Charles Jay ‘08

The Boston Tea Party of Florida, on behalf of this campaign, turned in its presidential petition to the Florida Secretary of State on Friday. It contains the required 27 electors and a slew of alternates.

So we will be on the ballot, despite what I expect could be some mischief. I want to address that as clearly and succinctly as possible.

It has come to our attention that there might be a move afoot to challenge our list of electors, through a process which may, I said MAY, include the coercion, confusion, harassment, and/or intimidation of these electors through, among other things, communicating whatever misinformation they have to.

We have uncovered the name of one individual who was associated with a previous attempt to do this to another party in Florida, and possibly other states, and we are looking into it. In addition to that, the name of someone else, known to many of you, has surfaced in connection with that effort. We strongly suspect that there is going to be an organized “campaign,” if you will, to knock specific parties off the ballot in the Sunshine State.

So we have taken certain safeguards to make sure that if this kind of activity is implemented, we will know as much as possible about it. Toward that end, selected members of the electors list have been asked to record the phone calls, if they do indeed get them. They will, in accordance with Florida law, inform the caller that the conversation is being recorded, and will proceed to ask the caller who he or she is, which number they are calling from, and for what purpose. On a one-by-one basis, they will also inquire as to which political party the call is being made on behalf of, whether it be the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, etc., etc., all the way down the line.

Those who will not be recording the calls have been asked to take copious notes, and will ask the same questions. If possible, they are going to take the caller’s name and phone number and do a call-back, just to make sure the information given to them is legitimate. All of this will be recorded, whether by wire or by hand, and will be cross-checked against a general public database, a political donor database, and will naturally be Googled as well.

Of course, each of the electors we have lined up for this exercise has been told that they have no obligation to talk to anybody whatsoever, aside from perhaps the Secretary of State’s office, if they are not so inclined.

But those who do will take the information they have gathered, and if it is determined that there is even the slightest hint of anything improper, affidavits will be taken, and the information will be turned over to the Secretary of State, the Attorney General of Florida, the Department of Justice and the FBI.

But I’m not finished.

The political party which initiated the action will also find their electors challenged, and then some, and I’m not even going to clue you into the kind of unpleasant surprises I’m going to come up with in conjunction with that.

Except maybe one. As I mentioned at the top, we have uncovered one prominent name in association with an effort to do this to another party. This person has also indicated a disdain for the Boston Tea Party in the past, and a desire for there to be limited choices on the Florida ballot this November If that happens to be the case - and there is enough reason to believe right now that it is - or in fact, if ANY effort is made to actually knock this party (the BTP) off the Florida ballot that involves this particular person, either directly or indirectly. that individual will become the subject of an investigative report, as comprehensive as myself and my “team” can possibly make it, that will be written and published and will make somebody’s head spin, I can guaran-f**king-tee you, We have a supporter here in Florida who is a private investigator, and who has suggested he would be happy to donate some of his services in this regard.

In the past, however, I have hardly needed any of that. If you’ve got any smart-ass ideas, and you’re not familiar with me, I would suggest you GET familiar with me. I made something of a mini-career out of exposing “sacred cows” who in reality turned out to be phony, two-faced and hypocritical. I spent quite a bit of time in the boxing business, which, believe me, has a lot rougher crowd than this one, and later wrote extensively about it; just go ask some people in that industry, including plenty of regulators, what it means to be “Charles Jay-ed.” Go ahead - call the administrators of the three most important athletic commissions in this country - Keith Kizer of Nevada, Armando Garcia of California and Nick Lembo of New Jersey - all public officials, all appointed by their respective governors.

And then ask them if I’m likely to be bluffing.

This ain’t April 1st, my friends.

Believe me, in this case, in terms of e-mails, personal testimony and other materials, I’ve started with a lot less than I’ve got at my disposal at this very moment.

Why would I do this? Well, it’s not because I want to hurt anybody out of hand. And it isn’t because I am worried about our electors or FOR our electors. No, it’s because if you’re going to speak out fervently for ballot access in public, and then turn around in private and act to obstruct ballot access in a sneaky, backroom fashion. going out of your way to KNOCK PARTIES OFF the ballot, you are not only a hypocrite, but you are engineering a manipulation of something that is precious to me, and to others reading this - the choices voters have among constitutionally-qualified, ballot-qualified candidates in an election.

