Interview With Virginia Libertarian Matt Waters

Matt Waters And His Family.

Matt Waters And His Family.

Matt Waters plans to seek the Libertarian Party of Virginia’s nomination for U.S. Senate in 2018 to run against Tim Kaine and an as yet unknown Republican.  He is currently collecting signatures to get on the ballot.

Mr. Waters lives in Alexandria, Virginia and has been a member of the Libertarian Party since 2008. He was raised in Hampton, Virginia and graduated from George Mason University. He is married and has five children.

We recently conducted an interview with Mr. Waters and we have included that interview below.


1. Have you run for office before? Why did you decide to run for U.S. Senate and not a lower office?

Waters: No. Never run before. I have been involved in many campaigns, mostly conservative Tea Party Republican, as a fundraiser. I looked at the 8th district here, the Fairfax Co. Alexandria area, and it’s heavily democrat. I would not have had the opportunity to get the message out. I wanted to go big.

2. How long have you been a member of the LP and the LPVA?

Waters: National LP going back to April 2008 (according to my membership card). LPVA, I’m a recent member.

3. Nick Freitas is considered the libertarian-leaning candidate in the Republican primary. He has received the endorsement of Rand Paul, Mike Lee, and a few others. If he wins the primary and runs in the general election, why should a libertarian/Libertarian vote for you over Nick Freitas?

Waters: If Freitas wins, let’s revisit this question. He is an underdog and that is partly why I’m running, to give voters a choice in November. This November here in Virginia is shaping up to be a mirror of what 2020 will look like: a Trump Republican, a milk-toast Democrat, and a Libertarian.

4. Has Trump done anything to advance the libertarian agenda?

Waters: Yes, he has made Republicans look awful, and that may incline disillusioned Republicans to look at Libertarians—but we must be Libertarian—not faux. But we should not bet on Republicans joining us, as if they haven’t gotten the memo yet, I don’t think they ever will. It’s kinda like smoking—if you don’t know it will kill you—well, keep smoking. That’s what Republicans are doing—still smoking.

5. Would you support a constitutional amendment pertaining to term limits or a balanced budget? Why or why not?

Waters: Yes on both. George Will had a great column on this the other day, where he pointed out the two professors at Harvard who have a sound plan towards getting our books to balance. I’d support anything Will is saying—as he may be the most respected Libertarian in the country. On Term Limits, yes, got to take the professionalism out of this. But the only risk here is you have a deep state of professional bureaucrats who never leave Washington. I’d think we need to term limit public service in certain departments at certain levels. We sort of do that with political appointees, but take a deeper dive here. Needs to be looked at.

6. Do you agree with Gary Johnson, the 2012 and 2016 Libertarian Party nominee for President, that our immigration system needs to be streamlined to make it easier for people to come here legally?

Waters: I lean that way. I also lean towards cutting up the welfare state that may be having a disproportional impact on illegal immigration. I would also want to encourage our Latin American friends to focus on rule of law, private property rights, regulation reform, all of the things that make it hard for individuals to succeed. The Acton Institute did a study on how long it takes for an ordinary Hatian to open a business – a person not connected to government—about 260 days. Yet, someone connected to government, who knows someone, took them like a week. These governments are bankrupt, corrupt, and hurt individuals. They need to get their own houses in order.

7. If elected, who would you caucus with? How would you be able to work with other elected officials in Washington, D.C. if you are the sole Libertarian candidate?

Waters: The others would caucus with me! I’d remain independent and attempt to be as non-political as possible—meaning, if R’s do something that makes sense, I’d vote for it; same with D’s. At some point the Libertarian Party will send a representative to Congress, and just like others in smaller parties who went to Congress before us, with the hope that one day the independents in this country will decide to do something different. They did it with Trump.

8. You have already spoken with members of the LPVA State Central Committee (SCC) about your candidacy and they seemed receptive. How do you feel about receiving the nomination to run as the LPVA candidate for U.S. Sentate in 2018?

Waters: I am excited about it, as we need to offer an alternative to the status quo.

9. Do you have petitions up online that volunteers can download to help get you on the ballot? How many signatures do you need?

Waters: I do have a petition on my Facebook page, and on signatures, we need to capture 400 signatures in each of Virginia’s Congressional districts. So 4,400 valid signatures in the 11 districts, and 10,000 overall.

