Greens at it again: Recounts filed in Nevada and New Mexico

Cobb ^

[Next_Time_NJ]

With your help, we are standing up for the right to vote, and the right for votes to be counted. David Cobb of the Green Party and Michael Badnarik of the Libertarian Party have filed for a recount of the presidential ballots cast in Ohio, New Mexico, and Nevada, and have filed a lawsuit in Ohio to make sure there is sufficient time to recount every ballot. The initial Ohio recount filing fees and expenses were paid with the help of thousands of small donations from all over the country. We appreciate your support of the recount, and of a more open and accountable vote-counting process.

[NYC GOP Chick]

You do our country a great disservice when you speak this way as most libertarians are very patriotic, and would fight to the death to protect our rights under the constitution.

What do you think of Michael Badhaircut (or whatever the hell that nutjob's name is) and your vaunted party using the 3rd anniversary of 9/11 as some sort of "memorial" to dead Iraqis and a tongue-in-cheek fundraiser?

[NYC GOP Chick]

I'm glad to hear the Libertarian party is Patriotic

It's not. Don't fall for the hype.

[NYC GOP Chick]

That's why I think we should support the recounts and the investigations. It's worth it just to ease these people's minds, IMHO.

Are *your* taxes being wasted on this left-wing circle jerk? Aren't you people suppose to be against wasting gubmint money?

[Mannaggia l'America]

There is a GOOD reason that liberal and libertarian begin the same.

At one time, I thought highly of the Libertarians (well, at least more than I do now).

But that was until several of them (and in particular, a radio talk show host who was fairly popular in the area) came out in favor of Hillary's nationalized health care!

After listening more closely in the time following that, I saw two factions in the LP (in my opinion) - the pot/drug guys, and the Republican-haters. These factions are separate (usually) from those who are in the LP soley for the principles of libertarianism, but as an outsider, I see them getting drowned out by the nuts. Just my opinion.

[NYC GOP Chick]

But I also can't blindly support a Republican Party who thinks that things like the Patriot Act

What, specifically, don't you like about the Patriot Act?

[LibertyRocks]

You ask a very good question... I myself have wondered about this, especially as the count was so close in Ohio. I came up with 2 possible conclusions:

1.) Perhaps they don't _want_ the problems to be fixed and would like to spend the next four years figuring out how to use the problems to their advantage.

2.) Perhaps they are just as guilty of manipulation and fraud in some of these states that they knew were going to be close.

This is another reason I would encourage all Republicans who know of fraud in their areas to come forward with the information, the more information we receive the better the outcome of this whole mess.

Give the information to the GAO or the League of Women Voters if you don't trust those in the LP with the information... (I.E. there is an ongoing investigation by some in the LP which is looking into charges of the D's and the MSM being in cahoots on the exit poll issue. There is a rumor the D's organized people to go to polling stations, pretend to vote, and then come out and take the exit polls. This is going to be very hard to prove, but they are trying anyway...)

As far as asking why are the Libertarians paying for it?

Well, it's because we are concerned about protecting our democratic electoral process and guaranteeing the right of all American citizens to cast their ballots and participate in our country's political process. As I said before it wouldn't have mattered to us who won the election we still would've complained about these irregularities and problems - just as we ALWAYS have, every year, in various places around the country.

Heck, the LP has been fighting things like this for 30 years now. It's just "fashionable" for the D's and G's to do it now cause of their perceived "loss" back in 2000.

[LibertyRocks]

I'll let Ron Paul answer your question as I suspect you will have greater respect for his interpretation than my own. I think everything passed was done so with "good intentions" of keeping us "safer" but these expanded powers could serve all of us a real injustice should those without good intentions come to power...

---

November 26, 2001

Can Freedom be Exchanged for Security?
by Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas)

It's easy for elected officials in Washington to tell the American people that the government will do whatever it takes to defeat terrorism. Such assurances inevitably are followed by proposals either to restrict the constitutional liberties of the American people or spend vast sums from the federal treasury. The history of the 20th century shows that the Constitution is violated most often by Congress during times of crisis; accordingly, most of our worst unconstitutional agencies and programs began during the two world wars and the Depression. Ironically, the Constitution itself was conceived in a time of great crisis. The founders intended its provision to place inviolable restrictions on what the federal government could do even in times of great distress. America must guard against current calls for government to violate the Constitution- break the law- in the name of law enforcement.

The "anti-terrorism" legislation recently passed by Congress demonstrates how well-meaning politicians make shortsighted mistakes in a rush to respond to a crisis. Most of its provisions were never carefully studied by Congress, nor was sufficient time taken to debate the bill despite its importance. No testimony was heard from privacy experts or others from fields outside of law enforcement. Normal congressional committee and hearing processes were suspended. In fact, the final version of the bill was not made available to members before the vote! These political games should not be tolerated by the American public, especially when precious freedoms are at stake.

