tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15223975209563715092024-03-12T18:44:03.385-07:00Some Savvy Sooner"When the government fears the people, there is liberty; when the people fear the government, there is tyranny." - Thomas JeffersonD. Frank Robinsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03262143401112395859noreply@blogger.comBlogger66125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522397520956371509.post-2386037387718658872010-02-26T04:54:00.000-08:002010-02-26T04:57:25.021-08:00New Stuff forthcomingIt will soon be time to trudge to the polls. Some will, some won't. Does it really matter?D. Frank Robinsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03262143401112395859noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522397520956371509.post-14026980311010577952008-05-17T15:59:00.000-07:002008-05-17T16:21:10.779-07:00Bob, Bob, Bob and weaveI held a brief and vain, I now see, hope that Bob Barr might take the message of the Ron Paul Revolution to the general election as the Libertarian Party presidential nominee. In fact, after my encouraging post on Bob's website he asked me to endorse his candidacy for the LP nomination. We exchanged a few emails, the gist being that I asked him to pledge to feature the abolition of the Federal Reserve prominently as an issue in his campaign. Bob demurred diplomatically. So, I only gave him a statement of general support - not an endorsement. I waited for his official announcement - too much Bob and weave.<br /><br />He is now officially announced for the nomination. I'm glad Mr. Barr is stepping into this contest. He has the opportunity to learn a lot about libertarians that he doesn't seem to understand yet. Being refused the nomination by the convention could do him good - if he is in this for the long run. I wish him well in his pursuit of a deeper understanding of what libertarians want. In four more years, he might be ready. Today, he doesn't get it. That's not harsh I think. Bob Barr may have come a long way from Langley but he still has long way to go - if he wants to make the effort.<br /><br />For someone else's take see Tom Knapp's blog: <a href="http://knappster.blogspot.com/2008/05/barrs-line-in-sand.html">http://knappster.blogspot.com/2008/05/barrs-line-in-sand.html</a>D. Frank Robinsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03262143401112395859noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522397520956371509.post-10798150037859701462008-05-12T22:37:00.000-07:002008-05-12T22:44:19.970-07:00I like to watch.There is a local "non-partisan" election Tuesday in my neighborhood. It's a yes/no issue election. I will vote. I will also request that I watch the ballot counting. I'll let you know what happens Tuesday night.D. Frank Robinsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03262143401112395859noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522397520956371509.post-86970466077682768322008-05-11T13:38:00.000-07:002008-05-11T21:08:26.010-07:00Political Party Models. Toys before the RevolutionFrom the Website of George Phillies, candidate for the Libertarian Party presidential nomination, 2008. <br /><br />Posted on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:13 PM EST<br />Local Organization -- The Path to Libertarian Victory<br /><br />"I begin with the most fundamental issue<br /><br />The Purpose of a Political Party is<br /><br /> * to Advance Its Agenda,<br /> * to Run Candidates and Win Elections, and<br /> * to Use Electoral Victory to Put Its Program into Effect.<br /><br />Our objective is to create a Libertarian Party that achieves its purpose in our lifetimes. Our objective is to use democratic practices to put into practice our political agenda, the agenda of freedom, small government, low taxes, and the entire Bill of Rights. Our objective is to elect Libertarians who will put Libertarian policies into effect everywhere. Our objective is Libertarian control of town halls, statehouses, the Federal Congress, and executive branches across the Republic. Our objective is political victory."<br /><br />-end-<br /><br />I have selected the item not because it is anomalous. On the contrary, it's representative of a typical model for a political party in the United States. It is a model based upon certain assumptions about the legal context in which a political party is permitted to function. These assumptions are wrong.<br /><br />Consider objective one: to Advance Its Agenda. <br /><br />This seems almost self-evident or tautological. Advancing an agenda has many possible modes. The modes for "advancing" depend on the message crafted in the "agenda". <br /><br />The modes for advancing the agenda are also dependent upon the social constraints which are accepted that limit communication. These constraints range from social and cultural mores to legalized and coercively enforced constraints. <br /><br />Here my discussion will focus on the coercively enforced constraints. <br /><br />The first restraint is economic in various forms for licensing and rationing communication. Campaign financing regulation and financial quotas serve to suppress competition by creating a political cartel structure. The communication of certain agendas is burdened by imposing opportunity costs through bureaucratic make work and worry work - forms, labor intensive "expertise", etc. The present scheme of censorship by campaign finance regulation was imposed in the last quarter of the 20th Century. It has functioned adequately to support a two-party political cartel by suppressing competition from 'new' parties. <br /><br />In the 21st Century no new party or any party in existence since 1974 has demonstrated that it can overcome the campaign finance cartel and survive for more than two election cycles - except by staying below the threshold of electoral significance. In short, only 'Mom and Pop' political parties can exist under this regime because they cannot compete with the cartel. <br /><br />Campaign finance censorship alone assures that the second objective: to Run Candidates and Win Elections, is so remote as to be 'academic'. Elections can be won, but only local elections that don't threaten cartel power. No state-wide or U.S. Congressional office can be won by a 'new' party - by a personality, yes, but not by a real party candidate. <br /><br />This means that the intention defined in Objective One cannot be executed by means of Objective Two. The effective blocking of both these two objectives makes Objective Three illusory. The road block of campaign finance cannot be overcome without payment of an enormous tariff to begin effective communication. Such a tariff can be overcome only by billionaires - clients of the cartel itself.<br /><br />Behind the campaign finance barriers are those electoral processes which have embedded in law since the 1890's. <br /><br />These legalized barriers are mainly an intricately woven complex of election laws regarding candidate access to the ballot, voter registration censorship and suppression, gerrymandering, etc., and, as necessary, election fraud and false counting of ballots. The attempts to mandate a monopoly of electronic, pre-riggable voting machines is a further example of cartel distrust of a new party gaining favor with the voters. <br /><br />More deeply embedded are the disregard of Constitutional safeguards against "factions" entrenching themselves in power. The prime example of this is the century long refusal of the cartel parties to enlarge the size of the U.S. House of Representatives so that a reasonable ratio of representation to the population is maintained. The size of the House of Representatives was frozen by law, not by constitutional provision, in the first two decades of the 20th Century by an accord between the Democratic and Republican parties to essentially "split the electorate" between them and reduce the opportunities for new party candidates to emerge and gain a balance of power between the two cartel parties. <br /><br />This inter-party accord also skewed the Electoral College vote to further impede new party candidates for the Presidency. The Electoral College winner-take-all bias in favor of either of the cartel parties cannot be overcome - even if the states were to allow voters to have their Electoral College vote tallied and allocated by congressional district. The districts are too populous and too few. <br /><br />There is much more to this, but suffice to say that most new parties while aware of elements of their legalized torture, typically focus on only one or two aspects and tout silver-bullet reforms which they can never hope to implement because they will never get elected to implement them. Furthermore, the new parties tend to couch their appeals to how the system is unfair to their parties. They seldom attempt to show the people how the system is unfair to the people generally. <br /><br />No new party has formulated a comprehensive analysis and focused on electoral reform as central to the best interests of the American people. As a consequence, many new parties continue to fight among and within themselves over techniques and tactics and public relations and images. This suits the cartel parties just fine and when such superficialities recede into the background in a new party, new exploiters of the superficial can be encouraged to rev-up the same old zero-sum game whose message is: WE must being doing something wrong! The system ain't the real problem...is it? Well, is it?