10. What will be the issue(s) that your campaign will focus on?

Waters: If you ask Americans what the number one concern is in this country, they will tell you that their government is. They love the country, they are afraid of the government. If Libertarians cannot capitalize on this, then we may as well pack up and go home. The IRS was weaponized against the Tea Party; the Department of Education is making us dumb and dumber. The FDA is a failure that is responsible for millions dead. The Defense Department is anything but. I think of the snow days here in DC – they tell federal workers – “all non-essential employees” no need to come in to work. If you are non-essential on a snow day, you are non-essential every day. Cut Commerce, Education, HUD, Energy—all a total waste. I ask friends to “Name one thing the federal government gets right?” Blank stares. And all that for $4.5 trillion a year. C’mon, it’s time to wake up and cut spending. My budget would cut spending $1 trillion a year, and would eliminate all federal personal income taxes for all Americans through the Liberty Amendment—eliminating the 16th Amendment and replacing the income tax with NOTHING.

12. How can volunteers contact you if they want to get involved with your campaign?

Waters: Go to MattWaters.com, it points to my facebook page, and the webpage is going live soon.

13. A lot of times we hear that voting for a Libertarian candidate is a “wasted vote” or that it will help the Democrat or Republican win (depending on who you talk to). What would you tell voters who are concerned about your candidacy affecting the election in a way that they perceive as negative?

Waters: I think Democrats and Republican voters are wasting their votes; after all, what has Tim Kaine done in the US Senate? Name one thing. These voters are on their way to becoming non-voters because they know nothing changes.

14. It has been reported that you are pro-life. Can you elaborate on this a little bit? Would you seek to have a “Personhood Amendment” added to the Constitution?

Waters: Yes, 100% pro-life, more so than any of the Republicans running. I have worked for and with multiple pro-life organizations over the last 25 years. I became pro-life in the mid-80’s reading Jesse Jackson and Al Gore’s statements—both were pro-life at one time—and both sold out their principles seeking higher office. I won’t do that. I’m encouraged that the Democrats—the party of Death according to Ramash Ponnuru’s book, are actually entertaining supporting pro-life candidates. So on personhood, on a Life Amendment, etc, yes, I would support nearly anything that protects life. That is at its very heart what it means to be an American—after all, its life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Life is first on the list. The life position also falls under the Libertarian banner of “do no harm”.

Gov. Gary Johnson Names Vicente Fox As World Leader He Admires

garyjohnsonportraitParticipating in a “Libertarian Town Hall” last night on MSNBC’s “Hardball” hosted by Chris Matthews, Gov. Gary Johnson and Gov. Bill Weld fielded questions about their platform, their candidacies, and the libertarian philosophy itself.  The one hour episode was filled with a mix of laughs, cheers, and at times, strong agreement from the crowd of students who attend The University of New Hampshire where the town hall was being held as part of Matthews’ “college tour.”

During the town hall, Matthews asked Gov. Johnson to name a living world leader that he admired.  Johnson paused to think about it before jokingly stating: “I guess I’m having an Aleppo moment,” referring to an earlier appearance on MSNBC where he was thrown a question out of left field concerning the Syrian city of Aleppo, and blanked.

Almost immediately after making the joke, Johnson said “The former President of Mexico.”  Gov. Weld chimed in with “Fox?” and Johnson agreed that was the correct name of the man he admired.

The Clinton spin machine, which includes most main stream media outlets seized upon this moment to claim Gov. Johnson couldn’t name any world leaders.  Most of the headlines on the internet lead with the misleading headline and some of the articles did not ever state that Johnson did name Vicente Fox as the leader he admired.

I’d like to thank the Clinton campaign (who it is reported is spending six figures to discredit Johnson) for giving Gov. Johnson the free publicity his campaign needs to win the election in November.

Internet Troll Runs for President: The Sad, Strange Campaign of Austin Petersen

One of the things Libertarians pride themselves on is that our nomination is a competitive and open process. Literally anybody can run for President, so long as they’re constitutionally eligible and a member of the party.

The downside of that is…. well: anybody can run for President.

anybody1

 This means that alongside the serious contenders to be the nominee, as well as sincere message-candidates aiming to shape the debate, we usually have a parade of delusional vanity campaigns trying to weasel their way into 15 minutes in the spotlight.

Typically, these candidates are harmless eccentrics, easily ignored by most in the party. Some years, however, there’s a candidate who manages to stand out… and not in a good way….

APworst

For those lucky enough to not know, Austin Wade Petersen (“three E’s” – he is very particular about that) is a 35-year-old resident of Missouri and, as we’ve previously described him, a “semi-professional Internet troll.” He briefly worked at the LNC HQ for a year during the Bob Barr campaign, had an unsuccessful foray into film production, and currently prefers to describe himself as the “founder” of a clickbait site so infested with pop-up ads and malware I won’t even bother to link to it here.

