This is quite a shot in the dark, and I’m sure the Barr campaign discussed this internally, although one never knows. They can use the Texas ballot access fight to their advantage in an attempt to get Bob Barr into the debates.
They should continue spreading the word about Obama and McCain missing the ballot access deadline in Texas. Also, they should add a new tactic to their press releases on the matter. The Barr campaign should make it clear (and public) that if both the Obama and McCain campaigns are truly interested in “change” as they claim then they should be for what the majority of the American people want and that is for Bob Barr to be in the debates (according the the recent Zogby poll saying 55% of those polled said he should be included). This alone is already being pursued to a degree, but it must be made more public using all media opportunities. The key is to continue to use the “change” rhetoric of the anti-change Parties against them.
The final and most convincing argument can be found with the Texas ballot fight where both Obama and McCain missed the filing deadline (supposedly). It seems that threatening a lawsuit could be used as a negotiating tactic. The Barr campaign’s lawyers can offer to drop the lawsuit if both Obama and McCain agree to allow Barr into the debates. Pointing out the amount of money and time both campaigns will have to spend on defending the lawsuit instead of their own campaigns should be a key point.
It is unlikely either Obama or McCain will fold to such “offers”, but it is worth a shot, especially since the law is being relaxed to their benefit. For Bob Barr, fighting for debate access is more important than fighting for ballot access at this point.
If Obama and McCain are truly for “change” and putting the “country first” then they should not suppress Bob Barr’s inclusion in the debates. Unfortunately, unless the main stream media makes this Texas ballot fight and hypocrisy widely known most voters will never get to hear the true message of change in this election.
To very little public fanfare from my beloved American media, a Mockery of a Trial of Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, alleged al-Qaeda mastermind, is getting underway in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Is John McCain losing any sleep over it? Doubt it.
Senator John McCain and Khaled Sheikh Mohammed actually share one very important fact in common.
Both have been held as prisoners for the same term, 5-and-a-half years, and have been subjected to hideous amounts of torture.
After a self-professed suicide attempt, McCain survived the ordeal, returned home to his first wife and family, and has gone on to be a US Senator or Congressman for over 25 years, and has a chance to become POTUS this September. However, if McCain’s mind is sane, he would probably see at least a moral similarity to how he as an American POW was treated by the North Vietnamese after dropping bombs on them, and how a captured terrorist/enemy combatant was treated by at the hands of his American government for bombing the WTC. However, after not having batted an eyelid to assist fellow US citizen Jose Padilla when he was tortured for a terrorist/enemy combatant crime that he was never even tried for, I am sure McBama will stay quiet on the human rights violations committed on Khaled Sheikh Mohammed (or KSM as the US government refers to him in dehumanizing fashion in the 9/11 Commission Report).
In the typical faux liberty laden USA Bob Barr’s lawsuit claims against the Saddleback Church forum were denied. From CBS news in Los Angeles:
SANTA ANA, Calif. A federal judge Friday denied Libertarian presidential hopeful Bob Barr’s bid to be included in a presidential forum in Lake Forest with Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama or stop the event as a violation of federal campaign law.
U.S. District Judge David O. Carter refused to issue an order on behalf of Barr and Wayne Root, his vice presidential running mate, that would disrupt the Civil Forum on Leadership and Compassion scheduled to begin Saturday at 5 p.m. at Saddleback Church.
“Plaintiffs will lose out on a fair amount of exposure and the opportunity to express their views in a popular forum,” Carter conceded. “On the other hand, halting this event would deny the other candidates the opportunity to be heard and would deprive the public of an opportunity to see the candidates and hear their views.
“Forcing Saddleback to include another candidate at the last moment could cause serious logistical problems and take away from the presentations of other candidate,” Carter said. “This might well disrupt the planned presentation.”
Carter said Barr and Root “will have many other opportunities in the coming months to express their views and make their candidacy known.”
This is hardly a shock but sooner or later one of these fights will be won; therefore, it is important to continue the fight. Some called this effort a “waste”. Imagine if the Judge happened to be libertarian leaning. I’m told some of them do exist (See former Judge Andrew Napolitano).
The West Virginia Libertarian presidential petition probably doesn’t have enough valid signatures. The campaign is continuing to obtain more, and will submit them soon. If the first batch is insufficient, a particular experienced attorney will file a lawsuit against the deadline. The basis for the lawsuit will be Anderson v Celebrezze.
For an explanation of Anderson v Celebrezze…
…the U.S. Supreme Court said in Anderson v Celebrezze that states may not discriminate against independent and minor party presidential candidates in the matter of timing.