<br /><br />Sadly, it is the electoral system. New parties can't win by the cartel rules unless and until they take their case directly to the people - both as 'candidates', even if their candidacies are deemed 'illegal', and, by non-election activities. The people of the United States already know their votes seldom do more than defer what the cartel wants. If the cartel wants war, the people will suffer. If the cartel wants monetary disaster, the people will suffer. The voters can complain enough to make the cartel alter its PR, but the people already know they really have no alternatives, but they do wish that they did. <br /><br />New political parties really have lost over the last quarter-century by default. It's the election, stupid! It's RIGGED! If you won't tell the people the 'how and why' and show them solutions, then you will keep on losing and continue to serve as the 'Mom and Pop' example of how democracy still flourishes in the United States. The reason the people don't vote for new parties is because they can't! A new parties are tolerated as tokens by the cartel parties. <br /><br />In time, events may get out of the cartel's control and they will experience "instability." At that time, the people will look first to a new party with an agenda that explains how they got screwed at the polling place for so long and how it can prevented in the future. If they can find such a party. If the people cannot find a channel of leadership in such a party, they will seek leaders elsewhere...in a charismatic revolutionary selling them redemption by blood and fire. <br /><br />In which case, the new parties will share some of the responsibility which the cartel alone should bear. <br /><br />Happy Mother's Day, may she forgive you.D. Frank Robinsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03262143401112395859noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522397520956371509.post-87499602940361390132008-04-14T23:32:00.000-07:002008-04-14T23:45:27.814-07:00April 15th: Proof there is no constitutionThere is no constitution. You have no protected rights because the State is not and cannot be the guardian of your rights. You and you alone are the guardian of your rights. Pay those taxes and further your own abuse. None of it belongs to you because none of it is beyond the claim of the State. If you want to begin to recover the means to regain your rights, then buy gold and clean your weapons while you still can. Soon you lose the dispensation and you will have neither guns nor gold. Utterly enslaved. <br /><br />Don't whine about democracy saving you. You have no candidates of your own and the elections are rigged against you having any candidate of your own. No constitution, no democracy. <br /><br />Flee or fight. Either is honorable. Submission is never honorable. Get your travel papers in order and get out of the American Reich while you can. <br /><br />Happy Tax and Death Day.D. Frank Robinsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03262143401112395859noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522397520956371509.post-32086557970891379672008-02-27T15:07:00.000-08:002008-02-27T15:12:51.552-08:00Inedible Melting Dollar<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhCTa34VwIRZvSLplWRopRgIbijBPIxynpgzQJafeL2ZH-Pqr5EJ4XW2Y-AuO4Fr9PLAzBhyphenhyphenlrPNvGeSU3Aa9oN1-HR4fSvIOx9PifJd1eseAo8-gxgrMkK98zlXjB9SlqhSHYept3rbvrG/s1600-h/Melting+dollar.gif"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhCTa34VwIRZvSLplWRopRgIbijBPIxynpgzQJafeL2ZH-Pqr5EJ4XW2Y-AuO4Fr9PLAzBhyphenhyphenlrPNvGeSU3Aa9oN1-HR4fSvIOx9PifJd1eseAo8-gxgrMkK98zlXjB9SlqhSHYept3rbvrG/s320/Melting+dollar.gif" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5171801128596631714" border="0" /></a>Still won't buy gold? Make a sandwich with your dollar bills. One ounce of gold will buy you about 400 hamburgers.D. Frank Robinsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03262143401112395859noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522397520956371509.post-77794853380078447922008-02-20T01:55:00.000-08:002008-02-20T02:23:19.646-08:00Seditious Petitioning in AmericaWho are the Oklahoma 3?<br /><br />"The Oklahoma 3 were indicted based on allegations of felony misconduct stemming from a 2005 petition drive for the Oklahoma TABOR initiative, which would have placed a Taxpayer Bill of Rights initiative on Oklahoma's November 2006 general election ballot.<br /><br />Jacob, Johnson, and Carpenter were indicted on felony charges of "conspiracy to defraud the state." Carpenter was charged with a second felony, that of violating the state's petition act. According to an Associated Press report, "The indictment accuses the three of 'willfully, corruptly, deceitfully, fraudulently and feloniously' conspiring with each other to defraud the state through the collection of signatures on the TABOR petition."<br /><br />The Oklahoma 3 each face up to ten years in prison and a $25,000 fine. Defense efforts immediately went into action, primarily through the FreePaulJacob.com web site. "<br /><br />-Tom Saunders<br /><br /><a href="http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Oklahoma_3">http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Oklahoma_3</a><br /><br />This indictment also effectively aborted a ballot access petition campaign in Oklahoma.<br /><br /><br />What is a 'petition for redress of grievances'?<br /><br />It is a public declaration in specific terms setting forth to those in temporary authority that if certain "laws" are not repealed, then the people will assert their natural right of revolution.<br /><br />The American war of secession from Great Britain was preceded by numerous such petitions and finally by the Declaration of Independence (or secession).<br /><br />The right of secession is still accepted in international law. See support for the recent Kosovo secession endorsed even by G. W. Bush. (At least when expedient.)<br /><br />The modern rebuttal to the right of secession rest on the presumption of democratic "due process", i.e., "fair and free" elections. If the people have access to such elections then, it is asserted, they cannot justify secession or the overthrow of "democratically chosen" authority. Apparently, no matter how oppressive that authority may be of individual human rights. In other words, if a majority votes in a "fair and free" election to accept slavery, then a majority overrules the right of secession. That's the sophistry presented.<br /><br />How are elections evaluated as fair and free? By the pronouncement of selected officials of some other political regime deemed democratic. Thus, elections are given as an initiation ceremony into the international fraternity of legitimate governments who reserved the right to intervene anywhere to enforce 'legitimate democratic governments'. This fraternity is not a confederation of people in the various states. It is a coalition of ruling elites against the peoples of various states and the right of those people to revolution and secession whenever elections are a sham and fraud - as they are in all countries today. All governments impose barriers to open, fair and free elections. None can invoke the the "self-immunity clause" of democratic consent. Consent of the governed has disappeared world-wide. Therefore, all people have the right to petition for a redress of grievances and undertake revolution and secession.<br /><br />This is what the prosecution of the Oklahoma 3 exemplifies. This is what the hijacking of the monetary relation and the imposition of the fiat money credit system exemplifies.<br /><br />The circulation of a petition is a private, consensual activity between political equals. The circulation of money and voluntarily agreed money substitutes is a private, consensual activity between economic equals. Intervention against either of these processes is tyranny and sufficient grounds for secession. Prosecution of the Oklahoma 3 is a link in a chain that connects directly to Kosovo and the gold issue.<br /><br />If people have the right to choose their own money, no government aspiring to authoritarian control can get a grip on the people's liberty.<br /><br />Emigration has been an historic means of comparatively peaceful secession from a more oppressive regime to a less oppressive regime. The Americas have been overrun secessionists from Asia and then the entire globe. The recent U.S. influx of partial and complete secessionists from other countries is just normal. Get over it and adopt them as allies in a war of secession against an arbitrary and increasingly inherited quasi-nobility of fascists.<br /><br />[The government has determined this communication is in violation of law and is terminated. You have been warned!]<br /><br />NO! You, Sir, Have been warned!D. Frank Robinsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03262143401112395859noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522397520956371509.post-10052903181231604212008-02-17T05:02:00.000-08:002008-02-17T05:05:23.023-08:00Who cooks the election returns?Who is most responsible for the inequities of American elections? See: <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><a href="http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d01470.pdf">The Scope of Congressional Authority in Election Administration (PDF)</a></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><a href="http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d01470.pdf"><br /></a></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">The document cited above makes clear that Congress assumes 'penultimate' authority with the support of the U.S. Supreme Court for this claim of authority. For this discussion we will accept the Congressional claim of authority at face value. Therefore, we conclude that the U.S. Congress is also most responsible for the inequities of American elections.</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br /> </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">The states do whatever they wish to do because the Congress implicitly condones whatever is done at the state level until or unless the Congress choses to preempt state action. Whatever goes unchallenged at the state level is presumptively upheld by the courts whenever the Congress has refused to act specifically on that issue. Over time ample precedent is built to sustain Congressional inaction.</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br /> </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">The partisan coalition of the Congress assures that no state action will be questioned that serves to sustain that coalition from competitive threats unless it takes a form that is grossly embarrassing to the democratic facade.