Running on zero relevant experience, Mr. Petersen’s main campaign issue, if you could even call it that, has been picking a fight with the radicals in the party over his condemnation of the “non-aggression principle,” which he derides as “pacifist anarchism.” There is, granted, a more intelligent conversation to potentially be had about the role of the N.A.P. in the Libertarian Party, but he doesn’t offer it.

Even Ron Paul’s non-interventionist foreign policy has come under fire from him as “sound[ing] like he hates America” and “a Soviet apologist,” while he also promises that “the [LP] platform will change in 2016 with me at its head.”

Beyond any substantive issue positions (which he’s pretty skimpy on), Austin’s campaign is based on open emulation of Donald Trump’s tactics: lie, insult, smear, be outrageously childish, and then when people object, ride the wave of negative attention. Except that unlike Trump, Austin is neither rich nor famous nor raking in large amounts of free media coverage. Still, here’s a representative sampling of the things you’ll see this self-proclaimed presidential candidate saying on social media, where he spends almost all of his time:

“I don’t take crap from losers like you.”

“You tubby piece of sh*t, you couldn’t even approach 1/4 of the pyramid of pu**y that I swim in on a regular basis. It’s because I have class, motherf***er!”

“Suck it up, buttercup.”

“low testosterone, as evidenced by his spindly frame.”

“lol. neckbeard!”

“If I wanted your opinion I would ask for it. Otherwise cram it.”

And that’s what he has to say to voters and Libertarians and interviewers! When it comes to other candidates, Steve Kerbel is “sleaze”and “the lowest of the low,” while John McAfee is “a drug addict.”

The main target of his vitriol, of course, has been the presumptive nominee Gov. Gary Johnson, whom Austin has attacked as “a low-energy drug dealer.”  The Chair of the Libertarian National Committee has fared no better, with Petersen posting Nicholas Sarwark’s personal cell phone number and encouraging people to call and complain during dinner, because the party accurately reported that Austin lost his home state to “uncommitted” in the Missouri primary.
idk111.png

Even Libertarian activists and volunteers like Colorado’s Caryn Ann Harlos- well-known in the party for her hot-pink hair- have been subject to organized harassment and bullying from Austin’s army of sock-puppet accounts and spammers. And that “low testosterone, spindly frame” comment above? That was said in reference to myself– who among other things got the Libertarian Party back on the ballot in my state– after which he sought to clarify at the Illinois L.P. convention that he wasn’t being homophobic, just an asshole. This was also after he commented on my personal FB page almost twenty times in a row with nothing but cartoon emojis.

On April 1st, appropriately enough, John Stossel will air a presidential forum among the “top-three” LP candidates, as measured by an easily-stuffed online poll. This was after Austin threw a very public screaming hissy fit, complete with knowing lies and willful slander, over the fact that Johnson did not cancel a planned debate at a state LP convention in order to have a non-televised debate moderated by Stossel at a conference. So, now, Austin has managed to get himself on T.V. as a presidential candidate the only way he can: by getting a real candidate to show up and treat him as the serious competitor he is not.

On April 1st, you’ll no doubt see a highly-polished and over-rehearsed Rubio-esque bit from Austin on FBN, and if he isn’t forced to go off-script he might even make a good impression. But that’s only because the real Austin Petersen, that members of the Libertarian Party have seen in action these past months, could never be aired on television. Not even on Fox.

Nominating this petulant man-child would be an utter disaster, but even promoting him as a serious contender for the party’s presidential nomination is doing the L.P. no favors. The sooner Austin ends this charade and goes home, the less damage he will have done to the party in a year when we have a historic opportunity to make an impact. If he genuinely cares about the future of the Libertarian Party, like he claims, he should end his campaign immediately, and start promoting our general election campaign that is already polling in double-digits against Trump and Clinton.

Update 1 Austin Petersen’s campaign manger responds:

shame111

Update 2 Andy, Joe, Jeff, and Jeffrey discuss this article on the latest ODLRN podcast:

 

ODLRN: Why We’re Endorsing Gary Johnson

Libertarian Presidential Candidate, Gary Johnson

2016 is shaping up to be a potential breakthrough year for the Libertarian Party, and there’s only one candidate who has the seriousness, credibility, and principles to lead the Libertarian ticket: the former Governor of New Mexico, and the most successful Libertarian presidential candidate in over thirty years: Gary Johnson.

As Johnson is the first to acknowledge, the Libertarian nomination process is open, competitive, and ongoing. So far we’ve had Steve Kerbel and Marc Allan Feldman on the show, and have found them both perfectly agreeable gentlemen. We’ve seen Austin Petersen and John McAfee bring a dash of controversy to the race.

