The AIP heads to Court
From AIP Chair, Jim King:
A hearing that will determine the future of the American Independent Party of California has been scheduled for Tuesday, August 26th, 2008 in Superior Court at Sacramento, California.We are represented by an experienced attorney, Robert E. Barnes of the Bernhoft Law Firm.
Voting majorities were spoken at the Constitution Party Convention in April of 2008. At the meetings of the California affiliate of the party in June, The American Independent Party confirmed the nominee, and its continued affiliation with the Constitution Party, which we have been associated with since 1992. The bylaws of the party and the Election Code of California were strictly followed at our convention. We believe in, and are committed to, the proper mechanisms of legal Democracy.
We appreciate the vigilant moral support that the vast majority of our faithful party members have shown at this critical time.
We have prepared fully and with all human diligence. We are confident in our argument and just case, under the law. Yet just as importantly, beyond our own human efforts and diligence, I believe that the search for proper justice is in large part a spiritual battle. I ask for your prayers in storming Heaven, that we prevail over evil forces that created this controversy, then initiated havoc, and who now face us in a most wicked, deceitful manner.
I feel lead to quote 1 Peter 3:9 We will not return evil for evil, or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary blessing, knowing that you were called to this, that you may inherit a blessing.
I claim that blessing for our party, as we will prevail in this matter.
The Grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you all. Amen (2 Corinthians 13:14)
Jim King
Chairman Elect
American Independent Party
August 11th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
BTW, Jim King is a Catholic, not a ‘Christian Reconstructionist’.
...For those wanting to use the false Theocrat label here.
August 11th, 2008 at 10:55 pm
buh bye, Keyes.
Even his home site has dwindled to just a few followers.
This will be the end of his campaign…again…
August 11th, 2008 at 11:25 pm
I hope so.
August 12th, 2008 at 12:06 am
Don’t count on it. All I see is talk, talk, talk.
Good luck [as the minority out casts of the Reform Party of California are playing a similar AND SUCCESSFUL game with the DFW court ordered and monitored ‘national convention’ official officials!]
My sorry ass prediction[s] is that both sets of ‘pirates’ will be the official administrator[s] of the California American Independent Party and the west coast affiliate of the Reform Party USA.
August 12th, 2008 at 1:39 am
Any “Catholic” content to associate himself with the name, American Independent Party, given that party’s noxious racist history, needs to spend less time quoting Holy Scripture and more time in self examination.
August 12th, 2008 at 2:32 am
Anyone want to predict odds on the suit’s outcome? Who will be on the CA ballot?
August 12th, 2008 at 6:39 am
Dont expect much from our friend Alan Keyes, now or in the future. His campaign is totally broke, and had only $2,461 on hand as of June 30th. He OWES more than $15,900, so actually, his campaign has a NEGATIVE NET WORTH! There is still debt leftover from his 2004 campaign.
His grassroots organization was unable to get him on the ballot of any state and was dismal in its efforts to petition etc. The only state that he got on was Colorado, which lets anyone run for a very small fee, $750, without any nomination signatures.
With fewer than 90 days until election, they do not even have a rudimentary mediocre campaign website that is much beyond “under construction”. Other than snaring 3 exiting disgruntled California officers in the AIP, Keyes has shown himself and his movement to be a complete and utter, impotent and bankrupt failure. The overwhelming majority of the AIP’s officers and membership support Chuck Baldwin.
Do not imagine that Keyes will develop a groundswell of a new party that has any potential. Keyes and his so called party movement are at the door of oblivion even as you read this. No matter what the current situation holds, the future for our party in California in any meaningful sense is with the growing and dynamic Constitution Party.
Below are the official campaign financial records of Alan Keyes as of June 30th, 2008 as found on the Federal Election Commission Website. Read for yourself the sad shape of affairs for Mr. Keyes.