The argument would be that since the Democrats and Republicans don’t even have official nominees yet it shows discrimination against minor party and independent candidates to have a ballot access deadline so early. It makes logical sense that this argument would win, but in the real world of politics logic isn’t always applicable.
Here is Bob Barr’s press release following the Supreme Court, Heller DC Gun Ban decision.
Washington, DC - Today the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the individual right of Americans to own guns in District of Columbia v. Heller. The ruling “will go down as one of the Supreme Court’s most important rulings on behalf of liberty,” says Libertarian Party presidential candidate Bob Barr.
Until today, the Court had never held that the Second Amendment directly applied to individuals. “Today’s decision marks a new era for gun rights in America,” explains Barr, who is a member of the Board of Directors of the National Rifle Association. Barr also drafted the Libertarian Party’s amicus curiae brief in Heller. “By protecting an individual’s right to keep and bear arms, the Second Amendment ensures that all Americans are able to participate in sporting activities, hunt, and protect themselves and their families,” he explains.
The right to self-defense is particularly important for women and minorities in a city like Washington, D.C. “Where crime rates are high, a gun may be the only means for law-abiding citizens to safeguard themselves and their families,” Barr notes. “Lawful gun ownership deters an untold number of crimes every year.”
But the Court’s ruling, though welcome, is not enough. “It is important to have a president who also supports the right of Americans to own firearms,” says Barr. “Sen. Barack Obama says that he believes in such a constitutional right, but he supports the District of Columbia’s ban, which gives criminals an advantage over law-abiding citizens,” notes Barr.
The Supreme Court ruled a few minutes ago that the Second amendment protects an individual’s right to own a firearm. This is great news for gun rights activists. From the Supreme Court blog:
The Court has released the opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290), on whether the District’s firearms regulations – which bar the possession of handguns and require shotguns and rifles to be kept disassembled or under trigger lock – violate the Second Amendment. The ruling below, which struck down the provisions in question, is affirmed.
Justice Scalia wrote the opinion. Justice Breyer dissented, joined by Justices Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg. We will provide a link to the decision as soon as it is available.
Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm.
Tomorrow is a huge day for Second Amendment gun rights loving Americans. After releasing four opinions this morning the Supreme Court announced they would deliver the rest of the decisions for the term tomorrow (Thursday) morning at 10am Eastern. This includes the “DC vs. Heller” Second Amendment case. If you haven’t heard of the Heller case then read all about it here.
At the close of Wednesday’s public session, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., announced that the Court will issue all remaining decisions for the Term at 10 a.m. Thursday. The test case on whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a gun is among those remaining (District of Columbia v. Heller, 07-290). (Source: SCOTUSblog)
This is likely to be a great win for gun rights activists and a sour day for gun control nuts. Yes, I switched around the usual rhetoric you read which is: “gun control activists” and “gun rights nuts”. Maybe after the decision tomorrow my first description will become the norm?
Three recent cases illustrate the ever downward spiraling psyche of responsibility in America. Perhaps, just this once, I’ll let the cases speak for themselves. Make your own judgments about them and comment if you feel the need.
Case 1:
LOS ANGELES, California (CNN) — A Missouri mom was indicted Thursday for her alleged role in the death of a teen who killed herself over a failed Internet romance that turned out to be a hoax.
A federal indictment accuses Lori Drew, 49, of O’Fallon, Missouri, of using the social networking Web site MySpace.com to pose as a 16-year-old boy and feign romantic interest in the girl.
The girl, Megan Meier, committed suicide after her online love interest spurned her, according to prosecutors, telling her the world would be a better place without her.
Drew faces up to 20 years in prison on charges of conspiracy and accessing protected computers to obtain information to inflict emotional distress. (Source: CNN)
Case 2:
WAYNE, N.J. — A New Jersey couple, whose son was struck in the chest with a line drive, is planning to sue the maker of a metal baseball bat used in the game.
Two years ago, Steven Domalewski was pitching when the ball slammed into his chest and stopped his heart. He was resuscitated but now has brain damage and is severely disabled.
The family contends metal baseball bats are inherently unsafe for youth games because the ball comes off them much faster than from wooden bats. The lawsuit will also be filed against Little League Baseball and a sporting goods chain that sold the bat. (Source: FOX News)
Case 3:
WASHINGTON - Close your eyes, reach into your wallet and try to distinguish between a $1 bill and a $5 bill. Impossible? It’s also discriminatory, a federal appeals court says.
Since all paper money feels pretty much the same, the government is denying blind people meaningful access to the currency, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled Tuesday. The decision could force the Treasury Department to make bills of different sizes or print them with raised markings or other distinguishing features. (Source: AP via Yahoo News)
Liberty Maven
