GOV JOHNSON CAMPAIGN: NATIONAL MEDIA SNUBS CONTINUE

October 5, 2011, Manchester, NH -- With the announcement by Bloomberg and the Washington Post of participants in next week’s Republican presidential debate at Dartmouth, Governor Gary Johnson’s campaign is continuing to question the motives of the national media for excluding the two-term New Mexico governor from not only debates, but the polls frequently used to determine who is in their debates.

Senior Johnson campaign advisor Ron Neilson said in a statement released today, “Somewhere, news media executives are sitting around trying to decide for the Republican Party who their choices for President should be.  They decide who to include in polls, and then use those polls – presumably, in the case of Bloomberg and the Washington Post – to determine who is allowed on their debate stages.  The result is that Gary Johnson, a successful two-term governor, is not heard or seen. 

“Next week’s debate is supposedly to focus on the economy and jobs.  National publications of all stripes have recognized that, of all the governors running for the nomination, Gary Johnson’s record of job creation and cutting government spending is unsurpassed.  Yet, he is excluded.  That makes no sense.

“When there are other candidates invited whose performance in the polls are within the margin of error to be at 0% support, by what logic is Gary Johnson not included?

“We have not heard a word from the organizers of next week’s debate.  Like everyone else, we simply read in the press that the list of participants does not include Governor Johnson.  That’s unacceptable.

“Our efforts to understand what is going on have failed.  Perhaps it is time for actual voters to begin asking the questions and letting the national media know that they can make their own choices – they don’t need the folks at Bloomberg or the Washington Post to ‘screen’ the Republican field for them. “

For more information visit www.garyjohnson2012.com.

# # # #

About Presidential Candidate Gary Johnson: Gary Johnson, a Republican and two-term Governor of New Mexico from 1994-2002, has been a consistent and outspoken advocate for limited, efficient government and personal liberty.

.

NHDP - ICYMI : No transparency in override vote

Concord, NH - In case you missed it, today's Nashua Telegraph editorial took House Republican Speaker Bill O'Brien to task for not conducting himself "in a manner consistent with the principles of open government in a democratic society."  This week, O'Brien called a veto override vote, without any public notice - and after his office told members of the state House and the media that it would not come up.

The Telegraph continued, noting that this wasn't the "first time O'Brien's actions have run counter to open government practices."

"This is the same speaker who cleared the House gallery back in March in response to heckling over talk of deep budget cuts and collective bargaining restrictions.

"This is the same speaker who wasn't bashful about replacing GOP committee members prior to key votes if they weren't deemed loyal to the cause.

"This is the same speaker who, in his attorney's response to a lawsuit filed over the gallery closing, argues that 'the House can close its gallery whenever it deems appropriate and for as long as it deems appropriate.'"

The full text of the editorial is below.

Nashua Telegraph: No transparency in override vote 

When the House of Representatives calendar was released last week in anticipation of Wednesday's session, it ran 29 pages and consisted of more than 7,800 words - and not one of those words was spelled "O-V-E-R-R-I-D-E."

What's more, Republican leaders said publicly prior to the session they did not intend to act that day on any of the bills vetoed by Gov. John Lynch at what was expected to be a relatively short session.

So why weren't we surprised to learn House Speaker William O'Brien seized the opportunity - without notifying either the minority party or the public - to call for an override of one of the most controversial bills to come up this year, the deadly force legislation (SB 88)?

Simple. Because this type of behavior is consistent with a party leadership that talks a good game about open government but doesn't comprehend what it really means.

"Can you explain to me where the people of New Hampshire can find in an agenda on any given day when a veto will be taken up?" Assistant Democratic Leader Lucy Weber of Walpole asked at Wednesday's session.

"The chair sets the agenda," O'Brien replied. "It is now on the agenda."

With those pleasantries out of the way, the House then proceeded to debate and ultimately vote to override the veto, 251-111.

That vote came on the heels of a similar vote in the Senate last week, where members overrode the governor's veto by a much tighter 17-7 margin.

As a result, the bill that broadens the rights of individuals to use deadly force to defend themselves in public will become law Nov. 13.

While it's true we opposed this bill on the grounds it was unnecessary and urged lawmakers to support the governor's veto (Aug. 17: "Veto should stand on deadly force bill"), that's not really the point here. This is about legislative leaders conducting themselves in a manner consistent with the principles of open government in a democratic society.

So why did the speaker feel it was necessary to play hardball with this bill by calling for a surprise override vote?

We give up. Maybe he just can't help himself. Maybe it's just part of his political DNA after observing his former Boston law partner Thomas Finneran, who was no stranger to strong-arm tactics when he served as speaker of the Massachusetts House of Representatives until resigning under the cloud of a federal probe in 2004.

Still, this isn't the first time O'Brien's actions have run counter to open government practices.

This is the same speaker who cleared the House gallery back in March in response to heckling over talk of deep budget cuts and collective bargaining restrictions.