Presented by the Federal Election Commission – 2007-2008 Cycle
KEYES, ALAN L
Total Receipts: $244,155
Transfers From Authorized Committees: $0
Individual Contributions: $244,155
Non-Party (e.g. PACs) or Other Committees: $0
Contributions from Party Committees $0
Candidate Contribution: $0
Candidate Loans: $0
Other Loans: $0
Total Disbursements: $261,574
Transfers to Authorized Committees: $0
Individual Refunds: $0
Non-Party (e.g. PACs) or Other Refunds: $0
Candidate Loan Repayments: $0
Other Loan Repayments: $0
Beginning Cash: $19,881
Latest Cash On Hand: $2,461
Debts Owed By: $15,909
Through: 06/30/2008
http://herndon1.sdrdc.com/cgi-bin/cancomsrs/?_08+S4IL00404
August 12th, 2008 at 10:09 am
Good luck guys and take back what’s rightfully yours from these sore losers and pathetic bankrupts
August 12th, 2008 at 10:30 am
Will Keyes even have the money to get a lawyer?
August 12th, 2008 at 11:09 am
Catholic, Christian Reconstructionist. Same damn thing.
August 12th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
John, you are such a broken record. OK, you are not a racist. We SOOOO… get it. Congratulations on your moral superiority that you can’t seem to help proclaiming. Why don’t you just post as John “I am not a racist” Lowell, and then you can dispense with your obligatory post denouncing the “racism” of the AIP.
BTW, the Catholic Church has always been against hate or ill will against our fellow man, as have all true Christians. But the Church has not historically insisted on an egalitarian social structure. The Church, like all pre-modern institutions, presupposed hierarchy and subordination. You must struggle with as much cognitive dissonance as our Straussian friend Keyes. Trying to read your modern ideas into a pre-modern Bible and Institutional Church. Good luck with that.
August 12th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
HAHA You all sound like Al Gore and the Democratic leadership leading up to and during the recount! The Sec. of State has confirmed Keyes as the nominee and the courts will not overturn that decision. You may win in a Civil suit long after the election, but Keyes will no doubt be the nominee. You can talk and write as much as you want on these blog sites about how Keyes shouldn’t be the nominee but it woun’t change the fact that he is and that he will be on the ballot. Good Luck with the Florida recount, opps..I mean the Caligornia ballot.
August 12th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
If all the rules were followed, then why have two factions, with the state siding with the supposed legal winner?
August 12th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
I sure hope the Baldwin camp wins this. It is critical to his campaign. It doesn’t appear Keyes HAS a campaign and it would seem a shame he could really mess things up for Baldwin by taking California away from him.
August 12th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Keyes site is so heavily censured that if you ask him a challenging question, they just delete it and ban the submitter.
All Keyes does is spew rhetoric. He’s never actually DONE anything other than run for office – quite unsuccessfully.
WAKE UP Alan (and your few remaining supporters). Your campaign will, once again, marginalize you to a laughing stock where 50 optimistic supporters will proclaim future victories are at hand.
August 12th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
“Keyes site is so heavily censured that if you ask him a challenging question, they just delete it and ban the submitter.”
They allowed Trent Hill and me to post there prior to the CP Convention so Keyes supporters could know “what they were up against.” After the Convention, we were banned.
In fairness to them, the forum does say it is for Keyes supporters, but they have created an echo chamber. Even with Trent and me warning them, they couldn’t seem to grasp that the “far right” had already rejected interventionism. They were obliviously arguing as if they were at still playing to the Free Republic or GOPUSA crowd.
August 12th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
” John Lowell Says:
August 12th, 2008 at 1:39 am
Any “Catholic” content to associate himself with the name, American Independent Party, given that party’s noxious racist history, needs to spend less time quoting Holy Scripture and more time in self examination.”
Response : If some can accuse the AIP of having racism in its past via George Wallace I, as the current Vice-Chairman of the AIP, can say that such a past has been totally reversed to the point that the AIP is now the greatest defender of minorities, ” people of color,” or any other similar term that one can use out of all political parties in the nation. Exhibit # 1 ( the only one really needed ) – the AIP and its national parent of the Constitution Party and its fellow affiliated state parties are the ONLY parties, irrespective of smaller Christian parties, which are fighting the complete and utter corruption of Planned Parenthood and the eugenics ( race science ) program of its founder Margaret Sanger; one of the greatest racists in history. Only the CP and the AIP are openly fighting the mass genocide conducted by Planned Parenthood.. No other political party will stand up for the black community and come to their defense against this outrageous and horrific genocide against their community. The AIP proudly stands in defense of the black community and humanity as a whole against the anti-human attack of Planned Parenthood against them.