</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br /> </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Oklahoma is a state whose political coalition seems to pride themselves in skating as closely as possible to the grossly embarrassing with its ballot access law, for example. I would like to know if there is any correlation between political corruption (by the number of officeholders convicted) in a state and the restrictiveness of that state's ballot access law. Any political science students want to take on that project?</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br /> </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">While the Oklahoma Legislature has a despicable record on this subject since David Boren was in the State House of Representatives, the U.S. Congress claims for itself the discredit of being the most contemptible of the two institutions. In these matters, the courts know what Congressional intent is: leave well enough alone.</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br /> </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">The same analysis holds for mere vote counting between coalition members. Either party candidate is far preferable to outsider party candidate. Since losing or stealing votes from outsider candidates does change the final outcome of the election between a D or an R, it's just a technicality. Unless you can poll more than 33 1/3 of the vote, none of your votes really matter. But elections can also be corrupt even between the members of the coalition. One one wonders how the U.S. Supreme Court really decided the 2000 election. Did they just flip a coin in chambers? Letting the people decide is a mere formality. The penultimate authority – Congress – didn't want to touch the election even though it was their constitutional responsibility to do it. Why not left the SCOTUS flip a coin and declare their decision set no precedent?</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br /> </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">What constitution? Never mind. Nothing to see here. Move along. </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br /></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br /></p>D. Frank Robinsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03262143401112395859noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522397520956371509.post-26542658741544017502008-02-10T03:54:00.000-08:002008-02-10T03:58:49.160-08:00The Last Free Election in America<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br /></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">I don't know when the last free election was held in the United States. It won't be in 2008. It wasn't in 2004, 2000, 1996, 1992, 1988, 1984, 1980, 1976, 1972, 1968, 1964. Those are the presidential elections I have been eligible to vote in my lifetime. I don't consider any of those elections as free and open contests. Hence, I conclude that the American people have lost all of those elections and they have already lost the 2008 election. </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br /></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">There is really nothing audacious about this claim. The purpose of elections in the U.S. is to restrain political power and sustain a constitutional regime. No living American has seen an election which met this standard. </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br /></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">All elections are flawed exercises, but some are grossly flawed. Elections in the U.S. Have become 'progressively' more grossly flawed since at least the first decade of the 20<sup>th</sup> Century. All elections since the War of Secession (Civil War) were flawed by racists barriers. That flaw has diminished, but other flaws have deepened to nullify the effectiveness of elections for every American. </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br /></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Elections are irrelevant in effecting real political control in the U.S. </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br /></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">For scope let us consider the forthcoming 2008 pseudo-election. What is at risk in every American election? Lives and treasure – life, liberty and property. What has government done to preserve these private values? Nothing. It has operated against them. </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br /></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Life is not sustained by government killing citizens. Liberty is not sustained by violations of individual rights by government. Property is not sustained by government regulations and monetary depredations. </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">In short-hand terms its all about war, criminal law, the destruction of private property values, and debasing money and credit. </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br /></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">What “leading candidates” has presented a program to reverse the politicization of criminal law, the politicization of property or money-credit? None. Ron Paul cannot reach the levers of power which would enable the people to control and restrain state power. They have lost the election of 2008. </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br /></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">The consequences will be further and increasingly severe losses of life, liberty and property. </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br /></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Is there a fall-back strategy for the people? Do they have recourse to failed democracy? Of course, people always have choices and they always fall into two broad categories: violent resistance, revolt, revolution or picking up as many marbles as they can and deserting the regime. Historically, people always use both tactics as best they can in their own personal circumstances. </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br /></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">I think for many people desertion is the best tactic, or buy gold and leave the country. For other people the best tactic is to buy gold and clean their weapons and wait to strike. </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br /></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">The U.S. is now a porous concentration camp. Formal imprisonment is just a transfer from one building to another before you make it through the fences. </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br /></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">So, vote early and vote often, it doesn't matter. Then run! </p>D. Frank Robinsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03262143401112395859noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522397520956371509.post-39211176167232632762008-01-14T18:35:00.000-08:002008-01-14T18:40:06.833-08:00The People's Gold“Gold, which used to be a symbol of the greed of empires, has ironically become a grass-roots revolt against the ‘imperial’ management of money by the state,” says Alvaro Vargas Llosa. - Independent Institute<br /><p><b>Rising Gold Prices Signal Inflation Worries</b> </p><p>Judging by the run-up in the price of gold, people’s confidence in the U.S. monetary system has waned since 2001, but especially over the past month. Investors worry that inflation and a resulting weakening dollar will inflict lasting damage on the U.S. economy. It is this fear—and the excessive monetary growth that drives price inflation—that has pushed the price of gold above $900 per once, according to <b>Alvaro Vargas Llosa</b>, director of the Independent Institute’s Center on Global Prosperity. </p><p>“Unlike oil, whose rising demand has a direct connection to increasing economic production in places such as <span style="border-bottom: 1px dashed rgb(0, 102, 204); cursor: pointer;" class="yshortcuts" id="lw_1200364037_5">China</span>, the demand for gold is not tied to productive needs so much as to the psychological factor we usually call insecurity,” writes Vargas Llosa in his latest syndicated column for the Washington Post Writers Group. </p><p>“Gold, which used to be a symbol of the greed of empires, has ironically become a grass-roots revolt against the ‘imperial’ management of money by the state,” he continues. “In colonial times, gold was actually the creator of, rather than a safe haven from, inflation: by flooding the European market with bullion from the Americas, the Spanish empire caused a general distortion of prices. Today, the general distortion of prices—reflected in the credit and housing market crisis—has led people, through their investment fund managers, to rush toward gold in search of protection.” </p><p><a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=2096"><span class="yshortcuts" id="lw_1200364037_6">“The People’s Gold,”</span></a> by Alvaro Vargas Llosa (1/9/08) <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://www.elindependent.org/articulos/article.asp?id=2096"><span class="yshortcuts" id="lw_1200364037_7">Spanish Translation</span></a> </p>D. Frank Robinsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03262143401112395859noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522397520956371509.post-74247197304018080812008-01-13T09:19:00.000-08:002008-01-13T09:21:37.236-08:00Tell Me Something I don't KnowTell me something I don't know as they say on CBS's Chris Mathews Show.<br /><br />What the hell is a populist-libertarian or libertarian-populist?<br /><br />In his book The Populist Persuasion Michael Kazin traces "two different but not exclusive strains of vision and protest" in the original US Populist movement: the revivalist "pietistic impulse issuing from the Protestant Reformation;" and the "secular faith of the Enlightenment, the belief that ordinary people could think and act rationally, more rationally, in fact, than their ancestral overlords." - Kazin, The Populist Persuasion, pp. 10-11.