Seeds at Libertine

Tuesday, November 3, 2015

DC, Virginia, Maryland Area Independent Candidates

Tuesday, May 19, 2015

Big 2A Win – Court strikes DC requirement of a good reason for concealed carry permit

Big 2A Win – Court strikes DC requirement of “good reason” for concealed carry permit

LIberty on the Rocks Wednesday

  • Mr. Henry's
    601 Pennsylvania Ave SE, Washington, District of Columbia 20003
    5:30 pm
Liberty on the Rocks is back for the summer! We are kicking off the season at the Capitol Hill mainstay: Mr. Henry's. This will be the first happy hour to commence our once a month happy hour for the rest of the summer season. Come mingle with old liberty-loving pals and welcome new friends new to DC. We hope to see you all there!

Happy hour specials will be available. Mr. Henry's is located on the Orange/Blue/Silver line a block away from the Eastern Market metro.

Sunday, May 17, 2015

Lorton Libertarians convene

May 23
Lorton, VA

52nd District Libertarian Party nominating convention
12:30 pm


Libertarians, you are officially invited to attend the Nominating Convention for 52nd District, Virginia House of Delegates. We currently have a Libertarian who intends to run for the position, and any Libertarian residing in the 52nd District is welcome to run as well.

If you are interested in running, please notify LPVA 11th District Chair Matt Cholko at mattcholko@hotmail.com.

Election for 11th District Chair will also be held at this time.

Come out and support your local Libertarian candidates!

*************************************************************************

Thursday, May 14, 2015

Norton Says D.C.’s Kids Don't Deserve Education Options

Norton Says D.C.’s Home-Rule Alternative to DCPS is Charter Schools, Not Private School Vouchers | RealEstateRama

New Charles Murray book

Rebuilding liberty without permission: A conversation with Charles Murray

Book Forum
AEI, Twelfth Floor
1150 Seventeenth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036
CitizenshipConstitutionCourtsSociety and Culture
Font SizeAA

Login or Create an AEI account to RSVP for this event.

US Energy

Threats to the U.S. Energy Renaissance


Policy Forum 
May 15, 2015 12:00PM
ADD TO CALENDAR
Hayek Auditorium 
Cato Institute
1000 Massachusetts Avenue NW
Featuring Ned Mamula, Petroleum Geologist, formerly with the U.S. Geological Survey, Minerals Management Service, and the Central Intelligence Agency; moderated by Patrick Michaels, Director, Center for the Study of Science, Cato Institute. 
Since 2008, oil production has more than doubled and natural gas production is up about 24 percent, according to the Energy Information Agency. Advances in technology have driven this remarkable achievement. Three major techniques that have revolutionized both onshore and offshore oil and gas production are directional drilling, horizontal drilling, and hydraulic fracturing, also known as “fracking.” In addition, offshore drilling in a record 10,500 feet of water — and then through thousands of feet of sediment below the seafloor — has been made possible by radical new advances in offshore platform technology tied in with global positioning software. These advances in technology have required considerable capital investment that would have been less likely in a nation constrained by a cap-and-trade or carbon-tax system. Please join us for an informed look at recent successes in energy production and their implications for public policy.

Monday, May 11, 2015

National ID Laws

The U.S. National ID Law at Ten Years


Policy Forum
Cato Institute
1000 Massachusetts Avenue NW
Monday, May 11, 2015 12:00PM


Featuring Adam Candeub, Professor of Law and Director of the Intellectual Property, Information and Communications Law Program Michigan State University College of Law; Edward Hasbrouck, Consultant to the Identity Project (PapersPlease.org); Gabe Rottman, Legislative Counsel/Policy Advisor American Civil Liberties Union, Washington Legislative Office. Moderated by Jim Harper, Senior Fellow, Cato Institute.

In 2005, Congress gave states three years to begin issuing driver’s licenses according to national identification card standards. The REAL ID Act sought to coerce states into using machine-readable technology with federally defined data elements in their cards, capturing digital images of identity-source documents, and providing other states electronic access to information contained in their motor vehicle databases. Confronted by this unfunded domestic surveillance mandate, state leaders across the country instigated the “REAL ID Rebellion” in 2006. The Department of Homeland Security has never made good on the REAL ID law’s threat that Transportation Security Administration agents would refuse airport access to travelers from recalcitrant states. But the threat remains, and many states are inching toward putting their residents into the national ID system. Please join us for a discussion of the prospects for the U.S. national ID law 10 years along, and its incursion on the common law treatment of names.
 
