Posts tagged New Hampshire
Lawrence Lessig: The unstoppable walk to political reform
Published by TED
Seven years ago, Internet activist Aaron Swartz convinced Lawrence Lessig to take up the fight for political reform. A year after Swartz’s tragic death, Lessig continues his campaign to free US politics from the stranglehold of corruption. In this fiery, deeply personal talk, he calls for all citizens to engage, and a offers a heartfelt reminder to never give up hope.
Image credit: TED video capture
Posted by LibertopiaFilm
Libertopia is a time capsule of the Free State Project from 2008-2009. For more information about the FSP, go to http://freestateproject.org/. If you like the movie, consider making a donation at http://libertopiafilm.com, so the filmmakers can keep telling good stories.
Hit the open road with Libertopia, a documentary film that follows a unique group of people on individual quests for liberty. Watch as they follow the call of the Free State Project, an invitation to the liberty-minded at large to combine and concentrate their efforts in a single US state.
From across the country and beyond, people are uprooting their lives to converge in New Hampshire, where on a daily basis they work to create a more free society.
The Associated Press | Posted: Feb 27, 2013 4:49 PM ET | Last Updated: Feb 27, 2013 5:25 PM ET
The U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative justices voiced deep skepticism Wednesday about a section of a landmark civil rights law that has helped millions of Americans exercise their right to vote.
In an ominous note for supporters of the key provision of the Voting Rights Act, Justice Anthony Kennedy both acknowledged the measure’s vital role in fighting discrimination and suggested that other important laws in U.S. history had run their course. “Times change,” Kennedy said during the fast-paced, 70-minute argument.
Kennedy’s views are likely to prevail on the closely divided court, and he tends to side with his more conservative colleagues on matters of race.
The court’s liberals and conservatives engaged in a sometimes tense back-and-forth over whether there is still a need in 2013 for the part of the voting rights law that requires states with a history of discrimination against blacks, mainly in the Deep South, to get approval before making changes in the way elections are held.
Justice Antonin Scalia called the law a “perpetuation of racial entitlement.”
Chief Justice John Roberts, a vocal skeptic of the use of race in all areas of public life, cited a variety of statistics that showed starker racial disparities in some aspects of voting in the northeastern state of Massachusetts than in the southern state of Mississippi. Then he asked the government’s top Supreme Court lawyer whether the Obama administration thinks “the citizens in the South are more racist than citizens in the North?”
The answer from Solicitor General Donald Verrilli was no.
Location of law
The question, and others like it from the conservative justices, largely echoed the doubts they first expressed four years ago in a similar case that ended without resolving the constitutionality of the latest renewal of the voting rights law, in 2006. They questioned whether there remain appreciable differences between the locations covered by the law and those that are not.
They also wondered whether there was any end in sight for a provision that intrudes on states’ rights to conduct elections and which was regarded as an emergency response to decades of state-sponsored discrimination in voting, despite the U.S Constitution’s Fifteenth Amendment guarantee of the vote for black Americans.
The provision shifted the legal burden and required governments that were covered to demonstrate that their proposed changes would not discriminate. Another part of the voting rights law, not being challenged, allows for traditional, after-the-fact claims of discrimination in voting and applies across the country.
As his administration was defending the voting rights law, U.S. President Barack Obama was across the street at the Capitol unveiling a statue of civil rights pioneer Rosa Parks, who in 1955 famously refused to give up her seat on a city bus in Montgomery, Alabama, to a white man. The court will have to decide whether the conditions that gave rise to that seminal event are, like the statue, a part of history, or whether they persist in parts of the nation.
The court’s four liberal justices, including Obama appointees Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, appeared uniformly to be willing to defer to the decision by Congress that more progress needs to be made before freeing states from the special federal monitoring.
Those justices aggressively questioned Bert Rein, the lawyer representing Shelby County, Alabama, a southern state, in its challenge to the law.
Sotomayor acknowledged some parts of the South had changed, but she asserted that recent voting rights lawsuits in Alabama suggested that Shelby County, near Birmingham, has not made sufficient progress.
“Why would we vote in favour of a county whose record is the epitome of what caused the passage of this law to start with?” Sotomayor asked.
Kagan chimed in that any formula devised by Congress “would capture Alabama,” where she said certain discriminatory voting practices have persisted.
But Rein said the issue was whether the formula in place, using statistics that are at least 40 years old, remains a valid way to determine which locations have to ask for permission to make voting changes.