<br /><br />- Producerism-the idea that the real Americans are hard-working people who create goods and wealth while fighting against parasites at the top and bottom of society who pick our pocket...sometimes promoting scapegoating and the blurring of issues of class and economic justice, and with a history of assuming proper citizenship is defined by White males;<br /><br />- Anti-elitism-a suspicion of politicians, powerful people, the wealthy, and high culture...sometimes leading to conspiracist allegations about control of the world by secret elites, especially the scapegoating of Jews as sinister and powerful manipulators of the economy or media;<br /><br />- Anti-intellectualism-a distrust of those pointy headed professors in their Ivory Towers...sometimes undercutting rational debate by discarding logic and factual evidence in favor of following the emotional appeals of demagogues;<br /><br />- Majoritarianism-the notion that the will of the majority of people has absolute primacy in matters of governance...sacrificing rights for minorities, especially people of color;<br /><br />- Moralism-evangelical-style campaigns rooted in Protestant revivalism... sometimes leading to authoritarian and theocratic attempts to impose orthodoxy, especially relating to gender.<br /><br />- Americanism-a form of patriotic nationalism...often promoting ethnocentric, nativist, or xenophobic fears that immigrants bring alien ideas and customs that are toxic to our culture.<br /><br />The resurgent right-wing forms of populism borrow from these traditions. (1)<br /><br />These six characteristics above mark the establishment academic critique of populism as a proto-fascist movement.<br /><br />I disagree. As I see it, the essential root of populism in the U.S. is debtor revolt against a creditor elite which has seized control of government to extract rents from the general population by debt and taxes. All the other characteristics cited by establishment academics are transitory contigenicies of historical circumstances. Secondary details, not irrelevant, but secondary consequentials.<br /><br />Libertarian-populism is rooted in Austrian School economic analysis of money and credit. Populism is like an immune response to the parasitical effects of inflation and debt. The social immune response of populism can cause symptoms that are uncomfortable and even dangerous to an entire society of individuals. But criticizing those symptoms evades the core of disease. That core is best understood by Austrian/libertarian economic analysis.<br /><br />In a nutshell, libertarian-populism is an accurate explanation of the sentiment for revolt held by the vast majority of people in the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries against the Wall Street-Washington 'Axis of Evil'. It is a revolt against the elites' manipulation of money and credit.<br /><br />Even more bluntly, it's all about the money, stupid!<br /><br /><br />1) This list is a compilation of points made previously by Canovan and Kazin, as well as John Higham, Strangers in the Land: Patterns of American Nativism 1860-1925 (New York: Atheneum, 1972); Richard Hofstadter, "The Paranoid Style in American Politics," in The Paranoid Style in American Politics and Other Essays (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1965); and David H. Bennett, The Party of Fear: The American Far Right from Nativism to the Militia Movement, (New York: Vintage Books, revised 1995, (1988)).D. Frank Robinsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03262143401112395859noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522397520956371509.post-70137282309192020732008-01-12T19:10:00.000-08:002008-01-12T19:18:36.393-08:00Why Americans don't save? It's the Axis of Evil!There is a lot of economic blather in political circles about the US trade deficit. The typical blather focuses on the currency spread between the dollar and US trading partners. A cheap dollar blather is that it will make US exports cheaper and that will fix the trade deficit. The prospect of that is bleak. The US doesn't make enough stuff to export and currencies cannot be that easily manipulated without other consequences. An alternative fix for the trade deficit is for Americans to save more and not spend so much on imported goods. That would work, but what are Americans supposed to put their savings into?<br /><br />If we just burned 10% of our cash we couldn't spend it on imports. Is that saving? It would certainly reduce imports by 4 to 8 percent. The point is that putting money into a bank savings account or similar instrument is just a slow way to burn cash and it would reduce imports...somewhat. What's the incentive to defer consumption by "saving" with a slow burn or a sudden bonfire?<br /><br />Americans don't save because it is irrational in this economic environment. Money spent on any gadget or service returns some benefit greater than just burning your cash.<br /><br />Fortunately, there is a way to save even now, but 90% or more of the population is clueless about how to do it. The answer: Switch your savings out of the US Dollar into foreign currency - some usually burn slower than the US Dollar. How about a fireproof savings vehicle? Yeah, you know what's coming next.<br /><br />Buy gold. It's a patriotic act in the sense that it lowers the US trade deficit. It's also patriotic because it undercuts the bankers' central banking cartel and money/credit expansion engine.<br /><br />Gold is for savings because is the most non-depreciating commodity available. The only thing that might depreciate gold would be a sudden discover of a massive deposit of ore that could be cheaply mined. Not likely at all. It is far more expensive to recover gold than oil. Oil is consumed. Very little gold is 'consumed'. It merely changes forms from bullion to coins to jewelry to bullion. Most of what is used in industrial production is recovered. Gold is a very "sustainable" resource.<br /><br />Who besides Ron Paul among the candidates is willing to give the game away? No one yet. It's so easy to blame the Chinese or anybody but the financial/banking/political elites. Wall Street-Washington: The Axis of Evil.D. Frank Robinsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03262143401112395859noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522397520956371509.post-8538805990576646842007-12-29T16:32:00.000-08:002007-12-29T16:34:28.006-08:002008: A Golden YearWith so many analysts forecasting that gold will rise to at least $900 an ounce next year and perhaps reach those levels in the first quarter, investors should be accumulating gold at these price levels.<span style=""> </span>Just as gold was a bargain at $340, $540, $640, and $740, it is now a bargain at the $840 level.<br /><br />I expect to see $1000 gold by April. Your own due diligence is necessary.D. Frank Robinsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03262143401112395859noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522397520956371509.post-60925629304385950852007-12-22T03:18:00.000-08:002007-12-22T03:52:49.734-08:00Constitutional Conventions and OathsGeorge Phillies ( a candidate for the Libertarian Party presidential nomination) announced his position of taking the Presidential Oath of Office on the Constitution instead of the Bible jogged my memory and fired off a few neurons.<br /><br />No criticism of George. He can take the Oath on the Constitution or Man, Economy and State. Nothing in the Constitution requires the use of any book to administer the Oath of Office. I recall when being sworn into the USAF no Bibles were used.<br /><br />No what troubles me is swearing to uphold the Constitution just isn't good enough. The Constitution as a practical instrument has failed. Swearing on the Articles of Confederation would seem to be an odd thing to do for a Constitutional officer. But I think the Articles would be a more realistic political aspiration.<br /><br />Bill Moyers interviewed Stanford 'Sandy' Levinson who is advocating a constitutional convention be called in his book 'Our Undemocratic Constitution: Where the Constitution Goes Wrong'. I haven't read this book yet, but I have thought about how the American people could extract themselves from the present oppressive regime of government - I have thought about reform within the framework of the present system; I have considered how the people themselves in the states might convene a convention in each state to propose a new national instrument of government and then take 50 proposals and boil them into a series of run-off plebesites to get a final national plebesite head to head with the current regime constitution and an alternative.<br /><br />I might advocate such a procedure because I am highly suspicious of a centralized convention with a winner take all outcome without the intermediation popular input - elections between all the proposals. Instead of a two-party election.<br /><br />But I long ago lost all fear of so-called runaway conventions. In fact, a centralized convention would almost certainly be a deadlocked convention which would be a manipulation to support the status quo regime. A very negative waste of time and aspirations.<br /><br />On the other hand, I see the holding of 50 simultaneous conventions as the opportunity for a genuine popular consensus to be revealed. It would be most illuminating to compare and contrast those 50 proposals for a national constitution. The result might well reveal a pattern which would argue for a national confederation rather than a unitary system - which is what we now have in the costume of a federal system. Federalism has been discredited by the Constitution we now don't have.<br /><br />Facing the facts, we really have no Constitution at all. We have a system of complex customs of governance in collapse into a fascist dictatorship.<br /><br />The best of the culture of the American people and the ideals of the original revolution could best be served by a new confederation of states, perhaps even more than just 50 such states with a new document built directly on the foundation of the Declaration of Independence.