This is the same speaker who wasn't bashful about replacing GOP committee members prior to key votes if they weren't deemed loyal to the cause.

This is the same speaker who, in his attorney's response to a lawsuit filed over the gallery closing, argues that "the House can close its gallery whenever it deems appropriate and for as long as it deems appropriate."

All this from the same person who was quoted in a House-issued news release earlier this year as saying: "We are committed to bringing transparency to state government and making it easier for people to know what their government is doing."

After Wednesday's House shenanigans, it's now clear he meant after the fact.

CEI Daily - Wal-Mart, Light Bulbs, and Food Inflation

Wal-Mart

Last week, the Supreme Court heard a class action suit brought against Wal-Mart by female employees.

Senior Counsel Hans Bader explains why this suit should never have been a class action suit.

"Lawsuits over discrimination are usually brought on an individual basis, because even victims of discrimination at a big company often have little in common with each other. They work in different stores under different managers, and have different jobs and salaries. Even if one manager is racist or sexist, managers in different stores may be totally fair and unbiased. By contrast, class-actions are supposed to be brought on the basis of a company-wide policy, and the employees are supposed to have a lot in common with each other.

In the Wal-Mart case, there is no company-wide policy of discrimination. In fact, Wal-Mart has written policies against discrimination."

Light Bulbs

In The New York Times last week, Gail Collins railed against critics of the ban on incandescent light bulbs. 

Adjunct Scholar Fran Smith deconstructs Collins' column.

"She completely misses the argument for consumer choice, that is, some people may want to stick with the old-fashioned incandescent instead of the fluorescent bulbs for a variety of reasons — some real concerns (photosensitivity, mercury, melting plastic, fumes) and some aesthetic ones.

Instead, Collins does her usual cutesy, aren’t-I-clever dismissal of those who think consumers and not the government should be deciding what light bulbs to use in their homes."

 

Food Inflation

Consumers are complaining about shrinking package sizes in grocery stores.

Warren Brookes Fellow Kathryn Ciano explains why government officials shouldn't respond to "food inflation" by throwing money at the problem.

 

"Subsidies are the way the government picks winners and losers. By throwing a ton of money behind certain industries, the government forces the cost of all food production to rise.

Grocery shoppers who just want to feed their families have to compete with the government’s agenda to afford the price of food.

It’s not just the cost of production that’s rising. When FLOTUS pushes hard for a 'get-fit' agenda and green special interests demand smaller package sizes, the market is ripe for food producers to shave a little off whatever they’re willing to trade to consumers for their dollars."



Media Freedom Foundation/Project Censored Announces The Fair Sharing of the Common Heritage Award

Nominations are being accepted for the Fair Sharing of the Common Heritage Award.  These submissions can be published or unpublished articles, or works in progress that express the ideas behind the original economic and social theories of Alfred Frederick Andersen.  Andersen believed that every sentient being – human and non-human – has a right to the fair share of the material and economic benefits of the Common Heritage Wealth.  Included in this Common Heritage are all earth’s natural resources:  such as land surfaces, sub-surface minerals and fuels; water and air, as well as cyberspace; indeed the entire physical environment. 

The Common Heritage Award articles should propose and describe ways in which such sharing could be accomplished.  Andersen’s work is recognized by the Media Freedom Foundation and Project Censored as an annual award to be given to the person that best reflects how the Fair Sharing of the Common Heritage can work in our culture. An example of such sharing would be the promotion of an idea that natural resource extractors would be required to pay the value of the resources into a Common Heritage fund for all living things.    

• First place winner will receive $3,500 award
• Second place winner will receive $1,500 award

Winners will receive their award at the annual Media Freedom Foundation/ Project Censored Awards Ceremony in Berkeley, California, February 5, 2011.  Transportation costs to Berkeley will be available to the winners.

To submit a nomination send no more than a one-page summary of completed articles and specific URL to the original article to:  commonheritageaward@gmail.com. For unpublished articles, submit full copies to:

MEDIA FREEDOM FOUNDATION

The Common Heritage Award

P.O. BOX 571

COTATI, CA  94931

All nominations must be received by January 5, 2011. Winners will be announced and notified by January 10, 2011. Winning articles will be linked to the Project Censored website and published online.  Dorothy N. Andersen and family have provided funding for this award.  Judges are comprised of family members and board directors of Media Freedom Foundation/Project Censored (www.projectcensored.org).  The decision of the judges is final and appeals will not be accepted.  No late entries will be considered.

We look forward to the process of honoring the values of Alfred and Dorothy Andersen. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Alfred Frederick Andersen: 1919—2010

Biography

Alfred Frederick Andersen dedicated his life to the philosophical pursuit of ideas that became manifest as the Fair Sharing of the Common Heritage which is a principle, which states that income from land, resources and the inventions of past and current generations be fairly shared.  His overall concern was the creation of “sustained justice for all sentient beings.”  His ideas are as compelling and revolutionary as when Alfred first began developing them. 