And by doing so, you are walking squarely into my wheel house, baby.

I guess I’m funny like that. People are kind of funny, too. You know, I’m not sure how much publicity and/or press I’m going to get for myself over the rest of the campaign. But I DO know that people love to read about phony, duplicitous sleazebags. As such, I think I can make this kind of person a “star” of sorts. This investigative report could be as extensive as 10 or 12 parts, but for the sake of as much consolidation as possible I may bring it down to six chapters, a “big six,” if you will. Then again, maybe I could stretch it out to 20. Who knows? But whatever the duration, the pieces wouldn’t even be posted on my campaign website.

Instead, in addition to a separate press release that will go out with each installment, I’ve got a couple of kids standing by in India who, for about $50, will submit each story, MANUALLY, to about 250 article directories. This will create thousands of “backlinks” that are almost sure to, sooner or later, splatter my by-lined material all over Page One of any Google search on this particular “subject.”

Don’t you just love outsourcing?

Best of all, by exposing wolves in sheep’s clothing, we are performing the kind of public service - sticking up LEGITIMATELY for ballot access - that should be a fundamental part of any third-party campaign.

So for those who might be contemplating playing games with me, the Boston Tea Party, and voters’ choices, hey, it’s your prerogative, I suppose. But you can bet your bottom dollar on one thing - when the dust settles, I am going to be sitting here holding a huge chunk of someone’s reputation - without one trace of libel - and I’m going to stuff it right into my trash compactor without batting an eye.

Because you see, other people might be impressed, but I really couldn’t give two shits about the phony reputations of hypocrites.

Go ahead, make my YEAR.

And ruin yours at the same time.

…BUT DON’T GIVE A PENNY TO THIS BURGLAR

United States Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, as you may know by now, has been indicted by a Grand Jury on charges of corruption, specifically of lying about the source of funding for about $250,000 in improvements on his Alaska home in Girdwood. It seems this work had been done by VECO Corporation, a contracting firm involved in the oil industry, for whom Stevens secured millions of dollars in government contracts.

Of course, we want to stipulate that from the standpoint of the indictment, Stevens carries the assumption of innocence until proven guilty. But I’m not the prosecutor, so I’ll proceed in the court of my own opinion. That having been said, let’s forget about the specific charges for a minute, and talk about that which might be getting lost here, which is that if the charges turn out to be true, Stevens has literally stolen billions of dollars from the American taxpayer, and channeled that money in such a away that it resulted in an ultimate financial benefit to him and members of his family.

Not that steering money in that fashion would, in and of itself, make Stevens stick out like a sore thumb in Washington. But Stevens did it with an audacity that has been rarely seen in the halls of Congress; there was an odd sense of entitlement on his part to a permanent position feeding from the public trough.

Stevens’ case will be heard sometime in September. In these kinds of instances, it is highly unusual for someone to get a trial within eight weeks after an indictment. And it is certainly true that Stevens, who will likely get past his August 28 Republican primary but has a fight on his hands against former Anchorage mayor Mark Begich in what might now be considered a rather vainglorious attempt to hold his Senate seat in November, threw some political weight around in order to have this matter disposed of so rapidly.

I’m actually happy about that. The sooner the better, because what it will do is give the voters a better opportunity than anytime in recent years to get an up-close look at the dirty dealings that have been a career hallmark of perhaps the greediest politician of all, well in advance of the general election, so they can reflect and react accordingly.

You see, the average voter may imagine the stereotype of the corrupt lawmaker and shrug shoulders at that kind of thing. After all, some see that as an inevitability of the Washington experience. But that reaction might be violently different when hit right in the face with it, as the Stevens case puts on display the exploits of a true virtuoso, a veritable Peyton Manning of payoffs, if you will, in a milieu where it is front and center for everyone to analyze. I’m betting on a little more anger than existed previously.

Hopefully, the mainstream press will take Stevens’ image and run with it. The man is well-known for his outbursts, sometimes childish, on the Senate floor, when perhaps he couldn’t get enough money appropriated for cronies to properly “wet his beak.” Anyone who follows politics knows this doesn’t come from out of the blue.