<br /><br />You may follow the discussion of a new constitutional convention at :<br /><a href="http://www.utexas.edu/law/faculty/slevinson/undemocratic/blog/">http://www.utexas.edu/law/faculty/slevinson/undemocratic/blog/</a><br /><br />Happy whichever Holidays.D. Frank Robinsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03262143401112395859noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522397520956371509.post-30787009030678442862007-12-08T00:42:00.000-08:002007-12-08T00:45:37.587-08:00Isn't Bush more like Chavez?You decide: <a href="http://video.msn.com/video.aspx?mkt=en-US&brand=msnbc&vid=35d897d5-4078-4edc-93ad-9dd728be2a04">Olbermann Commentary</a>D. Frank Robinsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03262143401112395859noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522397520956371509.post-1507017624970326222007-11-05T21:28:00.000-08:002007-12-08T00:46:40.155-08:00Better then Walter CronkiteKeith Olbermann lays it on the line. The Bush Administration is an especially criminal enterprise.<br /><br />http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21644133/D. Frank Robinsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03262143401112395859noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522397520956371509.post-29309507216600697322007-10-30T22:47:00.000-07:002007-10-30T22:48:39.404-07:00Boo!Buy gold and clean your weapons! Booahah!!!D. Frank Robinsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03262143401112395859noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522397520956371509.post-61631944579691325032007-10-11T16:17:00.001-07:002007-10-11T16:25:56.747-07:00Polled and DepressedEntry for October 11, 2007<br /><br /> A few minutes ago I received an automated telephone poll from the<br /> Rassmussen organization. After answering the usual demographic<br /> questions, age, sex, political affiliation, etc., I was given three<br /> choices for parties, of course: D, R, or OTHER!<br /><br /> I answered Other, of course. I wonder if I could organize the Other<br /> Party, they're in all the polls! Wouldn't it be nice to be the Other<br /> National Chairman? A spokesperson for the Others, what prestige!<br /> Almost enough to make one feel Other-worldly.<br /><br /> I was asked which group I thought would have the biggest effect on the outcome of the 2008 Presidential election: 1) African-Americans, 2) Hispanics, 3) Gays, 4) Evangelical Christians 5) I don't know.<br /><br /> I answered 5. I don't know (and I don't care).<br /><br /> Then I was asked if I had to chose, would watch a Presidential debate<br /> or the World Series?<br /><br /> I answered World Series.<br /><br /> Then I was asked how often I watched major league baseball?<br /><br /> I answered seldom. (I can watch a debate when I want online. Why shouldn't I watch the World Series to avoid the terrible counter-programming.)<br /><br /> "Thank you and Good-bye."<br /><br /> I was also asked the standard question about which track the country<br /> was on: right or wrong.<br /><br /> No option for "off-the-track".<br /><br /> I was asked about withdrawing American troops from Iraq.<br /><br /> I answered immediately - immediately.<br /><br /> These were the salient questions.<br /><br /> I've been polled before (not counting online Zogby or Harris), at least<br /> once before. I'm still not impressed.<br /><br /> BTW, I think there was a target demographic for this poll: The likely<br /> voter in the Republican Presidential primary in Oklahoma. Or, perhaps, an undisclosed 'Independent' or 'Other' candidate.D. Frank Robinsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03262143401112395859noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522397520956371509.post-47544725597245284042007-09-30T06:14:00.000-07:002007-09-30T06:17:28.712-07:00After the Empire CollapsesEntry for September 30, 2007<br /><br /> This lady is clearly a realist. I concede to her analysis.<br /><br /> http://www.lewrockwell.com/kwiatkow ski/kwiatkowski1 92.html<br /><br /> In the future I will address my electoral discussions to how a post-imperial republic could be structured. That period may not be so far away if the global fiat money system collapses. One thing is a near certainty: the Empire cannot be voted out of office with ballots.<br /><br /> So, it is not too soon to consider how, and to what extent, new political entities could emerge that would be republics in North America based on a common residual culture.<br /><br /> One should not hope to reconstitute or "restore" the United States as it formerly existed at any time in the past. It was fatally flawed from conception and died because of those genetic flaws. We can learn from the autopsies that are being performed on the corpse.<br /><br /> The Republic is dead. Let's begin to consider alternatives. Like just how limited in power can a republic be? Why shouldn't individuals have memberships in multiple republics? How might compacts to facilitate free trade among republics be negotiated? What if a defense compact among many republics in North America could provide mutual security and avoid the danger of a unitary military state?<br /><br /> All empires collapse because their ambitions atrophy the means to fulfil those ambitions. Or, imperialism bleeds the golden geese until they can no longer produce golden eggs. But the empire dies before the all the geese do.D. Frank Robinsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03262143401112395859noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522397520956371509.post-90913096155116736602007-09-24T23:19:00.000-07:002007-09-24T23:40:49.856-07:00Bi-partisan bias for unitary governmentHidden Controls Over the Citizens Choices in Elections<br /><br />Because national and state elections have been unified in time for so long and because the states do have concurrent jurisdiction with the Congress to administer elections, the constitutionality of many elections practices have gone unchallenged. This negligence has allowed partisans to entrench themselves in power by manipulating election rules to their advantage and suppressing voter sovereignty. <br /><br />The question I raise here is this: Can a State using its authority to police the initiative petition process (on an issue which affects only State government - term limits- tailor that police power so broadly as to also restrict access the initiative on an issue which affects the rights of U.S. citizens to vote for national offices (Congress and President)? <br /><br />The question directly implicates the principle of federalism in the American system of dual, and sometimes dueling, governments. <br /><br />In reading, Judge Leonard's decision in Yes on Term Limits v Savage, it is clear that this question could not be raised. However, there is another initiative petition in circulation sponsored by a coalition of parties seeking the restore the rule which bars access to the ballot to requiring only 5,000 signatures - the standard used from 1924 to 1974. <br /><br />In Oklahoma circulating a petition to access the ballot does not require the petition circulators be voters in Oklahoma. Given the rulings of the Oklahoma Supreme Court and Federal Judge Tim Leonard in YOTL v Savage, one can anticipate that such a requirement will be added by the legislature to ballot access petitioning as well. <br /><br />To my knowledge, the present initiative on ballot access reform is not using circulators who are not residents of Oklahoma and they are therefore complying with the existing law affirmed by Judge Leonard. <br /><br />But are the ballot access initiative proponents wrongly assuming that the YOTL v Savage rule also applies to them? <br /><br />It may not be so clear. The ballot access initiative seeks to allow U.S. citizens residing in Oklahoma, in their capacity as U. S. electors in a national (and federal) election to vote for both state and national offices. Can the State interpose itself to prevent U.S. citizens from exercise their national suffrage rights? If Oklahoma does not apply the rule requiring resident petition circulators to ballot access petitions, can it apply the more restrictive rule to an initiative which seeks to reduce the requirements for ballot access? <br /><br />What this line of analysis reveals, I hope, is that the real petition requirement for ballot access in a state is as high the U.S. Supreme Court will tolerate. But in states which have the initiative, the right of citizens to lower that barrier below the U.S. Supreme Courts tolerance level can be stymied by the higher signature threshold for initiatives over ballot access petitions. The consequence is that partisan control of state legislatures is used to entrench control of national offices. In other words, in states which have the initiative, the people are restrained from opening the ballot more than the Supreme Court will allow because the state legislature is further insulated behind the barriers to an initiative. <br /><br />In short, if you can keep your opponents off the ballot for state office, then you can keep them off the ballot for national offices also and you can use the power to 'police' the initiative process to fortify your partisan control. <br /><br />The Constitution clearly indicates that states must have a wide latitude to conduct their own affairs, but only so long as state actions do not impair the rights of citizens to exercise their power to control the national government. What has happened is that a long period of control of both the national and the state governments by the same partisans has enabled them to entrench themselves with state laws which also protect their control of the national government. This possibility was not sufficiently addressed by the framers. It continues to remain insufficiently resolved because their is now a unitary bi-partisan government bias against federalism at all levels state and national. The language of the U.S. and state constitutions retains a clear federalist intent. Much devious circumlocution is required to sustain entrenchment of the unitary bi-partisan ideology.D. Frank Robinsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03262143401112395859noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522397520956371509.post-43379290177038413552007-09-18T00:04:00.000-07:002007-09-18T00:08:38.387-07:00Novel IdeasEntry for September 18, 2007<br /><br /> Conspiracy? Conspiracy? Only petty criminals conspire.