web hosting

Strangely, the Forrester and Corzine campaigns still deny the substance of this report. Their spokespeople say this newspaper report is in error, and that neither candidate will participate in any debate with the third party candidates. We can’t seem to get this right.

ELEC indicates that its debate for those who qualified under the rules will be held on October 20, 2005, and will not include either Forrester or Corzine. Currently, Costillo is scheduled to debate Pawlowski on that date.

The Star Ledger further reported on the Pawlowski campaign’s effort to use the courts to gain access to last night’s debate. The application for a preliminary injunction was denied, presumably because the campaign could not satisfy the standard of “irreparable harm” needed to be granted that unusual relief.

Nice try, though. Shows spunk and a serious determination. Now if the campaign could actually take real libertarian positions on the real issues, admit that its ads were at least misleading, and stop making a mockery of the ELEC rules and regulations, the campaign might actually help the libertarian cause.

But I doubt it.

Ahh the NJLP and its cronies are good at playing childish games and pranks. Just look at their current campaign! The real Brian J. Phillips is uncertain as to who to vote for in November and has taken no part in anyones campaign. Nor do I intend to do so.

The NJLP saw fit to illegally remove me as Chair. For months I have lived in peace and quiet. My life has been better and more joyful without any involvement with the NJLP wackos. I am not interested in playing political party but in belonging to a real one. I gave up playing games and childish pranks decades ago. Let me keep it that way. Leave me in peace and out of your stupid games and pranks.

I intend to ask the forum owner to ban any postings from anyone using my name that do not orginate from my email address.

However, I am honored that I am viewed by some as a bogeyman and am I gald they fear someone or something. Secondly, I am honored that someone who see fit as to take my name and use it. Seems I am now in the same category as Ron Paul, Tom Jefferson and Patrick Henry!

Takings are constitutional, to be sure, as is public education and as are taxes. None of these government activities, however, is consistent with libertarianism or the LP Platform.

If read that position statement out of context and was to characterize it, I would say that the writer was most likely a conservative constitutionalist that recognizes the “public use” limitation on takings, but does not oppose takings on principle.

The position taken on eminent domain by Pawlowski is that of a conservative populist, not a libertarian. Pawlowski, to the extent that the citation represents his position, should be happy in the Constitution Party or the Reform Party.

I wish him well when he finds his true home.

Now. What exactly does he mean by private property rights and what are the basies of such rights? Government cannot restore private property rights, it can only recognize them.

A governor can work to excise the eminent domain clause in the New Jersey Constitution and sign an Executive Order stopping all confiscations of private property and seek legislation repealing the current statutory scheme outlining local procedures for the taking of private property by government.

Now comes the problem. Does he understand that regulatory takings are still takings? Takings are a wrongful deprivation of private property by the government without the owner’s consent. Compensation is no answer if the owner does not want to trade access to his property for government money.

Private Property Rights

Many NJ towns including Somerville, Newark, Bloomfield, Piscataway, Orange, Franklin, South Amboy, Long Branch, Highland Park, Rahway, Edison, West Millford are currently considering using eminent domain to allow for redevelopment on private property. The New Jersey League of Municipalities, a state authorized consortium of NJ municipalities has publicly applauded the recent New London decision allowing for seizure of homes for redevelopment by a private developer.

I will work to restore private property rights. I will stand against eminent domain seizures and uncompensated regulatory takings of private property. Government has no business confiscating your property for developers of shopping malls and condominiums.——
Its good to see that Jeff is taking this issue on and I hope he gets into the debates so he can make this an issue for the campaign.

Many people from diverse groups testified beore the Commitee, including members of the legal profession, local political figures and actual landowners who had been negatively impacted by eminent domain. It would not be an exaggeration to state that the gneral electorate is wholly up in arms over this issue.

Not a peep from the NJLP’s candidate at the top of the ticket on this issue. Does he think it right that states and municipalities can take property from individuals against their will, when they don’t wish to sell it? The LP Platform speaks to this issue with a vengeance. It provides a clear statement of opposition to such a complete violoation of people’s rights.

What of the Takings Clause in the NJ Constitution? How would he respond to that? That Forrester is a nice guy? What has that got to do with libertarianism, the NJLP, the governorship of the State of New Jersey or the price of eggs in Baghdad?