None of them have given any indication that they could be, or are serious about trying to become, the next President of the United States. None of them have given any indication they could earn serious media coverage or vote totals for the Libertarian Party in 2016. Some of them say they intend to focus on building the party instead of doing those things. The more likely result, is that a campaign ostensibly focused on party-building instead of earning votes, will not do a very good job of either.  

We have also seen efforts from some quarters, to promote their preferred alternatives for the nomination, with grossly negative attacks and malicious smears and whisper campaigns. These attempts have been unpersuasive, and we don’t expect them to become any more persuasive with repetition.

When the delegates to the Libertarian National Convention gather in Orlando at the end of May, we will be presenting to the nation our choice for President of the United States. As a successful two-term Governor and entrepreneur, Johnson is not only qualified to be President, he’s better-qualified than what we usually get for the office. A self-made millionaire, experimental aircraft pilot, and world-class mountain climber and triathlete, he has a personal story to match his credentials.

On the issues and message, instead of preaching to the choir with obscure insider jargon, Johnson offers an outward-focused campaign that can sell libertarianism to the broad classically-liberal center of American politics. The vast unrepresented majority of fiscally conservative and socially liberal voters who have been disenfranchised by the two-party-only-system and are ripe to fuel the rise of a third major party.

Gary Johnson is the only candidate for 2016 who has demonstrated he can substantially improve our party’s vote totals, winning more votes than all other alternative candidates combined in 2012, and was the first nominee ever to win over a million votes. For the 2016 presidential nomination of America’s third-largest political party, there’s hardly a choice at all.

That’s why we here at the Old Dominion Libertarian Radio Network- Joe Enroughty, Jeff Kleb, Alex Butler, Jeffry Sanford, and Andy Craig- are unanimously endorsing Gov. Gary Johnson to be the 2016 Libertarian nominee for President of the United States.

How the Constitution could let the House stop both Clinton and Trump: 12th Amendment 2016?


The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. – U.S. Constitution, Amendment XII

 

There has been an increasing amount of discussion about a possible strong third-party or independent showing in 2016, whether from an independent Republican ticket put up in opposition to Trump, or from a Libertarian or independent campaign capitalizing on popular disgust with the frontrunners for the major-party nominations: Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, both of whom are unlikely to muster approval ratings higher than the low-mid 40s. 

This seems like a good opportunity to review one of the lesser-known provisions of that already too-obscure institution: the Electoral College. Under the 12th Amendment, in order to be elected President a candidate must secure an absolute majority (currently 270 votes) in the Electoral College. Thanks to a strange technicality in the way the amendment is written, as little as one Electoral Vote cast for a third-party candidate, could legally result in the House of Representatives electing that candidate President of the United States.

The way it works, is if no candidate receives a 270 vote majority. Then, the newly elected House will have to choose a President, in the brief window in January between when they take office (Jan 3) and Inauguration Day (Jan 20). In this election, they are limited to choosing from among the top three candidates in the Electoral College. Adding an additional wrinkle to the process: each state gets one vote, the only time the House of Representatives votes that way. The delegations from the 43 states having more than one Representative, must vote among themselves, to decide how to cast each state’s one vote. This effectively guarantees that the Republicans would control the outcome of any election thrown to the House, even if they are no longer the majority, because of their dominance in more, smaller states. 

The Vice President is elected separately by the Senate (voting as usual), however they are limited to the top two, not three, candidates in the Electoral College.

 

So, with that basic scheme in mind (see here for CGP Grey’s excellent video explanation): consider the following scenario plays out on Election Night 2016:


HouseEC



The Democratic nominee is Hillary Clinton. The Republican nominee is Donald Trump. The third candidate can be any number of possibilities: Jim Webb, Mike Bloomberg, Mark Cuban, Angus King, or an independent Republican ticket put up in opposition to Trump, such as Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan or Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio. However, since it’s my personal preference, in this scenario we’ll posit that it is Gary Johnson, former Governor of New Mexico, as the Libertarian nominee. The same basic premise can be played out with any of them.

Clinton has 43% of the popular vote. Trump has 39% of the popular vote. Johnson, after being included in the debates on the calculation from both major-party candidates that he would hurt the other more, gets 16% of the popular vote. The remaining 2% scatters to other minor party candidates. (This is roughly similar to the popular vote breakdown from Clinton vs. Bush vs. Perot in 1992.)