<br /><br /> It would useful for the reader to consider this first: Black Ops: Conspiracy and 9/11 <br />http://www.lewrockwell.com/wilson/wilson26.html<br /><br /> The author in the referenced article disbelieves complicity by Americans in 9/11 because they are too dim-witted to conceive the idea. Maybe, but they are not to dim-witted to read Tom Clancy and extrapolate.<br /><br /> What I find so anomalous is the continued apparent career of Osama Bin Laden. It's almost as if the U.S. has created and sustained a bogey man with superhuman abilities of evasion and escape or the U.S.government is capable of inflicting genocide anywhere any time on any group, but it cannot kill just one person that the U.S. claims is justified by Presidential edict alone. Such a person as Bin Laden must therefore be pardonable by secret Presidential edict alone.<br /><br /> Perhaps, that is why Bin Laden appears to soldier on. Or he may be dead, but his image is too useful to let his death be discovered. So we may be receiving messages from a virtual Bin Laden F/X. If Bin Laden still lives, he may be living quite comfortably and securely in Saudi Arabia. If Bin Laden is dead, his body may lie in a secret but honored place in the sands of Saudi Arabia. And if should ever become necessary, he remains will be 'found' and verified by 'experts' that he died just his cover story says he died. A man whose great service was to be publicly reviled in Western history and secretly honored by his co-conspirators.<br /><br /> Now, if all this was embellished with names altered and told as fiction by a talent like Tom Clancy, then millions would enjoy the yarn as harmless. But what would become of a real life Jack Ryan who decided to blow the lid off a real life conspiracy?<br /><br /> You can steal this plot line for your own novel. I already have a better one.D. Frank Robinsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03262143401112395859noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522397520956371509.post-81310907819701615592007-09-14T02:00:00.000-07:002007-09-14T02:01:08.902-07:00Death of the DollarEntry for September 14, 2007<br /><br />The value of the U.S. dollar has declined about 96% from its value in 1910. It is now approaching a record low against other major currencies.<br /><br />The value of the dollar has been the responsibility of the Federal Reserve since 1913. It seems obvious the Fed has failed to preserve the dollar.<br /><br />It is not possible to take political action against the Fed, it is too well entrenched behind the full armed might of the U.S. government. The individual is not powerless however, It is still possible to speculate against the Fed. The time may well have come to do just that because the Fed has almost nothing of value (the dollar and the credit of the U.S.) to support it. They have almost no margin left.<br /><br />The reserve currency of the world's central banks is nearly worth zero.<br /><br />I leave it to the reader to explore this issue further for opportunities.D. Frank Robinsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03262143401112395859noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522397520956371509.post-19736225882923009362007-09-09T17:06:00.000-07:002007-09-09T17:10:18.365-07:00Commentary on an indirect ballot access case<dl class="body"><dt class="post-head"><br /></dt><dd class="post-body"> <div class="image-wrapper"> </div> <div class="content-wrapper">Entry for September 09, 2007<br /><br />The case discussed here was decided in Federal Court in Oklahoma City. You can read the entire opinion by Judge Tim Leonard <a href="http://www.ballotaccessnews.org/2007/termlimts-okla.pdf">see here.</a><br /><br />Excepts appear in quotes. This case, while it addresses an initiative to place term limits om state offices, bears directly on the effort to circulate an initiative to open access to the ballot for new political parties in Oklahoma. The Judge's ruling bars non-resident circulators for this organization and apparently also the ballot access initiative petition. It is not known whether this decision will be appealed to the 10th Circuit by the plaintiffs.<br /><br /> YES ON TERM LIMITS, INC., et al., )<br /> )<br /> Plaintiffs, )<br /> )<br /> v. ) No. CIV-07-680-L<br /> )<br /> M. SUSAN SAVAGE, individually and )<br /> in her official capacity as Oklahoma )<br /> Secretary of State, et al., )<br /> )<br /> Defendants.<br /><br />"Prior to 1969, Oklahoma imposed no qualifications on petition circulators. Oklahomans for Modern Alcoholic Beverage Controls, Inc. v. Shelton, 501 P.2d 1089, 1092 (Okla. 1972). Beginning that year, Oklahoma law prescribed that petition circulators be qualified electors of the State of Oklahoma and imposed criminal liability on persons other than qualified electors who circulated petitions." (pg 3)<br /><br />What was the rationale (motivation) of the Legislature for imposting the ban? Not discussed in the opinion of the court and apparently not raised by the plantiff's attorneys.<br /><br />"It shall be unlawful for any person other than a qualified elector of the State of Oklahoma to circulate any initiative or referendum petition to amend, add to, delete, strike or otherwise change in any way the Constitution or laws of the State of Oklahoma, or of any subdivision of the State of Oklahoma . . . . Every person convicted of a violation of this section shall be punished by a fine of not to exceed One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00), or by imprisonment in the county jail for not to exceed one (1) year, or by both said fine and imprisonment. 34 O.S. § 3.1." (pg 3 footnote)<br /><br />The Secretary of State is charged with responsibility to enforce this requirement the petition was circulated by lawful resident circulators. The SoS does not verify the validity of the voter's signatures, the (Oklahoma) Supreme Court is charged with administering the validity and sufficiency of the signatures.<br /><br />Also, any citizen of the state can protest a petition or to object to the Secretary's signature count by filing a written notice with the Oklahoma Supreme Court. Interesting.<br /><br />"Moreover, the court finds Rittberg's and Ferrell's alleged fear of prosecution under § 3.1 is not credible given Rittberg's prior campaign in Oklahoma and Ferrell's lack of knowledge of any criminal penalties. Tr. at 107. In short, plaintiffs have not sustained their burden of demonstrating they have standing to contest the constitutionality of the criminal penalties associated with Oklahoma's residency requirement for petition circulators." (pg 9)<br /><br /> The plantiff's ignorance or avoidance of potential criminal prosecution serves as<br />an excuse to the court to ignore addressing the constitutionality of the criminal jeopardy in this case. Curious. One must actually violate the law and be prosecuted to gain standing to contest the law.<br /><br />However, to contest the validity of a petition one need only be a resident of the state to have legal standing and presumably bring a criminal complaint against non-resident circulators.<br /><br /> However, the court was willing to grant the defendants limited standing on the civil issues.<br /><br />'The First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which was made applicable to the states pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits the State of Oklahoma from abridging the freedom of speech. See U.S. Const. amend. I, amend. XIV. Circulation of initiative petitions "is `core political speech,' because it involves `interactive communication concerning political change.'" Buckley v. Am. Const. Law Found., Inc., 525 U.S. 182, 186 (1999)." (pg 11)<br /><br />Now we come to the core of the case: Is the State of Oklahoma in compliance with the U.S. Constitution under Amendments I and XIV? In such First Amendment cases the courts discriminate on whether the case passes the "strict scrutiny" test.<br /><br />"[s]trict scrutiny demands state regulations "impos[ing]`severe burdens' on speech . . . be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest." Strict scrutiny is applicable "where the government restricts the overall quantum of speech available to the election or voting process. . . . [It] is employed where the quantum of speech is limited due to restrictions on . . . the available pool of circulators or other supporters of a candidate or initiative, as in ACLF and Meyer."" (pg 11)<br /><br />The intricacies of "strict scrutiny" and "compelling state interest" cannot be addressed here. Suffice it to say that they amount to an allegedly higher standard than "necessary and proper".<br /><br />"By limiting petition circulators to residents only, Oklahoma has restricted the available pool of circulators, particularly professional circulators. The court thus finds the residency requirement is subject to strict scrutiny." (pg 11)<br /><br />Footnote 11 to pg 11: "Indeed, the United States Supreme Court has recognized "there must be a substantial regulation of elections if they are to be fair and honest and if some sort of order, rather than chaos, is to accompany the democratic processes." Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724, 730 (1974)."<br /><br />What is unquestionable in courts is that "some sort of order" is indispensable for fair and honest democratic processes. That is the fundamental issue: What kinds of 'order' are sufficient to produce fair and honest elections as opposed to the kinds of order that simply entrench power and stifle democratic processes?<br /><br /> This more fundamental was not raised.<br /><br />"Defendants" (the State) "contend that "Oklahoma has a compelling interest in [1] preventing fraud and policing and maintaining the integrity of its initiative and referendum" and "[2] restricting the process of self-government to members of its own political community." Defendants' Supplemental Trial Brief at 3, 5 (Doc. No. 41)." (pg 12)<br /><br />Contention [2] is is rich in its implications. But the court opinion avoids it. Perhaps because it would raise 'novel' arguments and difficult legal analysis.