Stevens has regularly been exposed as one of the biggest “porkers” in Washington by the taxpayer watchdog group, Citizens Against Government Waste. Here are some of the “awards” he has won from CAGW over the years, as the info is taken from their website:

2008: The Cold Hard Cash Award for $165.7 million in defense pork.
2006: The Cold Shoulder Award for his $325 million in pork for Alaska
2005: The Hogzilla Award for his $646 million in pork for Alaska.
2004: The Whole Hog Award for his $524 million in pork for Alaska.
2003: The Gold Rush Award for his $393 million in pork in Alaska.
2002: The Snow Job Award for his blizzard of $451 million in pork for 2002.
2001: The American Expense Award for his $480 million in pork for 2001. Don’t leave Nome without it!
2000: The Who Wants to Be a Billionaire Award for using the other 49 states as his “porkline” while securing more than $1 billion in earmarks since 1991.
1999: The Kick in the Ash Award for a $2 million monitor to warn airplanes of volcanic ash.
1998: The Half-Baked Alaska Award for cooking up $477 million worth of pork since 1991.

All of that money belongs to you and me. Well, at least it did at one time.

There is no question that part of Stevens’ strategy is to get to trial so fast that prosecutors will not enough time to sufficiently prepare. He’s brought in heavy-hitting Brendan Sullivan, who you may remember as the attorney who defended Oliver North, as well as the FBI agents who were involved in the Ruby Ridge shootout.

Stevens’ statement reads, “I am looking forward to this trial as a way of finally showing the truth - that I’m innocent.”

Well, he may beat the charges, but at least he’ll be tried.

Ordinarily I might say, “Next up, Dick Cheney.”

But I hope there are a lot more crooks in between.

We’ve now begun a drive to get on the ballot in Tennessee. This is particularly important to us because we have some wonderful volunteers there (as one might expect in Tennessee) and are on the verge of forming an state affiliate of the Boston Tea Party.

In addition to that, I have contacted the organizers of the Presidential Candidate’s Alternative Debate, being held at Vanderbilt University on October 6, accepting their invitation to participate (more details on all this soon).

Of course, I have to have the funds to get there, not to mention moving on to other states to get ballot access.

For that, we need you help. So please click HERE or on the button above and help us with our campaign. Any amount helps, but the more we raise, the more potency with which we can spread the message. Liberty. Choice. Small government. The best of everything.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
POC Thomas L. Knapp
media@bostontea.us
314-750-6993

BTP CHAIR TO SHADEGG: YOU’RE CONFUSED

Cyberspace — “How many of you remember the Boston Tea Party? This is the Boston Tea Party!” US Representative John Shadegg (R-AZ) said Friday while leading a Republican protest against Congress’s summer recess.

But members of the Boston Tea Party aren’t Republicans, says Jim Davidson, chair of America’s new libertarian political alternative. “Recess? We wish they’d go home and STAY home,” he says. “The more time Congress spends in Washington, the heavier our chains and the lighter our wallets get.”

Founded in 2006, the Boston Tea Party touts a one-sentence platform: “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.”

“Republicans talk that talk sometimes,” says Davidson. “But the next time they walk it will be the first in living memory. They wouldn’t know smaller government if it walked up behind them and hit them in the pants with a bass fiddle.”

The party, which conducts its national operations — including its conventions — entirely online, has recently chartered affiliates in ten states and expects its presidential candidate, Charles Jay of Florida, to appear on the ballot in at least four states this November. While working to achieve 50-state ballot access over time, the party has endorsed independent, non-partisan and Libertarian candidates in a number of races across the country.

“If Congressman Shadegg wants to be a member of our party, he can start being more pro-freedom … and register at the web site like everyone else,” says Davidson. “We pay as little attention as possible to rants from between the fasces on the House chamber’s wall.”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
07/30/08
POC Thomas L. Knapp
media@bostontea.us
314-750-6993

BOSTON TEA PARTY “OFFICIAL IN FLORIDA;” ADDS AFFILIATES, ENDORSEMENTS

Cyberspace — The Boston Tea Party, America’s new libertarian alternative, is a registration option for Florida’s voters. The Florida BTP, which filed recognition paperwork earlier this month, now appears on the Secretary of State’s official list of parties and party committees.