However, the Electoral College tells a different story than 1992. Unlike Ross Perot, Johnson has won a narrow first-place plurality with approx. 34% in three smaller states: New Hampshire, Nevada, and New Mexico, totaling 15 Electoral Votes. The remaining states are near evenly divided: the Democrat ticket has 260 Electoral Votes and, despite being four points behind in the popular vote, the Republican ticket has 263 Electoral Votes.

Instantly, all eyes turn to the House of Representatives, and in particular its Republican members.

The House Republicans are now in a real dilemma. Most have refused to support or endorse Donald Trump’s disastrous campaign, which has continued in much the same manner as his primary campaign, and a small number had even openly endorsed Johnson in the final weeks.  Most of those who nominally endorsed Trump, only did so halfheartedly and insincerely. 

The Clinton campaign demands that the House confirm her, not along party lines, but because she received, by far, the most popular votes. The same percentage, they note, as Bill Clinton had received to be elected in 1992, though still well short of 50%.

The Trump campaign counters that the voters had returned a GOP-majority House (at least by state), and so the specified process in the Constitution implies that the Republican members of the House should elect their own party’s nominee. Additionally, they count that Trump was the first-place candidate in the Electoral College. 

House Republicans are in a catch-22. The vast majority consider Trump ideologically and more importantly, temperamentally, unfit to be President. Many of them have said so publicly. Furthermore, almost two-thirds of voters rejected him, and he lost the popular vote by a wide margin. The idea of a Trump presidency, particularly under these circumstances, with every Republican in Congress to blame, is seen as a nightmare scenario among GOP establishment circles.

On the other hand, few Republican Congressmen can go home to their districts and face a primary, having voted to install Hillary Clinton as President. The massacre in the 2018 mid-term primary elections would be historic, and they know it. They are caught between losing their seats in primaries, or losing their majority in the general election, to voter backlash in favor of the spurned Democrats. 

In this scenario, Johnson presents a strongly appealing and compelling dark-horse option. A former Republican Governor with experience in office, and a smaller-government free-market platform, he is much more acceptable to many in Washington than dangerous lunatic Donald Trump. But he also has an appeal and acceptability to the left and center that Trump utterly lacks. The same is likely true of Jim Webb, and possibly Michael Bloomberg. 

Facing deadlock and no good options in picking either Clinton or Trump,  the House Republicans make an offer: the House will elect the third-party candidate President, and the Senate (still in GOP hands), will elect the Republican nominee for Vice-President. (This is made easier, since the third-place candidate for Vice President is not eligible to be elected by the Senate).  This could be Ted Cruz, for example, or another relatively acceptable GOP Governor or Senator placed on the ticket in a failed bid to keep the GOP unified behind Trump. (Alternately, if the Democrats have retaken the Senate, they could independently elect their party’s nominee for Vice President.)

So on December 30, 2016, a press conference is called in the Capitol Rotunda. Speaker Paul Ryan and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, announce that both of their incoming caucuses had just voted in a special closed-door session, to elect a Libertarian President and a Republican Vice-President. A unity ticket among candidates who, between them, received a majority of both the popular vote and the electoral college. After being sworn in on January 3, the new Congress does exactly that. 

And that’s how, if the stars align just right, this obscure provision of the Constitution could allow members of Congress to, in effect, veto both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump and elevate a third-place runner-up to the Oval Office instead. 

Far fetched? Absolutely. Impossible? I don’t think so. Unprecedented? Not quite. In 1824, a very similar scenario played out among John Quincy Adams, Andrew Jackson, and Henry Clay. Jackson, seen as unfit despite being the clear popular vote winner, was passed over in favor of popular runner-up Adams, thanks in part to a deal with 4th place candidate and Speaker of the House Henry Clay to appoint him as Secretary of State. 

This is not an entirely new idea, either. Throwing an election to the House has long been the goal of third-party Presidential campaigns, most famously those in 1948 and 1968 that swept the Deep South. It is a consideration that should figure heavily into any campaign strategy for a strong third-party presidential campaign.

Andy Craig Releases First Campaign Ad

Andy Craig

Andy Craig

U.S. Congressional candidate Andy Craig of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, has released his first campaign ad in the 2016 race which will pit him against incumbent Democrat Gwen Moore.

Craig, who recently celebrated his 25th birthday and is now constitutionally eligible to run for Congress, is chair of the Milwaukee Libertarian Party, Secretary of the Libertarian Party of Wisconsin, and a co-host of the popular internet radio program “The Old Dominion Libertarian Radio Network.”  He ran for Wisconsin Secretary Of State in 2014 receiving about 60,000 votes.

The campaign ad, which is titled: “Stop Over Criminalization,” can be seen below.