Protection of minorities
Debo Adegbile, a lawyer for the NAACP Legal Defence and Educational Fund, argued to the court on behalf of local Alabama elected officials and civil rights leaders. He sought to show the justices that there is a current need for the law, an effort to counter the court’s admonition four years ago that current conditions, not history alone, must justify the continuing application of the law. The NAACP is a leading civil rights organization.
In 2011, Adegbile said, a judge in Alabama cited state lawmakers’ derogatory references to African-Americans as a reason to continue to protect minority voters through the Voting Rights Act.
But Roberts challenged the lawyer. “Have there been episodes, egregious episodes of the kind you are talking about in states that are not covered?” the chief justice asked.
Absolutely, Adegbile replied.
“Well, then it doesn’t seem to help you make the point that the differential between covered and noncovered continues to be justified,” Roberts said.
The requirement currently applies to the states of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia. It also covers certain counties in California, Florida, New York, North Carolina and South Dakota, and some local jurisdictions in Michigan and New Hampshire. Coverage has been triggered by past discrimination not only against blacks, but also against American Indians, Asian-Americans, Alaska Natives and Hispanics.
Among the covered states, Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, South Carolina, South Dakota and Texas are siding with Shelby County, while California, Mississippi, New York and North Carolina argue that the law should be upheld.
Nearly 250 of the 12,000 state, county and local governments covered by the law have used an escape hatch to get out from under the special oversight by demonstrating that they and smaller places within their borders no longer discriminate in voting. The 10 covered towns in New Hampshire are poised to exit as they await federal court approval for an agreement between the state and the Justice Department.
A decision is expected by late June.
By Aaron Dykes
Opponents of Agenda 21′s local implementation in the United States have begun mounting a notable resistance. At state capitals and city councils, activists are showing up to educate and lobby their elected representatives about the implications of this United Nations’ plan for sovereignty, property rights and the future development of the country.
It has become such a widespread phenomenon that media outlets everywhere are spinning into damage control in effort to ridicule the anti-Agenda 21 movement, hoping that it will go away before the general population understands the issue.
But their efforts are fruitless. Coverage across the country begrudgingly notes that groups are opposing local “sustainability” initiatives and fighting back against plans to concentrate growth into dense urban centers under emerging “mega-regions.”
Now, a case in Georgia has triggered an all-out media frenzy, after a local group convinced the state’s Senate Majority Leader, Chip Rogers (R – Woodstock), to hold an information session on Agenda 21 attended by several other GOP senators and representatives. Conspicuously negative coverage is being used to pressure these politicians to avoid supposedly fringe elements in their constituency.
The progressive, sustainability group Better Georgia released video of the meeting, and blasted the ‘extremist’ views presented, that included comparing Obama’s socialist vision with the plans of Joseph Stalin and Chairman Mao, which resulted in famine and genocide.
Worse, according to the portrayals, is the involvement of one Field Searcy, who helped present the slideshow. Searcy had been booted from his Tea Party group for recommending people visit Infowars.com and tune into Alex Jones. The tea party group formally objected to Searcy’s activities in “actively promoting issues and beliefs derived from conspiracy theorist Alex Jones.” As such, his presence at the clandestine Agenda 21 meeting was presented as particularly damning.
11 Alive, the NBC affiliate in Atlanta, covered the meeting, mocking the conspiracy and “global control” theorists attempting to expose Agenda 21, telling viewers that the groups and politicians involved think people who believe in “environmentalism and sustainability” are part of the problem.
Meanwhile, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution published multiple articles on the Agenda 21 presentation, including an op-ed titled, “Agenda 21: The lunacy infiltrating state leaders.” Regional papers promised that state Senator Chip Rogers would face “blowback” for hosting the information session, and otherwise insinuated that Rogers had been stung by the “secret” video that had “surfaced”.
http://NextNewsNetwork.com | People are pulling up stakes and moving from their homes in search of freer states. Where are they going? Danny Panzella reports.
Jury Nullification Supporters Rally Behind CopBlock.org Founder, Who Faces 21 Years in Prison for Reporting Police Brutality
Keene, New Hampshire – August 4, 2012 – The controversial felony wiretapping charges journalist and CopBlock.org founder Adam ‘Ademo’ Mueller is facing will go to trial, a situation that has stirred up a hornet’s nest of free speech advocates in New Hampshire. The “Free Ademo” supporters are planning to show their support en masse at Hillsboro County Superior Court when jury selection for the trial begins at 9 a.m. Monday, August 6. This will be the first time an activist has taken a case this serious to trial since the state passed HB 146, a jury nullification law that ensures the defense’s right to inform the jury of their right to issue “not guilty” verdicts when they disagree with the application of the law in question.