REGISTER or Watch online May 11

Saturday, May 9, 2015

Corruption is Legal in America









I wanted to personally thank you for interest in my campaign.  It really means a lot to me.

I have put a lot of effort in my campaign so far. I have over 475 Facebook likes, more than two of my Democrat Opponents. I have been told by Libertarians all over the country that my website is amazing. New Jersey Libertarian, Adam Brown stated my website is "one of the best state Libertarian sites I have seen." My website is making it across the country.

I also created TWO new campaign fundraisers. One is the Liber-Tea Store and the other is the Loser for Liberty Swag Shop. 100% of the profits will go directly to the Loser for Liberty Campaign.

There is currently a problem with my opponents being bought out by corporate interests. I hope you will check out the State Board of Elections Website that discloses Candidate Campaign Committees' funds. The paper trail says it all. I am currently facing big money opponents who will spend over $100,000 dollars on their campaign and have donations over $25,000 from single corporate contributions. Let's make this clear, THEY ARE BOUGHT!

Click HERE for the Video that explains why it is wrong to be "bought."

I plan to use my resources efficiently to bring competition, but Bruce, I have noticed you haven't donated to my campaign yet. I have raised about $2,000 from people and no corporate interests. If I am elected I am sending the message that these corporate interests do not want to see and that is the message of the people.

Bruce, by donating to the Loser for Liberty campaign, you are telling them “No, I will not support the Big Money, Big Government politics.” Instead, you are supporting someone who plans to run on a platform based on protecting individualism and limiting government.

Creating economic opportunity, ending prohibition, and enforcing equal treatment under the law are what Virginia is missing. I plan to bring these three principles to Virginia, but Bruce, I need your help.

You can help by donating to Loser4Liberty.com/donate or buying Liber-tea & Loser for Liberty Swag.

Thank you Bruce, once again for your interest in my campaign. I request your support. Let me know if there are any other ways I can help make Virginia a better place to live.

Bruce, Donate now! Then post your proud donation to social media.

Bruce donated $0.00 to #Loser4liberty

Bruce please Donate here: Loser4liberty.com/donate
Follow the Campaign:                Facebook.com/loser4liberty
                                                Twitter: @Loser4Liberty
                                                Text “Good Life” to 72727 for Campaign updates via Text Message.

Sincerely,


Carl R. Loser
Libertarian Candidate for VA Senate District 10
Loser For Liberty
Loser4liberty@gmail.com
l
oser4liberty.com


Corey M. Fauconier
Campaign Manager
Coreymfauconier@yahoo.com
Twitter: @Coreymfauconier
(973) 901-6481 (Text or Call)

Friday, May 8, 2015

Our America Initiative and the Presidential Debates




On behalf of the Our America Initiative, I want to express our deep appreciation for your support.  We appreciate your help in providing assistance to the American people with fair and open presidential debates -- and specifically our legal challenge to the control of those debates by the two “major” political parties.

Unlike the Commission on Presidential Debates, our efforts are not financed by corporate special interests with virtually unlimited resources. Rather, we must depend upon the financial support of concerned, dedicated individuals such as yourself. Our legal challenge threatens a system that is clearly designed to preserve a political duopoly that seeks to exclude new ideas, fresh approaches to government and independent thinking. We know that the Commission on Presidential Debates and its sponsors will spend millions if necessary to prevent change.

We have a strong case. We have a majority of Americans on our side. The key to our success in changing the political landscape lies with the generous support of those, like you, who are willing to provide the resources this critical battle will require.  We are moving forward.  We are raising money but we still have a ways to go to reach our goal of $850,000.00, before we file the lawsuit. Here is a link to donate.


Over the last forty-five days we have held various meetings across the country discussing the potential debate lawsuit. Attending these events has been Gov Johnson, Judge Jim Gray (ret) and attorneys Bruce Fein and Rocky Anderson. It was successful…and we have presented the need for change in how the Presidential debates are taking place.