Posted by Andy Craig for Congress on Friday, December 11, 2015

 

Meet Dr. Marc Allan Feldman – Libertarian For President, 2016

Dr. Marc Allan Feldman - Libertarian Candidate For President, 2016

Dr. Marc Allan Feldman – Libertarian Candidate For President, 2016

Dr. Marc Allan Feldman is seeking the Libertarian Party’s nomination for President Of The United States.  Dr. Feldman is an anesthesiologist at The Cleveland Clinic in Cleveland, Ohio.  He has run for political office in Ohio before, most recently as The Libertarian Party Of Ohio’s candidate for Attorney General.  His Presidential Campaign is called “Votes Not For Sale,” and he is emphasizing getting big money out of politics.  Click here to watch his campaign announcement video.

Dr. Feldman was raised in Southern Maryland, just outside of Washington, D.C. Being around politicians throughout most of his childhood, he grew to dislike politics and felt there were no politicians worth voting for.  It wasn’t until he discovered the Libertarian Party at age 50, that he began to take an interest in politics and thus began voting.

He is running for President because he believes he can make a difference and his plan is very simple.  He titles it “BASE – My Progressive Plan to Shrink the Federal Government,” and here are the four practical steps it entails:

1. Balance the budget.
2. Audit all Federal agencies and laws.
3. Show the effectiveness of charitable organizations.
4. Exempt with a tax rebate for donations to certified effective charities.

1. Balance the budget. Retired admiral and former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen, was not exaggerating when he warned that “the single biggest threat to our national security is our debt.” On the first day of my administration I would deliver to Congress a detailed balanced budget. While Congress debates and considers this plan, I will declare a National Fiscal Emergency and, by executive order, direct every government agency to apply strict controls to limit spending to available revenue. Not one single dollar will be added to our 18 Trillion dollar debt. The debt clock will stop dead.

2. Audit the Federal Government. Every agency and every federal law exist to serve a purpose, to make a difference in the world. Some may work well, and others poorly. The world is a complicated place, and there is a Law of Unintended Consequences. A law may be well intentioned, but cause no improvement at all, or at times make matters worse. For every agency and every federal law, objective measurable survey instruments will be used to give evidence whether they are working, making people safer, more secure, feeding the hungry, healing the sick, or sheltering the homeless. If the law is not working – it is repealed. If the agency is not improving the situation – it is eliminated. The job would be given to the Government Accountability Office whose mission is “to support the Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and ensure the accountability of the federal government for the benefit of the American people. We provide Congress with timely information that is objective, fact-based, nonpartisan, nonideological, fair, and balanced.”

3. Show the Effectiveness of charitable organizations. The same survey instruments used to evaluate whether government laws and agencies are meeting their goals will be used voluntarily to evaluate the effectiveness of charitable organizations in meeting these same social goals. If charitable organization are equally or of greater effectiveness dollar for dollar than the federal government in making people safer, more secure, feeding the hungry, healing the sick, or sheltering the homeless or any other government social goal, that charity would be certified as an Effective Social Organization.

4. Exempt. If American taxpayers decide to donate to any charity certified as an Effective Social Organization, the taxpayer would not get just a tax deduction, but a dollar for dollar tax credit. This essentially causes an equivalent reduction in tax owed, making donations to Effective Social Organization free.

Because of the tax credit, billions of dollars being donated to these organization would cause a immediate revenue shortage. Because the budget is required to be balanced, spending cuts would be immediate and automatic. These cuts would be based on information, not politics. Because the government programs to be cut would be those that are managed more effectively by the voluntary charitable organizations.

This would lead to a simultaneous dramatic shrinking of the cost and intrusiveness of the Federal government and an expansion and empowerment of the private social safety net.

Dr. Feldman firmly believes that we have lost our way and are no longer following the Constitution, our founding document.  Here is what he had to say concerning the Constitution and our runaway government:

I don’t want a concealed carry gun permit.
I don’t need a same-sex marriage license.
I don’t have to have a marijuana grower’s permit.
I want freedom and a government that does not demand permits and licenses for things that are none of the government’s business. I don’t need all these permits and licenses, because I have a Constitution. Let’s respect that.

He has also stated:

I want my campaign to be a coalition, not a cult. I want people who agree with me that spending a billion dollars on a Presidential campaign is wrong. I want people who agree with me that we must balance our budget immediately. That we must honor our Constitution 100% and follow its instructions for a country that is more prosperous for all, more productive, and free.