By Jack Hunter
“The Ron Paul Revolution Won’t Stop Here”
I have made the case that Ron Paul is not only changing the Republican Party, but is catering to a new, emerging electorate that eschews the big government aspects of both parties. Writing today at CNN.com, Timothy Stanley makes some of the same observations:
Paul’s campaign represents a message that is bigger and perhaps more popular than the candidate himself. As it continues to collect small numbers of delegates and capture control of local GOPs, Paulism is proving itself to be in rude health. Long after Mitt Romney is nominated, feted at the convention, beaten by Obama and recycled as a question on Jeopardy (“In 2012, he lost every state but Utah.” “Who is … Britt Gormley?”), Paul’s philosophy will still be a factor in national politics — something to be feared and courted in equal measure…
I have to declare a great deal of affection for Paul. Unlike other politicians, he seems motivated by ideas — and he communicates his passion with the zeal of a nutty professor detailing the thrilling possibilities of quasars and black holes. This is a doctor who refused to accept Medicare payments but lowered his prices for patients who couldn’t afford him, who declined a government pension and never voted for a tax increase, who told Republicans they need to end the War on Drugs (and most other wars, too). He’s pure…
Paul’s 2012 candidacy has had certain hidden successes. Aside from all the money he raised, Ron Paul also attracted an unusual coalition of young people, libertarian Republicans, and disaffected Democrats — a coalition large enough for him to run even with Obama in some polls. The pull among the kids was big enough to fuel talk of a new generational voting bloc. In Iowa, he took 48% of the under-30s, compared with Santorum’s 23% and Romney’s 14%. In New Hampshire, he got 47%, while Romney took just 26%…
Within the GOP, the Paulites are still the unbeaten masters of the administrative procedure. Last Saturday, they swept a confusing ballot process in Louisiana to give themselves control of 70% of delegates attending the state’s nominating convention, which could mean they end up numerically “winning” Louisiana. Similar things have happened in Minnesota and even Romney’s home state of Massachusetts.
Combine this administrative brilliance with generational politics and you get a silent grass-roots revolution that is putting many Paulites in positions of power. In 2010, more than a dozen of them won elections as Republicans, including Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan and Sen. Rand Paul (son of Ron) of Kentucky. This year, two dozen active Paul backers are seeking election to Congress, along with more than 200 running for local office. The Paulites have effectively taken over the Iowa GOP. The state central committee now has six members who are passionate for Paul, and the head of the local party is now a Paulite. Given the importance of Iowa to the 2016 nomination, this is a coup in every sense.
All of this means the GOP can no longer ignore its libertarian “fringe.” On the contrary, it will have to reach out to a new generation of activists who don’t regard religious piety or continual warfare as sacred tenets of conservatism. Even Romney will have to take Sarah Palin’s advice not to “marginalize” the Paulites if he is to emerge from the nominating convention with a united party.
Whatever happens in 2012, we are living through a significant moment in the history of conservatism. The age of Bush and Obama — twin specters of lavish spending and imperial design — have birthed anti-government movements of right (tea party) and left (Occupy). The one that will last longest and have the most impact is the one that has been the most pragmatic and politically savvy.
The Ron Paul revolution won’t stop here.
The time is NOW to take back our personal liberties and freedoms!
Ron Paul 2012: Restore America Now
Please visit Ron Paul’s official campaign site by following the link below and donate today!
But none of these delegate counters properly estimate how the caucuses will allocate their delegates. According to the Paul campaign, Ron is well positioned to win 50% of the delegates in Iowa, 75% in Minnesota, 50% in Colorado, and 75% in Maine. So what is likely to be the true delegate count once the caucus states select their national delegates?
Add together the bound delegates from New Hampshire, South Carolina, Florida, and Nevada, and extrapolate the caucus states’ delegates using the Paul campaign’s estimates and you get:
Total Delegates (IA, NH, SC, FL, NV, MN, CO, ME)
Romney: 93 (6, 7, 2, 50, 14, 2, 7, 5)
Paul: 82 (13, 3, 0, 0, 5, 28, 17, 16)
Gingrich: 29 (0, 0, 23, 0, 6, 0, 0, 0)
Santorum: 25 (6, 0, 0, 0, 3, 7, 9, 0)
Unpledged: 14 (3, 2, 0, 0, 0, 3, 3, 3)
*Unpledged includes Huntsman’s delegates in NH as well as unbound party leader delegates in certain states.