On Wednesday May 13, at 9:00 PM ET our legal team and key leaders in our federal lawsuit to change the presidential debates will be hosting a Google Hangout to provide an update and a briefing about the lawsuit. This will be a great opportunity to learn more about the Presidential debate issue.

Below you will find an Executive Summary that outlines our legal challenge to the Commission on Presidential Debates.

Please contact me to discuss our lawsuit and public relations activities to change the presidential debates by email at RonNielson@OurAmericaInitiative.com You can also reach Tiffiny DeVera at 801-303-7929 with questions.

Thanks again. Your support and your wise counsel are greatly appreciated.


Sincerely,

Ron Nielson
Senior Advisor


PS:  If you would like to make your donation tax deductable you may donate through the Our America Initiative Foundation at this link https://www.ouramericainitiativefoundation.com/donate.html .…and if you have not seen it already here is a link to our recent video Commission on Presidential Debates – Time to Change





Commission on Presidential Debates Legal Challenge

Executive Summary

  • In 1985, the chairs of the Republican and Democratic Parties entered into a written agreement to take over the organization and implementation of presidential debates.

  • That agreement made clear the two parties’ intent to limit participation, reading in part: “One of the most effective means of fulfilling that responsibility (informing the electorate) is through nationally televised joint appearances conducted between the presidential and vice-presidential nominees of the two major political parties during general election campaigns. Therefore, … future joint appearances should be principally and jointly sponsored and conducted by the Republican and Democratic National Committees. (Emphasis added.)

  • In 1987, Fahrenkopf and Kirk announced the incorporation of the CPD at a news conference.  In their joint press release, they described the CPD not as a non-partisan organization, but as a bipartisan organization “formed to implement joint sponsorship of general election presidential and vice-presidential debates, starting in 1988, by the national Republican and Democratic committees between their respective nominees.”  (Emphasis added.)

  • In 1987, Fahrenkopf, then the chair or co-chair of both the RNC and the CPD, stated that the CPD would not likely look favorably on including third-party candidates in the debates.  Paul Kirk, then the chair or co-chair of both the DNC and the CPD, stated that the CPD should exclude third-party candidates from the presidential debates.

  • Ross Perot was allowed to participate in the 1992 presidential debates, but only because the campaigns of both Bush and Clinton insisted that he be included. The CPD resisted doing so, but ultimately deferred to the two campaigns, demonstrating their control over the process.

  • In 2012, the campaign of Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson communicated directly and repeatedly with both the CPD and sponsors of the presidential debates, pointing out the unfairness of arbitrarily using select polling data to exclude qualified candidates and asking simply that any candidate appearing on enough states’ ballots to potentially gain a majority in the Electoral College be included. In 2012, only four candidates would have met that threshold: Romney, Obama, Johnson and Jill Stein, the Green Party nominee.

  • Despite thousands of emails, phone calls,and public protests, in 2012, the CPD refused to alter its participation criteria. With all other options exhausted, the Our America Initiative is coordinating a challenge in Federal Court, with the plaintiffs including the 2012 Libertarian and Green Party nominees for President and Vice-President, their respective campaign committees, and the Libertarian and Green Parties.

  • Unlike previous legal challenges, the lawsuit to be filed in 2015 will claim that the CPD and its clear relationship with the Republican and Democratic parties violates the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. The complaint will demonstrate that the current debate duopoly  1) Is an agreement or conspiracy between two or more entities to take over the presidential debates and exclude others from participating; 2) Affects interstate commerce in the form of contributions, value of media exposure, etc.; and 3) Constitutes an unreasonable restraint of trade in what is today a multi-billion dollar presidential campaign market.

A key element of the complaint is that the CPD and the “major” party candidates engage in what amounts to a horizontal boycott in which competitors agree to keep others out. The clearest evidence of this illegal boycott is the fact that, in each election cycle, the CPD and the respective Republican and Democratic campaigns enter into an MOU agreeing that they will not appear in any other debates or accept ANY media invitations for joint appearances or debates.
 

DC area libertarians

Libertarian Bookstore

Share it

There was an error in this gadget

ShareThis

Loading...