<br /><br />"The court finds that Oklahoma has a compelling interest in protecting and policing both the integrity and the reliability of its initiative process. See Buckley, 525 U.S. at 191 ("States allowing ballot initiatives have considerable leeway to protect the integrity and reliability of the initiative process, as they have with respect to election processes generally."); Chandler, 292 F.3d at 1241. The integrity of the petition circulators themselves is critical to that process." (pg 12)<br /><br />The court finds contention [1] is a sufficient basis for its decision and does not address contention [2] at all. The remainder of the opinion is a discussion of the merits of Oklahoma's version of order to police the circulation of initiative petitions as meeting the test of strict scrutiny and compelling state interest under current constitutional legal doctrine.<br /><br /> The plaintiffs lose.<br /><br /> Returning to contention [2]"restricting the process of self-government to members of its own political community."<br /><br />In a federal system doctrine there are two partially overlapping political communities (state and national). The configuration of that overlap has been the most contentious issue in American political history.<br /><br />Most elections in the United States fall in that area of overlap. That is, when Oklahoma citizens exercise their rights as members of the Oklahoma political community they are also exercising their rights as members of the national political community. Most of our elections are simultaneously dual state and national elections.<br /><br />To the extent that the same processes of procedure and administration are applied to both elections, the supremacy of the U.S. Constitution must apply and that means citizens who are exercising political rights OTHER THAN VOTING OR SEEKING ELECTION TO OFFICE in a State must be treated equally as U.S. citizens (I and XIV Amendments). This reasoning appears to be novel.<br /><br />On this reasoning I contend that the judge got it wrong, at least because the proper issues were not raised. Why not? The legal profession is inherently constrained to acceptable doctrines. These constraints make litigation which challenges acceptable doctrine extremely risky and provocative. Few capable attorneys have the guts for it and the economic incentives.<br /><br />This reality makes direct political action even more critical. Even direct political action that challenges the judiciary itself. Why target the State Supreme Court Justices who are open to public accountability at the polls (in Oklahoma)? To encourage their colleagues to rethink their habits of thought. It's to make them "feel the heat to see the light."<br /><br />Furthermore, on the level of practical politics it is far more difficult and obviously self-serving if courts avoid applying very strict scrutiny to restrictions on campaigns directly aimed at unseating them.<br /><br />Federal judges are unreachable except indirectly though election to national office of members of Congress, Senate and the Presidency. Restrictions on attempts at political reform to open up access to these national as well as state offices necessarily implicates who shall serve on the Federal bench. Hence, State election administration and processes coordinate control of both states and the national government.<br /><br />Suppression of initiatives which bear on elections in those states which have that constitutional process directly affect elections to national offices in those states.<br /><br />The decision of the Federal Court in this case directly impaired an effort to enact term limits for Oklahoma state offices only. However, the application of the Judges reasoning does not differentiate between a strictly state application for that "political community" and its application to the "political community" of Oklahomans in the capacity as citizens of the United States. The court did not address this aspect of the case even though the defendants opened the door in their brief.<br /><br />We infer Judge Leonard wanted to decide the case by the most narrow and conventional doctrine possible. Lawyers who must face such judges are half gagged when they try to argue their cases.<br /><br />In conclusion, the initiative for more open ballot access should be exempted from this case precedent by applying strict scrutiny and voiding its application to their petition and allowing non-resident petition circulators as legitimate for any citizen of the United States.<br /><br />Of course, if these issues were raised in a similar case before Judge Leonard he might agree. Just because the door (contention [2]) was open to him and he didn't explicitly slam it shut leaves the Judge or another Judge a way out of a conundrum. </div></dd></dl>D. Frank Robinsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03262143401112395859noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522397520956371509.post-18476559119128846412007-09-05T10:15:00.000-07:002007-09-05T13:53:24.143-07:00Where's the Model Election Code?<pre style="font-family:times new roman;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Entry for September 05, 2007</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><br />Customs serve as implicit multilateral contracts<br />which form a framework to facilitate other more<br />specific human actions. Elections are social<br />customs. There is no universal, best or ideal<br />model for conducting elections. There are superior,<br />better practices and inferior corrupt practices<br />in the context of social custom.</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><br />Elections are intended by the participants to<br />minimize social friction. Elections are<br />supposed to lubricate the inevitable conflict<br />between coercive authority and voluntary<br />cooperation. Two very dissimilar realms of<br />social custom.</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><br />The official act of voting in the United States,<br />for many citizens, constitutes their only<br />participation in government, and it is<br />fundamental that elections are conducted with<br />all possible evidence of integrity. However,<br />State control of elections constitutes one of<br />the most difficult problems to solve in the<br />application of democratic theory and custom.<br />It is clear that current election laws are<br />seriously defective. This study will focus<br />on the analysis of electoral friction and<br />propose alternatives to current legal rigidities.</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><br />I began this research project by querying<br />for model election code. Curiously, the only<br />one I found is from 1934! Has no one attempted<br />to construct a template for a state election<br />code in nearly 75 years? Apparently not.</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><br />The 1934 model code is interesting as a<br />snapshot of political science thinking<br />of that era. Excerpts from the report<br />presenting that Code appear in italics.<br />In this discussion we shall use the term<br />“bipartisan” to indicate the two largest<br />political organizations – traditionally<br />Democrats or Republicans, but that could<br />vary under local circumstances. For example,<br />some other parties could be the<br />bipartisan elements in a precinct like the<br />Libertarians and the Greens together<br />outnumbering either the Republicans or<br />Democrats.</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><br />Excerpts from the 1934 model code appear<br />in italics.</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><br />Every <span style="font-style: italic;">investigation or election contest<br />brings to light glaring irregularities,</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">errors, misconduct on the part of precinct<br />officers, disregard of election laws</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">and instructions, slipshod practices, and<br />downright frauds. The entire country</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">has been shocked from time to time by the<br />revelation of wholesale election</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">frauds.... Competent political observers<br />report that election frauds are ...</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">are widely prevalent.... Even these election<br />scandals and the slipshod </span><span style="font-style: italic;">administration<br />revealed by election recounts do not indicate<br />the real state </span><span style="font-style: italic;">of affairs which prevails<br />generally in election administration. The<br />truth of the </span><span style="font-style: italic;">matter is that the whole<br />administration- organizations, laws, methods and</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">procedures, and records-are, for most states,<br />quite obsolete. <span style="font-weight: bold;">The whole system, </span></span><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">including the<br />election laws, requires a thorough revision and<br />improvement</span>.</span> 1 (Emphasis added.)</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><br />Some things just go on and on it seems until,<br />and if, someone notices.</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><br /></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> </span><br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-style: italic;">There should never be the slightest question<br />about the integrity of the ballot </span><span style="font-style: italic;">box or doubt<br />cast upon the honesty of the elections. It is<br />hardly necessary </span><span style="font-style: italic;">to point out that the presence<br />of election frauds and sharp practices will</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">undermine public morale and interest in civic<br />affairs more quickly than any </span><span style="font-style: italic;">other condition.