The party, which conducts its national affairs entirely online, has also added two new state affiliates since mid-month, recognizing new party organizations in Louisiana and North Carolina.

The field of BTP-endorsed candidates for public office has grown from three to 13 since mid-July with the addition of candidates from Alabama (Darryl Perry for US Senate), Indiana (Andrew Horning for Governor), Michigan (Jason Gatties for Lake Michigan College Board and Neil Kiernan Stephenson for Congress), North Carolina (Christopher Cole for US Senate and Susan Hogarth for State Representative), Tennessee (Lisa Leeds for State Representative and Daniel Lewis for US Senate) and Texas (Ron Darby for State Representative and John Roemer for Brazos County Tax Assessor).

The Boston Tea Party’s state affiliates and national committee offer the party’s endorsement to candidates who request it and who in turn endorse the party’s one-sentence platform: “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.”

The party’s presidential candidate, Charles Jay of Florida, has secured ballot access in Colorado, expects to appear on the November ballot in Florida and Louisiana, and is preparing to launch a petition drive in Tennessee. Jay was nominated in an online national party convention in June. The party’s national membership recently passed the 200 mark.

A few days ago I had the pleasure of participating in an online three-way presidential debate, along with the Socialist Party candidate, Brian Moore, and the candidate from the New American Independent Party, Frank McEnulty, who also happens to be the vice-presidential candidate of the Reform Party. I say it was my “pleasure” because it really was. These things are still relatively new to me, as far as sharing the forum with candidates from other parties is concerned. This debate was hosted by Ben Miller of Miller Politics, and it was a lot livelier than I envisioned.

Usually when I have listened to these kinds of things on the internet talk shows, there is a question, then each candidate responds, and it pretty much progresses in an orderly fashion. This was somewhat different. Not that it wasn’t orderly, but it was rather animated at times, even inflammatory. At one point, Moore accused McEnulty of “red-baiting” him, and I raised my voice on a few occasions when the situation warranted it. Brian wound up calling both of us “elites,” which was admittedly kind of funny. Hey - all we called for was free enterprise. “Free markets” is a dirty phrase to socialists, but I just find the reasoning to be kind of inconsistent. Frankly, I don’t know how one could have so little trust in the government when it comes to fighting the phony “war” in Iraq (we all agreed on that point) or in protecting civil liberties, but so much faith and trust in it when it comes down to doling out all the freebies that would be called for under the plan Socialists advocate. Small government is small government; you can’t ask for it to be completely out of your life when it comes to some things and ask it to dominate your life in others. Government just doesn’t work like that. It refuses to work like that. If it gives on one end, it wants to take, take, take on the other. This is something the socialists and liberals can’t seem to get their arms around.

Anyway, at times it became a free-for-all, and to be honest, Frank and I ganged up on Brian quite a bit, after he had read off his talking points. As for me, I was just pacing the room, without notes, which is probably the most comfortable thing for me. I’d probably have a hard time standing at a podium and behaving, like McBama.

As we wrapped things up, I mentioned that one of the truly important things was that we were participating, letting people hear us, and encouraging others to participate in the process, which I think is one of the best reasons to get involved in a political campaign. So I thanked congratulated them and thanked them for stepping forward and giving people another alternative to vote for. One of the positives we can get out of events like this is that, even though there may be conflicting philosophies, there are indeed common threads that all of the third parties share. One of them is the constant battle against the “system” that wants to maintain the duopoly and limit the choices of voters to the career politicians who have their hands out at all times and sell the American taxpayer down the toilet.

The debate was archived and can be heard at Miller Politics’ page at BlogTalkRadio. I hope you give it a listen, and if you like what you heard from this end, please donate something to our campaign. Every little bit is going to help us a lot!