August 12th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
Red,
I know it touches sensitive tissue with you to have someone point to the sordid history of the AIP, Red, but instead of blaming me for what was don’t you think it makes more sense to disassociate yourself from it. Strangely, I’ve never heard you do that, all I ever get is the obfuscation that I’m somehow trumpeting my own purity. Are we to assume that you can’t manage an honest self-examination? I mean, you’re right, we know that I’m not a racist. But are you?
You go on to say:
“But the Church has not historically insisted on an egalitarian social structure. The Church, like all pre-modern institutions, presupposed hierarchy and subordination. You must struggle with as much cognitive dissonance as our Straussian friend Keyes. Trying to read your modern ideas into a pre-modern Bible and Institutional Church. Good luck with that.”
I really must confess to being utterly lost here, Red. I can’t make sense out of any of these statements, truthfully. Perhaps you’d want to take a second crack at them and how they connect.
August 12th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
Don,
“Response : If some can accuse the AIP of having racism in its past via George Wallace I, as the current Vice-Chairman of the AIP, can say that such a past has been totally reversed to the point that the AIP is now the greatest defender of minorities, ” people of color,” or any other similar term that one can use out of all political parties in the nation.”
Now here is an entirely reasonable response to my concern, unlike that of Red Phillips who is so defensive about the past associations, and so uncomfortable with them, that he makes the kills the messenger not the culprit. But, Don, change the party’s name, already. It’s doing you no good.
August 12th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
The Sec. of State has confirmed Keyes as the nominee and the courts will not overturn that decision.
= Funny how the reasoning for the SoS’s decision was because she was used to being told about the new chairman by the outgoing chair, and that didn’t happened, she just basically ignored all the legal documents and convention reports that were sent in.
That’s why the courts will have to decide for the incompetant SoS.
BTW, your guy Alan can’t get on the ballot anywhere else besides Colorado, what do you expect to gain?
August 12th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
The Sec. of State has confirmed Keyes as the nominee and the courts will not overturn that decision.
= Funny how the reasoning for the SoS’s decision was because she was used to being told about the new chairman by the outgoing chair, and that didn’t happened, she just basically ignored all the legal documents and convention reports that were sent in.
That’s why the courts will have to decide for the incompetant SoS.
BTW, your guy Alan can’t get on the ballot anywhere else besides Colorado, what do you expect to gain?
August 12th, 2008 at 10:55 pm
John, I am not uncomfortable with the past associations. Nor am I sensitive to allegations of racism. What I am uncomfortable with is PC grandstanding. And what I am sensitive to are that the allegations are being made by people who should know better. You are a smart fellow. Wake up. The forces of anti-racism and purist egalitarianism are not friendly to Christianity. The same neo-Marxist PC thought police who are ever vigilant to stamp out racism, also don’t like Christianity and Western Civilization and would be happy to stamp out both of them also. The same people obsessing about all the white “haters” also don’t like all the Christian “haters” who happen to believe the Bible re. homosexuality and gender roles. Your parroting of their shame on whitey PC is empowering the enemies of your Faith. Read Catholic R. Cort Kirkwood’s easy from today at Chronicles. Read Catholic Jim Kalb’s essay on the dangers of ideological anti-racism. Study up on the Frankfurt School – Marcuse, Adorno and the boys. Get a clue John. You are providing ground cover for the enemies of your Faith and the Civilization that it built and sustains.
http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/?p=693#comments
August 12th, 2008 at 11:15 pm
For John, Jim Kalb on anti-racism.
http://turnabout.ath.cx:8000/node/1447
And here is something on Political Correctness and the Frankfurt School.
http://www.freecongress.org/centers/cc/pcessay1-3.aspx
August 13th, 2008 at 9:34 am
Regarding historical racism in politics…
We have 3/5ths of a man written into the Contstitution.
We had Democratic Copperheads in the North during the Civil War.
You had Republican Warren Harding giving the KKK a sympathetic ear in the 1920s.
You had the Democratic Dixiecrats.
So how long do the democrats or republicans have to go to shake off there historic “racism” and roots of racism? It is considered done and defacto.