Almost all of the new laws focus on American citizens rather than potential foreign terrorists. For example, the definition of "terrorism" for federal criminal purposes has been greatly expanded; you now may be considered a terrorist if you belong to a pro-constitution group, a citizens militia, or various pro-life organizations. Legitimate protest against the government could place you (and tens of thousands of other Americans) under federal surveillance. Similarly, your internet use can be monitored without your knowledge, and your internet provider can be forced to hand over user information to law enforcement without a warrant or subpoena.

The bill also greatly expands the use of traditional surveillance tools, including wiretaps, search warrants, and subpoenas. Probable cause standards for these tools are relaxed or even eliminated in some circumstances; warrants become easier to obtain and can be executed without your knowledge; and wiretaps can be placed on you without a court order. In fact, the FBI and CIA now can tap phones or computers nationwide without even demonstrating that a particular phone or computer is being used by a criminal suspect.

The biggest problem with these new law enforcement powers is that they bear little relationship to fighting terrorism. Surveillance powers are greatly expanded, while checks and balances on government are greatly reduced. Most of the provisions have been sought after by domestic law enforcement agencies for years, not to fight terrorism, but rather to increase their police power over the American people. There is no evidence that our previously-held civil liberties posed a barrier to the effective tracking or prosecution of terrorists. The federal government has made no showing that it failed to detect or prevent the recent terrorist strikes because of the civil liberties that will be compromised by this new legislation.

In his speech to the joint session of Congress following the September 11th attacks, President Bush reminded all of us that the United States outlasted and defeated Soviet totalitarianism in the last century. The numerous internal problems in the former Soviet Union- its centralized economic planning and lack of free markets, its repression of human liberty, its excessive militarization- all led to its inevitable collapse. We must be vigilant to resist the rush toward ever-increasing state control of our society, so that our own government does not become a greater threat to our freedoms than any foreign terrorist.

[LibertyRocks]

But that was until several of them (and in particular, a radio talk show host who was fairly popular in the area) came out in favor of Hillary's nationalized health care!

WHAT???? Libertarians in favor of Nationalized Health Care???? NEVER! If they stated such a thing then they are most assuredly NOT Libertarians!

Who is this radio host you speak of? Are you _sure_ he's a libertarian? Nationalized health care is against everything the Libertarian Party stands for! I'd like to know the names of these so-called Libertarians, especially this radio host you speak of and I'd like to confront them directly with this nonsense.

I assure you in all my years in the party I have NEVER heard even 1 person come out in favor of nationalized health care. It's complete idiocy to think our nation would be better off under such an unconstitutional plan.

The Libertarians believe in DEREGULATING the health care industry - not having it run completely by the government.

[LibertyRocks]

I'd be more than happy to pursue allegations in all states. If you have access to this information I suggest you pass it on to the GAO, or the League of Women Voters in those states. Or, you could post the information here...

[lavrenti]

Yeah, whatever. The old agrarian, libertarian Republic died at Fort Sumter. I see no return of it, and quite frankly, it was a proven failure.

Like that plankton dork your party ran as a "candidate" you are totally silly in your self-importance.

Look, if your ideals mean so much to you, why not start one of those independent communities somewhere way out west? You and your pals can have your republic of dreams and fund the colony by making cute little things that we can uy at gift shops. Otherwise, you are nothing but a disruptive influence and add little of value to the political debate.

[gaa1980198420002004]

>>The only reason you think Badnarik is on the Greens and Dems coattails is because the MSM has said so. This is not being done to hurt Bush, it's being done to expose real problems with our electoral system. As I said before if these problems are not uncovered and fixed then the Democrats could just as easily use these flaws to advance their candidates in the future.<<

Do you support or oppose a recount in Wisconsin and/or Pennsylvania?

-George

[LibertyRocks]

So, let me understand you - you're calling ideals that coincide with those of our founding fathers a disruptive influence and of "little value" to our political system?

You really don't believe in America as a Constitutional Republic do you? Are you sure you should be even be supporting the REPUBLICAN party? (I think I understand now why I get uneasy when Bush keeps referring to America as a "democracy".)

[LibertyRocks]

I would support a recount and an investigation into all allegations of electoral abuse or fraud no matter where they occurred, or who initiated the charges. If I was a millionaire I would finance it myself just so people couldn't say I was trying to use their tax dollars. I consider it that important to the future of our country in assuring free and fair elections.

[Mannaggia l'America]

Who is this radio host you speak of? Are you _sure_ he's a libertarian? Nationalized health care is against everything the Libertarian Party stands for! I'd like to know the names of these so-called Libertarians, especially this radio host you speak of and I'd like to confront them directly with this nonsense.

