Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

News & Politics News & Politics

Gary Johnson Sues To Get Into Presidential Debates

Posted by on Sep. 24, 2012 at 1:44 PM
  • 42 Replies
1 mom liked this


Gary Johnson Sues To Get Into Presidential Debates

September 24, 2012 RSS Feed Print

Republican presidential candidate former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson makes a statement during a debate Thursday, Sept. 22, 2011, in Orlando, Fla.

Republican presidential candidate former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson makes a statement during a debate Thursday, Sept. 22, 2011, in Orlando, Fla.

Libertarian presidential nominee Gary Johnson has filed a lawsuit to win a spot in the presidential debates that start in Denver on Oct. 3.

It's unlikely that he will succeed, but Johnson argues that the private Commission on Presidential Debates, along with the Democratic and the Republican parties, are unfairly blocking him from participating. Only President Barack Obama and GOP challenger Mitt Romney are being allowed to debate.

"Someone has to stand up and call this what it is—a rigged system designed entirely to protect and perpetuate the two-party duopoly," says Johnson spokesman Ron Nielson. "That someone will be the Johnson campaign."

[Gary Johnson to Supporters: 'Waste Your Vote']

Johnson is currently on a national tour of college campuses as he attempts to energize the youth vote on his behalf. He is trying to tap into the support among young people enjoyed by Texas Rep. Ron Paul, the libertarian-conservative who unsuccessfully ran for the GOP presidential nomination this year.

Even if his lawsuit fails, it could help Johnson gain publicity and maximize his potential on Election Day. Johnson favors deep cuts in federal spending and power, along with withdrawal of U.S. troops from abroad, including Afghanistan. If he can boost his support in a handful of battleground states, he could have an impact on the race by taking votes from the major-party nominees, especially Romney, who is also trying to appeal to less-government conservatives.

The commission has declared that the debates are limited to candidates who are constitutionally eligible to hold the presidency; have achieved ballot access in enough states to win a theoretical Electoral College majority in the general election, and have the support of at least 15 percent of the national electorate as determined by five polling organizations selected by the commission.

[Check out our gallery of political cartoons]

Johnson falls short in the polling category. The survey gives him support in the mid- to low single digits nationally.

But Johnson, who is a former two-term governor of New Mexico, argues that the commission and the Democratic and Republican parties are colluding to exclude the Libertarian Party from the debates. He says this amounts to a violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act because the collusion limits competition and causes injury to both the American public and Gary Johnson.

Johnson has filed the federal anti-trust lawsuit in a U.S. district court in central California, where Libertarian vice presidential candidate Jim Gray lives. Gray is a former California judge.

by on Sep. 24, 2012 at 1:44 PM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-10):
goldielock37
by Bronze Member on Sep. 24, 2012 at 1:51 PM

From the Strategic Engagement Group:

The war which we fight is primarily defined by the enemy as INFORMATION WARFARE, which manifests itself in our system as political warfare, influence operations, and subversion of our foundational institutions – political, educational, religious, and media. Yet, our entire government structure is focused on the kinetic war – shootings, bombings, kidnappings and other acts of “terrorism.” We are not only NOT winning in the information battle-space, we are not engaged in that space because we do not understand it is the enemy’s self-identified Main Focus of Effort. Where we do attempt to engage in the information battle-space, we are off the mark because we have not stopped to learn the enemy doctrine. Jihadi plans for violence here in the U.S., as well as the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, are important to the enemy, but secondary to the Information Warfare. Our failure to understand this and to know the enemy doctrine cripples our ability to engage the enemy where he fights his main battle.

Al Qaeda and other violent jihadi groups fight to (1) implement Islamic Law and (2) re-establish the global Islamic state (Caliphate). The Information War in the West is driven by front groups posing as peaceful Muslim organizations, led by the Muslim Brotherhood (MB). The MB was created in Egypt in 1928 to (1) implement Islamic Law worldwide and (2) re-establish the Caliphate. Al Qaeda and the MB have the same objectives – the difference in achieving them is timing and tactics. The Brotherhood’s Creed is:

“God is our objective; the Koran is our law; the Prophet is our leader; jihad is our way; and death for the sake of Allah is the highest of our aspirations.” As a result of documents entered into evidence in the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) trial in Dallas, Texas in 2008 (the largest terrorism-financing / Hamas trial in American history), we know every major Muslim organization in the United States is controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) or a derivative thereof (to include but not limited to: CAIR, ISNA, ICNA, MAS, MSA, IIIT, Fiqh Council of North America, ATF and hundreds of others). The leadership of HLF and HLF itself was proven to be Muslim Brothers/Hamas. The documents released at the trial demonstrate the MB’s presence in the U.S. and the level they have insinuated themselves into our society and are achieving their objectives.

