keep them from doing so.

I’ll look at who independents are and what they want, the areas of agreement that enable them to work together, and how the Internet has fueled the growth of the independent movement and related grassroots activism. And I’ll show how the two major parties attempt to suppress voter turnout, as well as use two specific hot-button issues to manipulate the religious vote. Finally, I’ll take a look at transpartisanism, a growing effort to bring major parties, third parties and independents to the table to work together on solutions to our nation’s many problems.

It’s a truly exciting time to be an independent, and not just because politicians are courting us more than ever before. We have the opportunity today to bring about radical political reform, from a position outside the two-party system — the only place genuine reform is likely to occur.