Yet for some strange reason, the AIP is viewed as an exception to that grace. The AIP and the CP does not condone, teach or advocate racism. The very fact that a black man was considered to be a candidate for the party, and received nearly 1/3rd of its vote at its convention should be evidence enough.
I know of zero racists or advocates of racism in the AIP or its leadership, on either side of its current debate about ballot access.
The entire country, and ALL political parties must confess that it has a “noxious racist history”. No one should get too self righteous in this territory.
August 13th, 2008 at 10:09 am
Red,
“John, I am not uncomfortable with the past associations.”
Most unfortunate, Red, as such an attitude leaves a neigh-on impenetrable barrier between us.
“The forces of anti-racism and purist egalitarianism are not friendly to Christianity. The same neo-Marxist PC thought police who are ever vigilant to stamp out racism, also don’t like Christianity and Western Civilization and would be happy to stamp out both of them also. The same people obsessing about all the white “haters” also don’t like all the Christian “haters” who happen to believe the Bible re. homosexuality and gender roles. Your parroting of their shame on whitey PC is empowering the enemies of your Faith.”
Not a lot of discrimination here, I’d say, Red, I’m disappointed. You present a good bit too much as does your friend, James Dobson, who has become nothing more and nothing less over the years than a creature of his political enemies. They literally own him, and you, too, it would seem. I am no shrinking violet. As you certainly must know, I contend here and elsewhere rather regularly with Christian haters and will continue to do so. And you’re right, I’m a smart fellow, smarter than you from the appearances. Unlike you, I’ve been suffiently alert to insure that I have enough spiritual freedom remaining still to be able to call evil what it is, and racism is an evil. The fact that there are those out there who would wish to exterminate Christianity who also condemn racism does not make their condemnations less valid, it simply makes their Christian hating of a piece with the very racism they condemn. The truth is what is decisive here, not some construct of political or ideological forces. I’m not very likely to allow myself to be determined by such structures or ideologies. My concerns are solely with truth and identifying the form of Christ in the world. He will and has outlasted persecutions and exterminations. Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit.
August 13th, 2008 at 10:33 am
Bill Lussenheide,
The fact that the entire country has been racist in its past doesn’t make the AIP’s particularly recent connections with racism any less vile. One way to be forever rid of these “associations” would be to change the AIP’s cotten-pickin name. Why not call it the Constitution Party for goodness sake.
August 13th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
“And you’re right, I’m a smart fellow, smarter than you from the appearances.”
But apparently not very humble. Did you read the Kalb article? What is “racism” John? If the English language meant something, it would mean something like hate or ill-will toward another person based solely on an unalterable feature such as race. But that is not what it means. It is now used to mean anything that is not dogmatically purist egalitarian. News flash, smarty pants. Modern purist egalitarianism is probably less than 100 years old. It was not accepted by most of your fellow countrymen until less than 50 years ago. Do a word study of the word “racism.” How long has the word even been in existence? That was my point that you missed above. The Bible and the Church can not possibly mandate modern purist egalitarianism because the idea hadn’t even been conceived back then. As I said, it was presupposed otherwise.
I will condemn un-Christian hate with the best of them if I see it. But dogmatic anti-racism does not just condemn hate. It condemns the entirely natural and understandable tendency of people to view themselves as part of a larger group. To prefer that group. To be more concerned about the welfare of that group. Etc. Man has been organizing himself along these lines since there has been man and still does. In fact, what is now called racism has almost certainly been the chief organizing factor of man throughout his history. Randomly point your finger at a globe and you will find a country that has historically defined itself to a greater or lesser degree by a shared ethnicity, language, religion, history, culture, folkways, etc. (The lines are not always perfect. Note South Ossetia.) (Prior to the rise of the modern nation state, this would have been even more true.)
(Historically speaking, race is actually a supra-category. It has only been fairly recently by historical standards that the races have had significant contact with each other much less lived among each other. So what pre-modern man was guilty of by modern reckoning would I guess be “ethnicism.”)
Do you really think there were a lot of proposition nations in pre-modern times? What might have approached such were called Empires and were created by conquest and held together by force.