The caucus/convention process for selecting delegates has plenty of quirks along the way – the eventual delegates could be more evenly dispersed or could skew even more heavily to Paul as the majority candidate. But this is a far more accurate portrayal of the true state of play than allocating delegates proportionately to the straw poll or entirely to the straw poll leader.
And it shows that, for now, this is a two-man race in delegates between Paul and Romney.
The 2012 GOP Primary: Unmasking the Vote Manipulation
This information is taken straight from the document linked at the top of this post, “The 2012 SC GOP Primary.docx” and I would encourage all to download this and analyze for yourself. Also, there is no telling how long this will be available so I would (as I have) download this today!
No matter who is your canidate of choice, the choice should be yours and your vote should reflect your choice.
My personal choice is Ron Paul. If you are of like mind and feel it is time we elect statesman, not another status quo politician, feel the need to return to the rule of law and adhearence to the Constitution, I would then hope you follow the link below and donate to the RonPaul2012 campaign.
by Laura Trice
Contrary to the false propaganda proclaiming that Dr. Ron Paul is “not electable”, his numbers are rising, his support growing and he stands an excellent chance of winning both the GOP nomination and the 2012 presidential race.
Dr. Paul’s opponents are desperate to stop Americans from listening to, and subsequently electing Ron Paul. Opponents of liberty falsely present Ron Paul as “unelectable” to the American people, attempting to plant subconscious seeds doubt of “don’t listen to him, don’t vote for him in the primaries or caucuses because he’ll never win”. This strategy is failing as more Americans hear Dr. Paul speak, leading them to contribute to his campaign and vote for him. The American public understands Dr. Paul’s common sense approach and trusts him. The other candidates are clearly in the race to serve their egos and personal agendas. The “Dr. Paul is not electable” rumors are deliberately created and spread solely as a calculated attempt to confuse honest, hard-working American with falsehoods such as “Ron Paul is crazy, anti-women, anti-Israel and anti-blacks. He’s isolationist, he’ll wreck the country, he’s anti-government”. These are simple “control the masses” fear tactics to try and stop Americans from actually listening to Dr. Paul, hearing his logical and intelligent plan and deciding for themselves.
Dr. Paul went from third in Iowa, to second in New Hampshire and may win South Carolina. The new video about Romney’s career, King of Bain, depicts Romney as a deceptive and greedy man with Wall Street connections who made his money destroying viable companies. The film portrays as Romney unnecessarily eliminating jobs of hard-working people while getting rich himself.
Romney is the unelectable candidate, not Dr. Paul.
6. Dr. Paul not an “isolationist”. He is a veteran who believes in only going to war when it has been formally declared per the U.S. Constitution. “We shouldn’t have so many injured and in our hospitals because we shouldn’t go to war unless it’s declared. If it’s declared, we should go win it and get it over with.” If he were an isolationist, what reason would he be the candidate who gets the most donations from people in the military? Dr. Paul wants to withdraw from the United Nations, which would be the Constitutional thing to do. Thomas Jefferson, founding father and an author of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution stated, “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.” Regarding Israel, Dr. Paul said “Two of the tenets of a true Zionist are ‘self-determination’ and ‘self-reliance…We give $3 billion to Israel and $12 billion to her avowed enemies. How does that help Israel? And in return, we act like her master and demand veto power over her foreign policy.” Ron Paul states, “Any kind of racism or anti-Semitism is incompatible with my philosophy.” He is against foreign aid period. “I believe that federal foreign aid is absurd. We’re broke!… It is ridiculous for us to be borrowing money from China and giving it to Pakistan. I have described foreign aid as taking money from poor people in rich countries and giving it to rich people in poor countries. I know that many in other nations are hurting, but I also know that the American people are a generous people. While we should end the unconstitutional federal foreign aid program, I would encourage Americans to continue to voluntarily contribute to the needs of other nations.”
5. Dr. Ron Paul would run the U.S. budget like many of us responsibly handle our money at home: Spending less than we make and getting rid of dishonest or unnecessary waste.
4. Dr. Paul’s plans for the country make sense.
2. He is the only one who makes sense in the debates. If you watch the debates, he answers questions directly and honestly. The link in this paragraph lists the upcoming debates. Many traditional Democrats might find themselves voting for Dr. Paul after watching him in a few debates.
1. Dr. Paul is the only person in the 2012 race for president who wants to serve the country. All the other candidates like the idea of the power, status, glory and success. Dr. Paul has humility and a humble approach that no other candidate has.
“Educate and inform the whole mass of the people… They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.” – Thomas Jefferson