<br />The existence of election frauds is an unfailing<br />sign of bad </span><span style="font-style: italic;">government, for frauds cannot be<br />perpetrated upon a large scale except by </span><span style="font-style: italic;">a powerful<br />and corrupt political organization, willing to go<br />to any length </span><span style="font-style: italic;">to maintain its control over the<br />government, and able to afford protection</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">to those who corruptly carry out its orders.<br />Fraudulent elections cannot be </span><span style="font-style: italic;">tolerated by<br />any self respecting community. <span style="font-weight: bold;">Fair elections are</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">absolutely </span></span><span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">essential to good government, but do not,<br />of course, guarantee good </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">government</span></span></span></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >.2<br />(Emphasis added.)</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><br /></span></span></span>After three-quarters of a century that does seem<br />rather evident, but when did we get to the point<br />of "fair" elections to test that assumption?</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">The right of the suffrage is an empty formality<br />where election frauds prevail. </span><span style="font-style: italic;">Public opinion,<br />civic interest, and efforts to elect capable<br />officers and to secure </span><span style="font-style: italic;">good government are of<br />no avail in the face of a powerful political machine,</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">able and willing to corrupt the elections.</span>3</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><br />Here we discuss only the administration of<br />balloting at the point when the ballot is cast by<br />the voter and exclude consideration of pre-election<br />bipartisan rigging of the ballot.</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">There should never be any question about the<br />accuracy of election results. </span><span style="font-style: italic;">The returns should<br />be as accurate as the accounts of a bank or of any other</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">commercial institution. Would banks or other commercial<br />or business </span><span style="font-style: italic;">institutions be willing to operate on the<br />theory that one error will be offset </span><span style="font-style: italic;">by another? The<br />truth of the matter is that our elections at present are</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">conducted in such manner that errors and inaccuracies<br />are inevitable,....</span> 4</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><br />Hence much of the focus on regulating the pre-election<br />campaign showmanship and financing while ignoring the<br />business end – the ballot and ballot counting.</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">At the present time inaccuracies are the rule rather<br />than the exception in election returns. </span><span style="font-style: italic;">Recounts produce<br />different results from the original count in practically<br />every precinct, and </span><span style="font-style: italic;">the variations are sometimes startling.</span>5</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><br />Of course, one proposed solution is to make recounts<br />moot by just re-tabulating the tabulation in question.<br />An ephemeral (electronic) ballot is no ballot at all.</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">A cardinal principle of election administration at present<br />is that of bipartisanship. It may be </span><span style="font-style: italic;">observed in the<br />election statutes in every state in the Union.</span>6</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><br />This bipartisanship is the quintessential characteristic<br />vice of U.S. election administration.</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">The bipartisan principle results in our elections being<br />controlled by the very elements of </span><span style="font-style: italic;">society most bent upon<br />winning the election - the bitter partisans whose livelihood<br />may depend </span><span style="font-style: italic;">upon party victory. Common sense would dictate<br />that such persons should be debarred from having</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">any control over elections, but under the bipartisan<br />theory it is necessary to "set a thief </span><span style="font-style: italic;">to watch a thief."<br />Unfortunately, thieves may make bargains. The supposed<br />opposition of the </span><span style="font-style: italic;">two leading political parties is little<br />more than a farce in many large cities. The minority</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">party is often the tool of the majority party</span>.7</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><br />It is obvious that the worst possible procedure is to place<br />the selection of election administrators in the hands of<br />the dominant political organizations. It is foolish to expect<br />honest elections when the very persons who would profit by<br />fraud control the machinery of elections.<br /><br />The superior alternative is <span style="font-weight: bold;">empanel a jury by lottery</span> from<br />the large pool of voters who are not government employees<br />or officials at the precinct level to oversee the conduct<br />of an election. The term of service for such juries should<br />be for one election only over a span of days or weeks<br />- not months. </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><br />This would place original jurisdiction over elections<br />closest to the voters. Selection by lottery at the<br />precinct level assures a rotation in office beyond<br />the control of professional politicians. In a precinct<br />election jury a significant number of independents and<br />other party voters would secure oversight along side<br />the “bipartisans”.</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><br />How large should a precinct jury be? Any odd number seven<br />or larger depending on the precinct size.</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><br />How large/small should a precinct be? A minimum is easer<br />to establish than a maximum. A precinct of only 300 voters<br />may have a turnout of only ten or fifteen percent in some<br />elections. This makes the secrecy of the ballot problematic.<br />But the use of a seven member election jury seems<br />unjustifiable for such a small precinct. I suggest a<br />one percent rule, that is, a seven member precinct jury<br />requires a precinct of at least 700 voters minimum. On the<br />other hand a precinct jury should not be larger than 11 members.<br />Therefore, the maximum size for a precinct would be about<br />1100 to 1200 voters. This would apply to precincts in urban<br />or suburban communities generally.</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> The only exceptions should<br />be for very small and relatively isolated rural communities<br />with fewer than 700 voters. It is entirely possible or even<br />likely that bipartisans would still dominate a jury in such<br />small precincts. But an “affirmative action” provision might<br />require that no more than a majority of such a jury is bipartisan.</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><br />1 Model Election Code by Joseph P. Harris, Prof. of Political Science,<br />University of Washington, 1934; Institute for Government Research<br />Studies in Administration No. 27, The Brookings Institution,<br />Washington, D.C. 1934<br /></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">2</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">ibid<br />3ibid</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br />4ibid</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br />5</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">ibid<br />6ibid</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br />7</span></span>ibid<br /><br /><br /></pre>D. Frank Robinsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03262143401112395859noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522397520956371509.post-48545563078163409712007-08-30T07:58:00.000-07:002007-08-30T07:59:19.807-07:00Where's the Web Service?<div class="image-wrapper"> </div> Entry for August 30, 2007<br /><br />While the pieces for a candidate to management a campaign are lying around, the means for the citizen manage political information are even more scattered.<br /><br />How does one begin to organize information upon which to make an informed judgement on candidates at the ballot? Contemporary political campaigns seem structured to 'cue' voters not inform them. Very well, caveat emptor! It is the citizen's responsibility to either be led by cues or to lead their self. So called grass roots organizations push the cueing approach as well. The approach which would yield the most benefit to voter independence is to offer tools which empower the voters to shape the information from their own biases or philosophy.<br /><br />Political parties as we have known and loathed them serve only the interests of maintaining and entrenching incumbency. They are essentially service agencies for preserving the power of the failing.<br /><br />This observation is supported by my comparison of the state of information management tools in the hands of manufacturers of processed consent versus the producers of original consent - voters.<br /><br />So, where are the tools for the citizens, if they chose to become voters, to filter the demands of processed consent? <br /><br />It seems their is an opportunity here for a lot of clever hackers. Potentially Very Subversive Stuff - a voter information management system as a web service.D. Frank Robinsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03262143401112395859noreply@blogger.com0