I would not question your intelligence, but I do question your seriousness as a thinker. The modern position of dogmatic anti-racism is ahistorical, unnatural, pathologizes normality, and is destructive of natural organic communities and Western Civilization. That is why it has to be brow beaten into people. And why people pay lips service to it, but then act otherwise. Because it contradicts human nature. The anti-racist ideologues can no more beat all the “racism” and “ethnicism” out of mankind than the not at all unrelated Marxist ideologues could wish away the profit motive.
Your parroting of their drivel marks you as a grandstander and not a serious thinker.
Conservative and libertarian proponents of color-blindness can at least be credited for consistency in their utterly Utopian vision. Leftist PC enforcers make no such pretense of consistency. For them Black, Latino, etc. self-identification and self-interest are normal and proper, but for white folks it is the chief of all sins. If you can’t figure out how that is agenda driven and a blatant assault on Western Civilization and by extension Christianity, you are blinded by the dogma you have so obviously swallowed whole.
August 13th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Don Amondson is the only Presidential candidate not affiliated with the forces of darkness.
August 13th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Red,
“News flash, smarty pants. Modern purist egalitarianism is probably less than 100 years old. It was not accepted by most of your fellow countrymen until less than 50 years ago. Do a word study of the word “racism.” How long has the word even been in existence? That was my point that you missed above. The Bible and the Church can not possibly mandate modern purist egalitarianism because the idea hadn’t even been conceived back then. As I said, it was presupposed otherwise.”
Lets just speak to this Bible and Church business for the moment. To imagine that modern notions of human equality don’t arise from Holy Scripture or the Church’s theological tradition is just patent nonsense. Quite as much as the notion of “person”, and primarily because of it, these concepts have their very genesis in these wellsprings. The human person and the dignity accorded the human person by God are their ground. You can’t possibly be suggesting that the Christian notion of “person” is a modern idea!
And your doubts about me nothwithstanding, I can’t imagine understanding the question more “seriously”. Want to pick things up from there?
August 13th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
Jim King might want to reconsider his Catholicism. Baldwin has referred to Rome many times in his CBL online sermons as ‘the throne of Antichrist”.
August 13th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Christianity teaches that all men are created equal in that we are all equally guilty of Adam’s sin and all equally in need of a Savior. And yes, the notion of the inherent worth of the individual is clearly taught and inherently follows from Scripture although I think you could make a case that the family is actually the more fundamental unit. Contra John Locke, the family is certainly the primordial political unit. (I’m not sure what “person” has to do with it. The atomistic individualism of the libertarians is clearly contrary to Scripture, Christianity, and history.) But the Bible does not mandate social/political equality. In fact, as Robert Locke pointed out, God directly created two people, and he didn’t create them equal. He created one subordinate to the other. Was there one person one vote in ancient Israel? Was there political equality between Jew and non-Jew in Israel? (There was a command to be kind to aliens, but no command to make them equal citizens.) Was God guilty of tribeism when he mandated special duties for the tribe of Levi. Could you get any more unegalitarian than that? Your birth into a tribe mandates your role in life. How “unfair.” As I said, the Bible presupposes inequality and hierarchy.
Re. Wallace, I agree with his opposition to the unconstitutional federal Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act. I don’t exactly know where you are coming from politically, but libertarians (if that is what you fancy yourself) are generally opposed to laws prohibiting private discrimination and paleolibertarians generally oppose federal Civil Rights legislation. What is your specific beef with Wallace? Do you support federal Civil Rights legislation? Do you oppose the federal laws but not support segregation at the State level. It would help if you would make some particular case. Your broad brushed allegations of “racism” due to a past affiliation with Wallace just reeks of PC thought policing. Make whatever case it is you want to make about Wallace, and then move on.
August 13th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
John, are you a personalist? You remind me a lot of a personalist I know.
August 13th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
Red,
“John, are you a personalist? You remind me a lot of a personalist I know.”
Blondel and Maritain certainly impacted the theologians I most respect in important ways, Red. I’m an enthusiast of the nouvelle theologie of Henri du Lubac and the unique contributions of Hans Urs von Balthasar, whose mammouth corpus is well on its way to being recognized as perhaps the most important contribution to theology since St. Thomas.
August 14th, 2008 at 8:10 am
This election is extraordinary. The Keyes supporters that I’ve talked with since October have realized from the start that it would take a miracle for him to win. Do you believe that with God, all things are possible? We do.