Islamic Law is real law. It is the basis for constitutions in Muslim nations around the world. In Islam, obedience to the law is more important than one’s own personal conscience/belief structure. There is no Islamic Law that does not require Jihad as “warfare against non-Muslims” until all the world is claimed for Islam. Since the creation of Islam, there has never been any other definition of “Jihad” in Islamic Law. Under Islamic Law, non-Muslims must ultimately convert or submit to Islam, or be killed. The entire world is divided into the Dar al-Islam (house of Islam) and the Dar al-Harb (house of war), and, therefore, Jihad is a permanent state until the Dar al-Harb is eliminated and the entire world is brought under the Dar al-Islam, ruled by Shariah / Islamic Law. Current Islamic sources teach that Islamic Law is diametrically opposed to the U.S. Constitution. This is not a First Amendment issue, and it is NOT a “religious” issue. The enemy seeks to impose foreign law (Shari’ah) in the United States challenging Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution which states “The Constitution… shall be the supreme law of the land.”

MB organizations conduct outreach to the government, law enforcement, media, religious community, and others for one reason – to subvert them in furtherance of their objective - implementation of Islamic Law. Current publications of Islamic Law clearly allow for “obligatory lying” to non-Muslims when the objective is obligatory – Jihad for example. Therefore, when studying this issue, it is critical to read published law written by Muslim authorities, for the benefit of Muslim audiences. In this information war, a principle goal of the Muslim Brotherhood is to keep the West from studying authoritative Islamic Law – the stated doctrine used by both the violent jihadis (Al Qaeda et al), and the subversive organizations led by the Muslim Brotherhood. This doctrine is taught at the first grade level across the Middle East, and in English in U.S. Islamic Schools and Mosques. Individuals charged with duties in the National Security realm, especially the leadership, who have sworn an oath to the Constitution, must undertake a concerted effort to learn and understand the factual basis of the threat doctrine that includes a self-proclaimed reliance on Islamic Law. Arguably, failure to do so makes the development of a counter-strategy impossible, and notably constitutes malfeasance on the part of the National Security professionals.

Peanutx3
by Silver Member on Sep. 24, 2012 at 1:52 PM

How does that article that you have posted many many times in many different posts have anything to do with the topic at hand?

Quoting goldielock37:


From the Strategic Engagement Group:

The war which we fight is primarily defined by the enemy as INFORMATION WARFARE, which manifests itself in our system as political warfare, influence operations, and subversion of our foundational institutions – political, educational, religious, and media. Yet, our entire government structure is focused on the kinetic war – shootings, bombings, kidnappings and other acts of “terrorism.” We are not only NOT winning in the information battle-space, we are not engaged in that space because we do not understand it is the enemy’s self-identified Main Focus of Effort. Where we do attempt to engage in the information battle-space, we are off the mark because we have not stopped to learn the enemy doctrine. Jihadi plans for violence here in the U.S., as well as the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, are important to the enemy, but secondary to the Information Warfare. Our failure to understand this and to know the enemy doctrine cripples our ability to engage the enemy where he fights his main battle.

Al Qaeda and other violent jihadi groups fight to (1) implement Islamic Law and (2) re-establish the global Islamic state (Caliphate). The Information War in the West is driven by front groups posing as peaceful Muslim organizations, led by the Muslim Brotherhood (MB). The MB was created in Egypt in 1928 to (1) implement Islamic Law worldwide and (2) re-establish the Caliphate. Al Qaeda and the MB have the same objectives – the difference in achieving them is timing and tactics. The Brotherhood’s Creed is:

“God is our objective; the Koran is our law; the Prophet is our leader; jihad is our way; and death for the sake of Allah is the highest of our aspirations.” As a result of documents entered into evidence in the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) trial in Dallas, Texas in 2008 (the largest terrorism-financing / Hamas trial in American history), we know every major Muslim organization in the United States is controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) or a derivative thereof (to include but not limited to: CAIR, ISNA, ICNA, MAS, MSA, IIIT, Fiqh Council of North America, ATF and hundreds of others). The leadership of HLF and HLF itself was proven to be Muslim Brothers/Hamas. The documents released at the trial demonstrate the MB’s presence in the U.S. and the level they have insinuated themselves into our society and are achieving their objectives.