At a Senate hearing on Tuesday, Senator Jim Bunning of Kentucky grilled Henry Paulson, Secretary of the Treasury, about his rather impetuous plan, which will be put before Congress next week, to possibly force taxpayers into providing emergency bailout money for the two private, “government-sponsored” companies who together control about a half of the mortgage finance business - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

As Bunning voiced objections about this proposal, Paulson, who carried into the hearing an arrogance that has come to characterize those in government - and the current administration in particular - who wonder why anyone would ever be so rude as to actually make them answerable for their actions, told him that if he didn’t like the plan, he didn’t have to vote for it.

Of course, Bunning, who rightfully referred to this potential folly as “socialism,” guaranteed he would do anything he possibly could to stop it. To which Paulson retorted, “And maybe you can come up with a better plan.”

Well, now that you mentioned it, yes we can.

The government should do nothing along the lines of any bailout plans.

What is this duopoly anyway, except a pair of private businesses, designed for the purpose of benefiting shareholders, who are coddled and subsidized in-kind by the federal government? And why should those businesses be advantaged by such protection when others in the marketplace have to compete from behind a virtual eight-ball?

Why should taxpayers bear any burden whatsoever when those private businesses - and in many cases the customers they service, I might add - make horrific and unsound decisions? True libertarians know that American citizens do not exist to provide a safety net for speculators, nor should they ever be expected to assume the risk so that comparatively few can profit.

We obviously object to the idea that the American citizen should be obligated to facilitate this obscene exercise in corporate welfare. How can one be a libertarian without understanding that with greater personal freedom comes great personal responsibility? Accordingly, how can we, as proponents of this thing called libertarianism, talk about such personal responsibility, then even broach the issue of furnishing a publicly-funded bailout for those who haven’t shown enough of it?

It’s one thing to be a risk-taker. This nation was built on risk-takers. But how could we possibly promote that it’s quite alright to be financially reckless, because the government will always be there in the end to save you? This is absolutely fundamental, not just for anyone who considers himself or herself to be a libertarian, but who has a basic regard for reasonable government and fairness to taxpayers.

In fact, so fundamental that it isn’t even a close call.

The platform of the political party that nominated me in June is simple: “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.”

And this is the most odious of increases in the size, scope and power of government, as it wants to be an even bigger player in the economy, intruding on free markets, buying stock in companies that compete with others in the industry, and, in corrupt fashion, carving out special favors for itself and its cronies in concert with the Federal Reserve, operating with a blank check and no apparent accountability to the taxpayer.

Barack Obama, as usual, spoke in the abstract, but did say, “I am absolutely committed — both as a senator and should I have the good fortune to be elected president, as president — to make sure that we [have] liquidity in the housing markets. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae play critical roles in that process.” John McCain is more direct about his desire to fund corporate welfare: “I think the actions taken by the Fed on Fannie and Freddie are correct. I hope that the Congress will give them the needed authorization.”

No, in fact, all of this foolishness needs to come to an abrupt end.

That’s why it is in order to commend the LP, at least as it is represented by its media office, for its unambiguous, inflexible stance on this issue, along with those members of Congress who have come to the understanding that the best thing for America - and Americans - is that these private companies are compelled to live and breathe on their own, without ridiculous taxpayer subsidies.

When the matter comes up for vote, let’s hope there are enough of them.

Bob Barr, the “people’s choice” of the Council of Conservative Citizens, addresses the racist group as the keynote speaker at a national convention




_____________________________________________

Recently, ultra-right wing moral conservative presidential candidate Bob Barr wrote a statement in effusive praise of ultra-right wing moral conservative racist former U.S. Senator Jesse Helms, who passed away on the Fourth of July at the age of 86. We’ll spare you any further editorializing (at least for the time being), but we hope you’ll be satisfied as we play this episode of “Dueling Dixiecrats”:

BOB BARR ON THE ATTRIBUTES OF JESSE HELMS: “….unfailing kindness, good humor, generosity and patriotism.”

JESSE HELMS, EXERCISING THAT ‘KINDNESS’ AND ‘GOOD HUMOR’ TOWARD CIVIL RIGHTS ACTIVISTS: “The Negro cannot count forever on the kind of restraint that’s thus far left him free to clog the streets, disrupt traffic, and interfere with other men’s rights.”