Dr. Feldman wants to get big money out of politics not by creating more laws, but by informing the American people that they don’t have to vote for the big money candidates.  His campaign is accepting donations that are capped at $5.00 per individual person.  If you would like to make a donation to the campaign, click here.

Here is what his web site states about donations:

If you would like to become a supporter, please donate up to $5.

You cannot donate more.

You cannot make multiple donations with a total over $5.

That is not what we are about.

You will never receive a fundraising letter, fundraising call, or be asked to sponsor a fundraiser.

Because we do not do fundraising.

Because we think votes should not be for sale.

Dr. Feldman is tapping into a demographic that is usually ignored by both the Democratic and Republican Parties.  He states:

Are you one of the 100 million Americans who could have voted in 2012, but stayed home? Did you think you could not make a difference? Did you think politicians only represent the rich?
The only real voter fraud is telling people that their votes don’t count. They do. One hundred million struggling Americans can choose the next President. Even if you have to borrow money to pay bills. Even if you have had trouble with the law. Even if your English is not so good. You can have a President who will work for you and will represent you.
You deserve that.
It is your right.
Your vote is your voice.
Be heard.

He has also stated:

We should not allow people to hide greed, hatred, and lust for power behind a political philosophy.
Conservative values are good: responsibility, our Constitution, and religious faith.
Liberal values are good: fairness, tolerance, forgiveness, and charity.
Libertarian values are good: freedom, personal empowerment, and non-aggression.

There is nothing “conservative” about mass incarceration, police brutality, marijuana prohibition, or hating Islam.
There is nothing “liberal” about dependency, deficits, taxes, or hating Israel.
There is nothing “libertarian” about greed, bigotry, terrorism, or sexual exploitation.

Just because we are against an ever-expanding, intrusive, surveillance state, does not mean we are against all government.
Just because we believe government should not enforce morality, does not mean we are against morality.
Just because we do not believe that government should take care of people, does not mean that we should not take care of each other.

On Tuesday, August 4th, 2015, Dr. Feldman will be visiting Richmond, Virginia for the first time as a Presidential Candidate.  He will be speaking to The Patrick Henry Supper Club hosted by The Richmond Metro Libertarians at The Robin Inn Restaurant in Richmond’s Historic Fan District.  Why not join us for dinner (beginning at 6pm) and stay for Dr. Feldman’s presentation.  You do not have to be a member of the Libertarian Party to attend.  He is a refreshing change from all of the other candidates getting the major media attention.  Perhaps that is why they refuse to cover his campaign in their news cycles.

For more information about Dr. Feldman and his campaign, you can visit his web site or Facebook page.

Libertarian Candidate For Kansas Governor Releases New Ad

Keen Umbehr

Keen Umbehr, Libertarian Candidate For Governor Of Kansas.

Keen Umbehr, the Libertarian Candidate for Governor of Kansas has released a new ad this week.  The new ad provides a brief overview of Mr. Umbehr and his plans once elected Governor of Kansas.

Umbehr has been spending the last two days traveling the state of Kansas in what he calls the 34 City Tour.  He’s been answering questions and handing out campaign materials and yard signs to those who come out to meet him.

Umbehr’s campaign has noted that it only takes 34% of the vote to win a three way race and has dedicated a portion of their web site to those Kansas voters who are part of the 34%.  These voters are sharing their reasons for why they have decided to support Mr. Umbehr.

Umbehr has an opportunity to win this race and is getting his message out to as many Kansas Voters as he can.  It is clear that Kansas voters are sick and tired of the same old dishonest and crony politics that Sam Brownback (R) and Paul Davis (D) have to offer.

To all those who want more efficient and transparent government in Kansas, Keen Umbehr is the only choice.  You can view his new campaign ad below.

Cuccinelli Political Strategist Says Libertarians Exist To Keep Republicans From Winning

Chris LaCivita

Chris LaCivita served as chief political strategist for Ken Cuccinelli.

When Ken Cuccinelli ran for Governor of Virginia in 2013, he framed himself as a “libertarian-leaning Republican.”  And recently his chief political strategist Chris LaCivita, let the cat out of the bag when he was interviewed for a June 6th, 2014 article at The Washington Examiner concerning North Carolina Libertarian Senate Candidate Sean Haugh.

In the article, LaCivita is quoted as saying: “Libertarians and quote unquote libertarian-minded Republicans exist for one purpose and one purpose only, and that is to keep Republicans from winning general elections.”

“From a political standpoint, those individuals are Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi’s best pals.”