Islamic Law is real law. It is the basis for constitutions in Muslim nations around the world. In Islam, obedience to the law is more important than one’s own personal conscience/belief structure. There is no Islamic Law that does not require Jihad as “warfare against non-Muslims” until all the world is claimed for Islam. Since the creation of Islam, there has never been any other definition of “Jihad” in Islamic Law. Under Islamic Law, non-Muslims must ultimately convert or submit to Islam, or be killed. The entire world is divided into the Dar al-Islam (house of Islam) and the Dar al-Harb (house of war), and, therefore, Jihad is a permanent state until the Dar al-Harb is eliminated and the entire world is brought under the Dar al-Islam, ruled by Shariah / Islamic Law. Current Islamic sources teach that Islamic Law is diametrically opposed to the U.S. Constitution. This is not a First Amendment issue, and it is NOT a “religious” issue. The enemy seeks to impose foreign law (Shari’ah) in the United States challenging Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution which states “The Constitution… shall be the supreme law of the land.”

MB organizations conduct outreach to the government, law enforcement, media, religious community, and others for one reason – to subvert them in furtherance of their objective - implementation of Islamic Law. Current publications of Islamic Law clearly allow for “obligatory lying” to non-Muslims when the objective is obligatory – Jihad for example. Therefore, when studying this issue, it is critical to read published law written by Muslim authorities, for the benefit of Muslim audiences. In this information war, a principle goal of the Muslim Brotherhood is to keep the West from studying authoritative Islamic Law – the stated doctrine used by both the violent jihadis (Al Qaeda et al), and the subversive organizations led by the Muslim Brotherhood. This doctrine is taught at the first grade level across the Middle East, and in English in U.S. Islamic Schools and Mosques. Individuals charged with duties in the National Security realm, especially the leadership, who have sworn an oath to the Constitution, must undertake a concerted effort to learn and understand the factual basis of the threat doctrine that includes a self-proclaimed reliance on Islamic Law. Arguably, failure to do so makes the development of a counter-strategy impossible, and notably constitutes malfeasance on the part of the National Security professionals.


Kate_Momof3
by Platinum Member on Sep. 24, 2012 at 2:03 PM
2 moms liked this

Lady Spamalot strikes again...

I think it's fantastic that he's suing. I hope he wins! 

Quoting Peanutx3:

How does that article that you have posted many many times in many different posts have anything to do with the topic at hand?

Quoting goldielock37:


goldielock37
by Bronze Member on Sep. 24, 2012 at 2:03 PM
2 moms liked this

The United States Constitution means everything! A third party would hinder the results, and or give the vote to Obama. Common sense means don't waste your vote. If Obama wins... Say good- bye to the United States Constitution.

goldielock37
by Bronze Member on Sep. 24, 2012 at 2:04 PM

Johnson is making great money now!

Peanutx3
by Silver Member on Sep. 24, 2012 at 2:05 PM
2 moms liked this

I hope he wins also.  I am not holding much hope that he will but I do hope this gets lots of coverage and people open their eyes to the fact that it is the two major parties that together are holding down the country.

Quoting Kate_Momof3:

Lady Spamalot strikes again...

I think it's fantastic that he's suing. I hope he wins! 

Quoting Peanutx3:

How does that article that you have posted many many times in many different posts have anything to do with the topic at hand?

Quoting goldielock37:



Ednarooni160
by Eds on Sep. 24, 2012 at 2:06 PM
1 mom liked this


Quoting goldielock37:

The United States Constitution means everything! A third party would hinder the results, and or give the vote to Obama. Common sense means don't waste your vote. If Obama wins... Say good- bye to the United States Constitution.

I agree..any other person in Obama's place  I would say "vote" for whoever..but Obama has GOT to go..

Kate_Momof3
by Platinum Member on Sep. 24, 2012 at 2:09 PM
8 moms liked this

Too bad the Republicans didn't go with a better candidate. The two party system is the biggest threat to the Constitution. The Patriot Act eroded it and the NDAA just drove it all home. A third party can at least expose the farce the two party system has become.

Quoting goldielock37:

The United States Constitution means everything! A third party would hinder the results, and or give the vote to Obama. Common sense means don't waste your vote. If Obama wins... Say good- bye to the United States Constitution.


RowdyRoxyRainbw
by Member on Sep. 24, 2012 at 2:20 PM
1 mom liked this

giving heart this!

Friday
by Platinum Member on Sep. 24, 2012 at 2:23 PM
6 moms liked this

Good for him, I agree with his statements on this issue and hope he wins, or at least helps expose the BS of our so called 2 party system.


Church of The Invisible Pink Unicorn (blessed be her holy hooves)

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)