___________________________________________________

BOB BARR ON JESSE HELMS: “He was also the consummate gentleman, revered by colleagues…”

JESSE HELMS ON CAROL MOSELEY-BRAUN, WHO BECAME THE FIRST AFRICAN-AMERICAN FEMALE SENATOR IN 1993: “Watch me make her cry. I’m going to make her cry. I’m going to sing ‘Dixie’ until she cries.”

__________________________________________

JESSE HELMS ON GAYS AND AIDS IN 1995: “The government should spend less money on people with AIDS because they get sick as a result of deliberate, disgusting, revolting conduct.”

BOB BARR ON GAYS AND MARRIAGE: “The institution of marriage is under assault by homosexuals (perhaps this was between the time homosexuals assaulted his first marriage and the time they assaulted his second marriage).”

______________________________________________

JESSE HELMS ON THE INTELLECT OF AFRICAN-AMERICANS: “No intelligent Negro citizen should be insulted by this very plain fact of life - it is time to face honestly and sincerely the purely statistical evidence of natural racial distinction in group intellect.”

BOB BARR USING HIS OWN “INTELLECT”: “The flames of hedonism, the flames of self-centered morality are licking at the very foundations of our society: the family unit.”

_________________________________________

BOB BARR ON JESSE HELMS: “As a nation we are stronger and the world is freer for his commitment to liberty.”

JESSE HELMS ON THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964: “The single most dangerous piece of legislation ever introduced in the Congress.”

_________________________________________________

JESSE HELMS ON HOMOSEXUALS: “….weak, morally sick wretches.”

BOB BARR ON JESSE HELMS: “We should stop and give thanks to God for the life and work of Jesse Helms.”

_________________________________________________

BOB BARR ON JESSE HELMS: “….one of the finest, most courageous and deeply principled men to ever serve in the United States Congress.”

JESSE HELMS ON HIS OWN “PRINCIPLES”: “I’ve been portrayed as a caveman by some. That’s not true. I’m a conservative progressive, and that means I think all men are equal, be they slants, beaners, or niggers.”

Since I am in one of those “free and easy” kinds of moods, I was wondering whether I could be so bold as to put a few creative (or “subversive” as the LNC might read it) ideas into your head.

As a presidential candidate for the Boston Tea Party, I am obviously tuned in to some of the discontent that currently exists in the Libertarian Party, especially as the BTP is growing at a fast pace as a result of it. Yet, even with this unhappiness, which has sometimes bordered on outrage, I have noticed a loyalty in some members of the party that extends to supporting the very candidate who was the source of such discontent in the first place.

And it makes me kind of curious.

Sure, it would seem illogical, and may indeed be the by-product of a certain political expediency (i.e., a matter of ballot access down the ticket). I’m sure there is also that sense of hope, that somehow a party that has suddenly taken a sharp turn in the wrong direction will be able to correct itself so that it can indeed again lay claim to being about libertarians and libertarianism.

I also appreciate that folks have something invested in the party and want to see things through. I admittedly don’t share that connection, and haven’t built up a lot of equity in the so-called “Party of Principle.”

That having been said, though, such hope for the LP at this point would be highly optimistic.

The party you worked with for years is gone. And it’s not likely to make a comeback.

For those of you who are begrudgingly supporting the LP candidate for president, I’d like for you to indulge me for a moment. If you would, take a step back, look into yourself, take a deep breath, and ask yourself the following questions:

– In the history of the LP, has there EVER been a party leader (and let’s operate on the principle that a presidential candidate is a party leader) who has led a moral crusade as something fundamental to the advancement of his career; in fact, as something that was essential to his very existence as a “public servant”?

– In the party’s 37-year history, has any Libertarian candidate for national office ever said this?: “America has lost its moral way. I support legislation to allow states and local governments to allow prayer and displays of the Ten Commandments in public places, without violating federal law or the Constitution. I believe this would lead us one step closer to renewing America’s moral foundation.”

– Is it not antithetical to ANY interpretation of libertarian principles to not only crusade against freedom of choice for a group like medical marijuana patients, but to publicly denounce medical marijuana as “bogus witchcraft” while vigorously campaigning to prevent the votes from being counted in a referendum that would let the public’s voice be heard on this issue? Has any leading figure in the Libertarian Party EVER pro-actively tried to override the democratic process in such an odious manner?