That radio host was Irv Homer, and I assume he is a libertarian - he says he is, and says he once ran to be come the VP candidate on the LP ticket in the 70's.

Now I don't know if he was trying to fan flames for his radio show or it was just because he hates Republicans, but I used to listen to his show every day (it came on after Rush in Philly) and distinctly remember him supporting nationalized health care. His reasoning was that since we pay so much money to the government in taxes, we should at least be "getting something for it".

[t2buckeye]

As far as the exit polls go...they were not right for several past elections..and for several reasons..Accuracy of exit polls depend on the pollsters. First...by its very nature, early exit polls can only canvass the early voter. Habits of early voters are ASSUMED to be one party or another based on past experience. Yet,not all people vote according to party affiliation. Just as weather forecasts miss often times, exit polls will do the same if the assumptions or the statistical models are inaccurate. For example, in Florida, registered Dems DID NOT vote for Kerry in the numbers assumed. So, the exit polls were wrong because the statistical models were wrong. Exit polls cannot be used to predict the winner. Also, what people say and how they vote are not always the same..especially considering some of the abuse Bush voters got while standing in line for example (check out the media accounts)
As far as knowing about fraud, the best way to figure that out is to determine IF people who are registered and voting are (1) still living in the area (2) dead or alive. If we don't require some photo proof of our right to vote, fraud will continue...especially in the large cities where people do not know each other. But everytime that is suggested, people cry voter intimidation!
I DO think the Dems knew they did not have the provisional votes in Ohio to counter Bush AND Bush would have been able to counter NHampshire and PA (NHampshire has same day registration....another prime possiblity for fraud)

Sorry for the long post...but I still don't see why The LP, if all they want is to check out fraud, hasn't been as vocal in other states than just the ones Kerry lost.

[writmeister]

I would never label Libertarians as socialists as that would be both inaccurate and disrespectful. I am just surprised they are acting so hand-in-hand with the Green party and that they are not asking for similar recounts in states won narrowly by Kerry.

[lavrenti]

Oh, I love the concept, but it was a government and society of its time and place. I am a firm believer in the concept of a Constitutional Republic, but its survival is better in the flawed grip of the GOP than the blood-dripped claws of manical Socialists.

I'm more of a man of the Right than I am an idealistic believer in the old Agrarian America. I don't believe in setting the clock back. I've a preference for setting it right.

However, while I do agree more with DeJasay, I am a realist like Paul Gottfried. I may a dreamer, but I know better than to walk off a cliff for my ideals.

[LibertyRocks]

First, let's grow up and stop calling names. I could start making fun of the President's name, but I'm not interested in being that disrepectful, of my fellow readers here at FR or to the President himself... and most definitely wouldn't do it here on a "family friendly" site.

I support the military and I'm not in agreement with the LP on this point. In fairness to my fellow Libertarians I will point out that not all Libertarians will agree with the following statements - I am speaking at this point for myself alone...

I am unaware of the fundraiser you are speaking of, but if you will provide me with information on where it took place I will look into it and give you my opinion of what was done.

I think everyone feels for the innocent victims of any war, but I think some of the blame for their deaths isn't being placed where it should lie - the dictators and other groups who allowed these atrocities to occur in the first place (Al Qaeda, Sadaam, the Taliban). They are the ones who brought about this war, we are just the only ones with enough guts to fight it.

I don't think any President, from any party, treats going to war lightly. I think perhaps "letters of mark" would have been better to go for though since we knew for sure, without any doubt whatsoever that Osama and his henchmen were the perpetrators of 9/11. I'm not for the initiation of force against anyone but we are entitled to defend ourselves. (For you Libertarians who don't think this war is an action of defensive nature - If I am wrong, then I guess I'll have to speak with God about it upon my death.)

I believe we did/do have evidence that Iraq was involved with 9/11 just as we had evidence that Afghanistan was protecting these criminals. I also understand that our President may not be at liberty to divulge all of the information they have gathered in this respect.

As far as Saddam goes he's as bad as Hitler was... we still don't know the extent of terror and torture he pushed on his people. Plus, it was only a matter of time before he used those biological weapons on the U.S. I DO feel safer now that he is gone.

[LibertyRocks]

"I would never label Libertarians as socialists as that would be both inaccurate and disrespectful.

Thank you for saying that, I really appreciate it.

Just to let all of you know I have written to the Badnarik campaign and asked about WI, PA, MI, & MN. I will forward information about our actions in these states once I find out what if anything has been done there. I also want to express my sincere desire for those that have evidence of wrongdoing to come forward with it and assist us in proving these things so we can get it fixed.

[LibertyRocks]

Thanks for giving me his name, I appreciate it. I have shot off an email to his producer asking him to confirm whether he really believes it or was just being sarcastic. I'm guessing it was a sarcastic remark. I'll post his answer here if and when I receive one.