Carlsbad – you say Keyes has never done anything other than run for office. I respectfully point out that he has done much more than that—so much that he seems to me to be the single most qualified candidate for President in the race.
Don – I’m glad you are fighting Planned Parenthood. You can see that Maryland Independent Party, which I expect to affiliate this month with America’s Independent Party, has emphasized the same points about that group, and its goals and its genesis, as you do. My own congressional district has a Representative who highlights a Planned Parenthood PAC as one of her “Champions of Change”. The voter registration data I saw back in April showed Constitution Party as having one registered voter in my county before I doubled that with my own registration switch in response to the invitations by three of your national party leaders on the Keyes campaign conference calls. I’ve read that Constitution Party succeeded in submitting petition to get on the ballot here in Maryland. I hope you will field candidates for Congress, especially here in the 4th District.
August 14th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
FYI, it would take 80,000 signatures to start a new party in Cali, hence the only way to change the name would be to start a new political party. Another thing is that ‘American Independent’ is better sounding then ‘Constitution’ and the bulk of the CP registered voters are with its affiliates that have different names then the national party.
Another thing is that the AIP has maintained distance from racists since it first started, Bill Shearer had kicked out Tom Metzger from a AIP convention in the 70’s when Tom tried to set up a booth at the convention. The American Nazi Party teamed up with the GOP back in 1972 to try to remove the AIP from the ballot, so there’s actually bad blood between the Party and White Supremacists. Another thing- in the 1968 Prez. election, Wallace was listed as the Democratic candidate in Alabama and listed as ‘Independent’ or ‘American’ in the other southern states, not as AIP. So the name didn’t entirely apply to George Wallace. Another thing is Wallace abandoned the AIP after 1968 and went back to the Democratic Party.
It seems that the racist charge doesn’t apply that well to the AIP, and I really doubt its leaders would try to change the name to appease one or two people.
August 14th, 2008 at 11:57 pm
“Voting majorities were spoken at the Constitution Party Convention in April of 2008.”
At that convention California had 61 delegate votes and 54 were cast for Alan Keyes, so I don’t understand why the Calif. party doesn’t have a right to affilliate with the party that endorses it’s majority’s choice for presidential candidate.
August 15th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
When the AIP was gathering signatures in 1967 to qualify the party
for the 1968 ballot an agreement was made between Bill Shearer &
the George Wallace campaign that if Wallace would assist the Party
in getting the 80,000+ signatures needed to then qualify a party
for the ballot the party would put his name on the 1968 ballot for
President. In 1970, the Wallace forces tried & failed to seize control
of the party. After 1972, when it was clear that Wallace would not be
running for President the American Independent Party saw a tremen-
dous decline in registration state-wide. Clearly most of those people
were the racist supporters of Wallace who had no interest in being a
member of a party dedicated to improving things within California.
I was the Delegation Chairman in Kansas City for California. The
reason that Keyes received a majority of California’s votes is that
rather than attend the meeting as he should have being the State
Chairman, Ed Noonan spent his time calling around the state trying
to drum up proxies for Keyes.! He did not submit any proxies for
Baldwin or Don Grundmann who won our primary in February. He
was our favorite son and deserved far better treatment from the
State Chairman. Had we just counted the votes of the people who
spent the money to actually attend the Convention Keyes would
have received a minority of the votes of California. Those Baldwin
supporters are some of the people fighting to correct the error
committed by the California Sec. of State office.
There is no way of knowing how true this is, but I believe that the
reason the Secretary of State office made the ruling that it did
was laziness in not comprehensively studying the material that
was submitted to it by the 2 groups. They had no interest in really
making a determination because although we have over 330,000
registered members it only amounts to a little over 2.0% of the
total voters currently registered in California so we are considered
to be a minor party. The statement that was released by the office
implies how much research was done by the SoS office. Curiously,
after using the same format for over 30 years the California SoS
Office has changed the voter registration form without being told
to do so by the Legislature. Apparently they didn’t like the publicity
they received when San Francisco Mayor Nuesom’s girlfriend went
to reregister and marked American Independent rather than DTS,
which is the correct way to state no party in California.
August 15th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
So instead of being Lib/ Neocon/ Classical Conservative Watch is this now Theology Watch ?????