– Has any national leader in the libertarian movement ever embraced a group like the Council of Conservative Citizens, which state, as part of its “Principles”:

“We believe that the United States of America is a Christian country, that its people are a Christian people, and that its government and public leaders at all levels must reflect Christian beliefs and values.”

and……

“We believe that the United States derives from and is an integral part of European civilization and the European people and that the American people and government should remain European in their composition and character. We therefore oppose the massive immigration of non-European and non-Western peoples into the United States that threatens to transform our nation into a non-European majority in our lifetime.”

not to mention…..

“We believe in the traditional family as the basic unit of human society and morality, and we oppose all efforts by the state and other powers to weaken the structure of the American family through toleration of sexual licentiousness, homosexuality and other perversions, mixture of the races, pornography in all forms, and subversion of the authority of parents.”

????????????

– Has anyone representing the Libertarian Party on a national level EVER said, “The institution of marriage is under assault by homosexuals” ?

If you have the answers, I would be anxious to hear them (Feel free to send me an email: charlesjay99@gmail.com).

Chances are you don’t.

And if that’s the case, now ask yourself the following:

– Is this the kind of person who represents the vision of libertarianism I have been working for all this time? Is this someone I want to be identified with?

– Is party affiliation, ballot access and the extra “media exposure” worth it to sell out to an anti-libertarian? For the sake of what, getting one more percentage point than we got four years ago? Is it worth the real price?

– Is a party who nominated a man like this really worth staying with, for even one more minute?

And then, let me ask YOU:

Can you stand up and look yourself in the mirror, in support of a candidate who - and let’s forget the “new” and convenient rhetoric - has demonstrated himself to be a drug warrior, gay-basher, phony moralizer, obstructionist to democracy, free speech enemy, and antagonist toward minority groups, and still purport to hang the label of “libertarian” on yourself, whether it be with a small “l” or capital “L”?

I suppose that’s an answer only you can provide.

But remember, what you’re seeing now is NOT intended as an aberration. The same people who brought you this guy have every intention of bringing forth many more like him.

If that is the kind of candidacy that gives you pause upon reflection, you may wonder what you can possibly do about it.

Well, you could complain, I guess. Editorials, blog posts, guest columns, comments in forums and elsewhere are a terrific exercise of the First Amendment.

But when the people who made the decision to alienate you have no desire to listen, the effect is minimal.

If you really wanted to send a message, there are more effective ways to do it. One of them, naturally, is not to vote for the drug warrior/gay-basher/race antagonist/Dixiecrat/free speech enemy. That ultimately will serve a purpose.

But who knows; the more adventurous types may want to go a step farther than that.

For instance - and I’m just thinking out loud here - I wonder if it wouldn’t be a pretty potent way of sending a message of dissatisfaction for a state chapter of the LP to say to itself, “Hey guys, instead of putting your anti-libertarian candidate on the ballot, we are going to do something that may seem foreign to you - we’re going to put a REAL libertarian on the ballot instead.”

Yes, I understand the natural resistance to something like this - it goes back to the loyalty thing, and that’s admirable. But then we have to bring into the discussion the question of just who was disloyal first, don’t we?

And if you are worried about “blowback,” as one LP member has actually intimated to me, well, let me suggest that the national party needs the states much more than the states need the national party. And if the national party has left YOU, you might consider leaving IT, at least as it concerns this election cycle and the top of the party’s ticket.

It’s all your choice, of course. But a choice is exactly what we are here to give you.

If, on this July 4th weekend, you have an interest in “declaring your independence” from a party that is looking to take you in its own solipsistic direction, we have a genuine alternative - a REAL libertarian alternative - right here at the Boston Tea Party.

Come on home. We’ll leave the light on for ‘ya.

If you are upset about the way the concept of “states rights” is sometimes used as a vehicle to short-circuit individual rights, you may want to check out a new Facebook group created by my running mate, Thomas Knapp.

“Dixiecrats Are Not Libertarians” pretty much says it all - for those who want to hide behind the “libertarian” banner, invoking “states rights” to take away certain freedoms of choice, you are being watched!