Alfred was born on June 27, 1919 in Bridgeport Connecticut.  Al’s studies in nuclear physics ignited a profound passion to study philosophy and holistic thinking regarding community and global challenges.  He received a degree in civil engineering at Worcester Polytechnic Institute and studied philosophy at Harvard, Columbia, Ohio State and Lincoln University.  He is the author of, Liberating the Early American Dream and Challenging Newt Gingrich Chapter by Chapter. He taught math at the junior and senior high school levels and philosophy of science at Lincoln University in Pennsylvania and philosophy of education Simon Fraser University in Canada.  And he believed with a great passion that everyone should have a fair share of the Common Heritage.

He was convicted of refusing induction into military service during WWII.  He was sentenced to two years in prison and released after eight months for “good behavior.”  After his release from prison, he began attending meetings with the Yellow Spring Ohio Friends and other subsequent Friends Meetings.  He and his family joined a community of thirty other families at the Tanguy Homesteads in Pennsylvania. He was an avid supporter and participant of intentional community living.  He did not pay federal income tax on the basis of his deeply felt philosophical values.

Alfred demonstrated unusual creativity, resourcefulness and inventiness in his approach towards supporting himself and his family.  He was a professor, teacher, salesman, inventor, and philosopher.  He managed his father’s machine shop, worked as a groundskeeper, ran a bakery, was a lecturer, and Dean at Oakwood Friends School.  He invented and patented a ratchet wrench the rapid grip.  Alfred also designed, manufactured and sold a kitchen flourmill.  He was a man of vision who created wealth for his family but whose conscience was also invested in ideas which would create wealth for all sentient beings. 

Alfred authored two books and several pamplets.   Howard Zinn commented on his work, Challenging Newt Gingrich Chapter by Chapter stating, “Alfred Andersen has performed a valuable task for all of us.  In this timely, thoughtful dissection of the right wing agenda, he not only takes on Newt Gingrich with painstaking clarity, but suggests an alternative agenda for achieving justice in America.”  This alternative agenda for justice was not only addressed in books but in the public forum as well. 

In 1976 Alfred traveled to Vancouver, Canada to participate in a forum of non-governmental organizations associated with the United Nations Special Sessions on Habitat and Human Settlements. He helped compose a concluding statement proclaiming that housing, basic services, energy, land use, participation, and financing problems can only be solved by a global and integral approach which has to go to the heart of the matter and transform the economic, social and political structures which cause them.

Al’s life was a reflection of his values. A friend said,  “I have never seen (or imagined) such devotion as his to the principles of justice and community.  They were woven into the fabric of his soul; he spoke of them with the upmost depth and centrality of feeling, I know he lived by them and it was always touching to hear him voice how vital and seriously urgent they were for him.”

ALG Urges House to Defund NPR Today

"[B]y its own admission, NPR doesn't need the money, so let's cut it." 

—ALG President Bill Wilson.

November 18^th, 2010, Fairfax, VA—Americans for Limited Government (ALG) President Bill Wilson today urged members of the House to vote in favor of a Republican motion to recommit on HR 1722, a motion which would eliminate federal funding for National Public Radio.

"National Public Radio is the first to claim that it receives less than 2 percent of its money from the federal government.  So, by its own admission, NPR doesn't need the money, so let's cut it.  The government has a $1.3 trillion budget deficit, and members of Congress have to find every bit of funding that can be cut," Wilson said.

NPR has requested $136 million for FY 2013.

In an exclusive interview with Americans for Limited Government, Representative Doug Lamborn, who authored the bill to defund NPR, blasted it over the firing of Juan Williams: "We see now with the Juan Williams fiasco that they're not a neutral news organization.  They have a left-leaning bias."

Lamborn continued, "It could be out there in the private marketplace, and compete along with everyone else.  Why should government be in the broadcasting business at all?"

Wilson agreed, saying, "NPR can finance itself via donations, or move toward a profit model if they choose, but taxpayers should not be obligated to pay for programming which does not treat all sides fairly."

ALG launched a national petition drive recently to defund public broadcasting in the wake of National Public Radio's firing of Juan Williams. The petition is at:  www.defundpublicbroadcasting.org.

Background:

"Defund Public Broadcasting Once and For All," by ALG President Bill Wilson, October 25^th, 2010.

ALG Praises Boehner's Call to Defund Public Broadcasting, October 22nd, 2010

"Where to cut, you ask?" Video by Frank McCaffrey on Doug Lamborn's legislation, October 19^th, 2010.

"The Bare Minimum," by Rick Manning, ALG Communications Director, October 20^th, 2010.

"Time to Stop Funding Luxuries, Like Public Broadcasting," by Rebekah Rast, ALG News Contributing Editor, June 14th, 2010.

"Is Public Broadcasting Hurting the Arts?" by Robert Romano, ALG News Senior Editor, June 15th, 2010.