The fact remains is that the NJLP knows NJ law and how to become a major political party. This would require a full slate for either the Assembly or State Senate…not just a “candidate” for governor. Then when a candidate for governor is running there are exaggerations made regarding debate participation in an attempt to raise funds, the lack of a current NJLP platform (they have not had one in eight years), no real issues addressed on candidates web, the bending of the spirit of the law by the use of personal loans, the circus charade of dressing in drag not to mention the attempted selling of certificates of political influence!

Seems to me that some can be just as corrupt and sneaky as the duopoly parties. Then given my experience I never doubted that.

In over thirty years the NJLP has not made one step towards becoming a major political party in NJ. Jeffs current campaign is just another chapter of the same crap.

I am interested in REAL politics, not the circus or childish pranks.

Those of us who tried to warn you of this matter months ago were right and told the truth. We are doing so now and always will. The interest of many posters on this forum is in moving public policy in NJ towards liberty. That is not a game. If I wanted to play games I would go to park!

The issue here is not who is posting but the conduct and position of the candidates. That it what this forum is supposed to be about and the silence from the NJLP and its party owners has been deafening. True LIBERTARIANS in NJ need to wake-up and reclaim the principle and name of their party which has been stolen from them!

The Star Ledger reported that Mr. Pawlowski supports legalization of marijuana. As I mentioned before in previous post, that’s not something a governor can do. Given the current state of the law, especially since the Raisch case, no governor can make that a reality without running afoul of current federal law.

Does comment about marijuana legalization mean that Pawlowski doesn’t support the libertarian position on drugs in general? Does it mean that Pawlowski supports government regulation banning the ingestion of currently-illegal drugs other than marijuana? What does he mean?

A libertarian candidate for governor should be out front on issues like eminent domain. Arguably the hottest issue right now and one that the Libertarian Party has a strong and now relatively popular position. Not a peep about it from Pawlowski. Why? Because there is no “anti-eminent domain” group to hit up for a campaign contribution? Why?

The LP rightfully complains that it gets no press coverage. But when it does, Pawlowski fails to take advantage of it by making a libertarian statement to the press. Instead, he says that Corzine and Forrester are good people. Really? What does he know of them? The issue of the goodness or badness of the major party candidates is both controvertible and irrelevant to the campaign drom a libertarian perspective.

In one breath, Pawlowski criticizes Corzine for supporting ‘big government” without saying why that is wrong and what should be done about it. The LP Platform speaks volumes to that issue. Why doesn’t he use it? And then he accuses Forrester about being short on specifics, yet his whole statement about taxes is that he promises not to increase them, not how to to deal with the existing tax burden. No specifics at all.

Whatever this campaign is, it is not about the Libertarian Party and its official position the party itself takes on the issues. That much is certain. So what is it about? Fooling people with false ads aimed at separating dupes from their money? How will that money be spent? So far as I can see, it’s not being spent on delivering a concise, consistent libertarian message.

Pawlowski could himself be offering specifics, as to what are the proper functions of government, and providing the approximate dollar amount on the budget. It is simply not enough to point out what is wrong with the major party candidates. For any candidate to be taken seriously, he or she should have a message, first. That goes for Forrester, as well. In 2002, it was “I am not Toricelli”. When the Dems replaced Toricelli with Lautenberg, Forrester’s campaign went down the flames.

This website is supposed to discuss third parties and their candidates. How many times do make to make this clear? From all indications, it does appear that I am indeed talking to myself because no one seems to get that point, nor any of the others I have made.

I have alleged that Pawlowski’s ads are misleading. If they are not, I’m wrong. If they are, I’m right. I have alleged that Pawlowski’s campaign is silly and lacks libertarian content. If it is not silly and does not lack libertarian content, I am wrong.

If anyone cares to address those issues, I’ll respond to any such attempt to fairly address the facts.

If anyone responds to this by alleging that my mother wears combat boots, I won’t respond to that allegation. And not because my mother does or does not wear combat boots. It’s because discussion of my mother, who is neither a third party or a third party candidate, is wholly irrelevant to the purposes of this website.

I guess it wouldn’t matter because most of the time I feel like I’m either talking to myself anyway or to a wall.