Rand Paul & Ken CuccinelliOh what seven months after an election won’t do to one’s memory.  LaCivita forgets that he was part of a team of “political experts” who failed to convince voters that a should-be convicted felon was more “Libertarian” than the real Libertarian Candidate, Robert Sarvis (Sarvis is now running for U.S. Senate in Virginia).  They even brought in former Congressman and 2012 Presidential Candidate Ron Paul (who is known as a libertarian-minded Republican) to seal the deal.  Don’t forget too, that Rand Paul endorsed Cuccinelli over real Libertarian Sarvis.  Of course, Rand Paul (Ron Paul’s son) always endorses Republicans over Libertarians, because, well, he is a Republican and, you know, Liberty.

For LaCivita – once you start telling lies, it’s hard to keep everything straight.

And we all know that Ken Cuccinelli himself, also feels the same way.  But the way you woo Libertarians to your campaign is to lie and pretend you are one.  Unfortunately for Cuccinelli – much like Mitt Romney – no matter how dishonest you are, you still can’t win an election.

Exit polls from the Virginia Governor’s race proved that had Sarvis not been in the race, Cuccinelli would have lost to Democrat Terry McAuliffe by an even wider margin.  Let us not ever accuse Republicans of being as dishonest as Democrats.

Libertarians exist to keep both Democrats and Republicans from winning (you could argue that both parties are the same – and you’d probably be right).  In most elections we pull evenly from both sides.  There have been, on a few occasions, times when we have pulled more from the Democrats or more from the Republicans.  But in general, we take from both sides evenly.

LaCivita, like many other Republicans, is being intentionally dishonest.  It’s a growing pattern within the Republican party.  A last ditch effort to save a dying brand that should have never been popular to begin with.  It’s not as if LaCivita hasn’t looked at the exit poll data from the 2013 Governor’s race in Virginia.  But that data doesn’t fit the narrative he’s trying to sell.  So his only option is to lie through his teeth and hope that nobody does their own research.

Republicans and Democrats do not want Libertarians winning elections.  Republicans seem to be the most vocal about it at this time.  The Democrats just sit back with their feet propped up, laughing, while Republicans like LaCivita make fools of themselves and push more Libertarians away from the Republican Party.

I guess Cuccinelli shot himself in the foot when he claimed to be “Libertarian Leaning.” Because according to his chief political strategist, his one and only purpose was to keep himself from winning.

And that’s really good for the Libertarian Party.

Bill Lamb Admits Kentucky Senate Election Has Been Rigged

In the upcoming U.S. Senate race in Kentucky, someone has rigged the election.  How do I know this?  It’s quite simple, really.  Let’s start at the beginning…

Libertarian David Patterson

Kentucky Libertarian Senatorial Candidate David Patterson

Tea Party Republican Matt Bevin was running against Liberal Republican Mitch McConnell in the Republican Primary.  Bevin lost.  Now McConnell must face Libertarian David Patterson, and Democrat Alison Lundergan Grimes.

Invitations for a debate between the candidates, hosted by WDRB News – the local FOX news affiliate in Louisville, Kentucky – were sent out to McConnell and Grimes, but not Patterson.

A concerned voter contacted WDRB President Bill Lamb, who responded: “I’ve never heard of Mr. Patterson, which is part of the problem.  A Libertarian candidate has zero chance of winning this election.  He has no name recognition and no money to gain name recognition.  While one could argue he might add some interesting ideas to a debate, he would also take precious time away from the only two candidates with a chance to win.  To me, that’s not fair to the viable candidates nor to the voters who want to hear from the only two candidate who can win.”

Mr. Lamb obviously has some inside information that the rest of us are not privy to.  I contacted Mr. Lamb’s office for comment, but no one has returned my call.

Mr. Lamb is either planning to rig the November Kentucky Senate Election, or he knows the person who is planning to do that.  There is no other way he could know that David Patterson will not win.

More than likely, Mr. Lamb is not being honest and in reality he has no clue who will win the race in November.  But because he dislikes Libertarians so, he’s decided to throw his weight around.  As President of WDRB, he gets to decide who will participate in the debate and who will not.  And up until now, he has not had to answer to anyone.

I’m asking all of you who read this blog to share this story far and wide.  And when you’re done, please contact WDRB and let them know that you are not happy with their decision to exclude David Patterson.  Please be kind when you do.  That is the most important part.  Below I’ll list the contact information for Mr. Lamb.

The media is corrupt.  It’s up to us to set the story straight.

Bill Lamb’s Contact Information:

blamb@wdrb.com
(502) 585-0817

On a final note, here’s hoping that Matt Bevin does the right thing for his state and his country, and endorses David Patterson For U.S. Senate.  You can e-mail the Bevin Campaign requesting that he do so by clicking here.