Nationwide "End the Fed" Protests ... Libertarian Candidate Sues to Break Into Presidential Debates

George Washington's picture

Nationwide Protests to “End the Fed” This Weekend


There will be nationwide protests this weekend calling for an end to the Fed

The “official” End The Fed 2012 website lists protests at the following Federal Reserve Banks:

(There are 12 main Federal Reserve Banks, but quite a few additional branch offices.) Or check out this Facebook page.

Remember, numerous economists say that we must end or substantially rein in the Fed.

Most Americans agree.

Both liberal and conservative protesters – Occupy and Tea Party alike – have railed against the unchecked power of the Federal Reserve.

Indeed, the support among the public and House for auditing the Fed is almost 100% … but Democratic Senate leader Reid has vowed to kill an audit (even though he previously supported it).

Third Party Candidate – Who Is On the Ballot In All 50 States – Files Lawsuit Demanding Inclusion in Presidential Debates


The American people are sick of both the Republican and Democratic party, and yearn for something different.  See this, this and this.

No wonder … the mainstream Democratic and Republican parties agree on most matters which affect American lives the most directly.  Here, here, here here and here.  And – as this 4-minute video shows – they both ignore the desires of their own bases.

Obama and Romney are virtually indistinguishable on most core issues. For example: jobs, freedoms and favoring fatcats instead of the little guy.

The Founding Fathers warned – at the very birth of our nation – against a two-party system as being destructive to liberty.

For example, the Republican and Democratic parties have long formed Gentlemen’s agreements – through the “Presidential Debate Commission” – on what topics are “off-limits” (and which journalists can even ask questions) during presidential debates:

The Presidential Debate Commission (PDC) is run by former chairmen of the Democratic and Republican parties. The debates almost always exclude third-party candidates.

Gary Johnson is looking to change that.

The Libertarian candidate for president – who will be on all 50 states’ ballots this election, and who is currently polling at around 5% of the vote – Johnson (and his vice presidential running mate, retired judge Jim Gray) have filed an antitrust lawsuit against the PDC for excluding them from the debates:

The Gov. Gary Johnson/Judge Jim Gray Campaign has filed an antitrust lawsuit against the Democrats, Republicans, & the Commission on Presidential Debates for antitrust and anticompetitive acts. The voters deserve competition!

The lawsuit comes after the PDC’s failure to respond to the following letter from Johnson last month:

Dear [Commission Member]

I am writing to request that the national Commission on Presidential Debates reconsider your current – and exclusionary – requirements for participation in this Fall’s all-important Presidential and Vice-Presidential debates.

I am well aware of the history and genesis of the Commission, including the reality that it was created largely by the respective national leadership of the Democrat and Republican Parties. While I respect and understand the intention to provide a reasonable and theoretically nonpartisan structure for the presidential debate process, I would suggest that the Commission’s founding, organization and policies are heavily skewed toward limiting the debates to the two so-called major parties.

That is unfortunate, and frankly, out of touch with the electorate. You rely very heavily on polling data to determine who may participate in your debates, yet your use of criteria that are clearly designed to limit participation to the Republican and the Democrat nominee ignore the fact that many credible polls indicate that a full one-third of the electorate do not clearly identify with either of those parties. Rather, they are independents whose voting choices are not determined by party affiliation.

That one-third of the voters, as well as independent-thinking Republicans and Democrats, deserve an opportunity to see and hear a credible “third party” candidate. I understand that there are a great many “third party” candidates, and that a line must be drawn somewhere. However, the simple reality of our Electoral College system draws that line in a very straightforward and fair way – a reality that is reflected in your existing criteria. If a candidate is not on the ballot in a sufficient number of states to be elected by the Electoral College, it is perfectly logical to not include that candidate in a national debate. If, on other hand, a candidate IS on the ballot in enough states to be elected, there i s no logic by which that candidate should be excluded.

Nowhere in the Constitution or in law is it written that our President must be a Democrat or a Republican. However, it IS written that a candidate must receive a majority of the votes – or at least 50% – cast by electors, and that any candidate who does so, and otherwise meets the Constitution’s requirements, may be President.

As the Libertarian Party’s nominees for Vice-President and President, Judge Jim Gray and I have already qualified to be on the ballot in more than enough states to obtain a majority in the Electoral College, and we are the only candidates other than the Republican and Democrat nominees to have done so, or who are likely to do so. In fact, we fully intend and expect to be on the ballots of all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

However, the Commission has chosen to impose yet another requirement for participation: 15% in selected public opinion polls. Unlike your other requirements, this polling performance criterion is entirely arbitrary and based, frankly, on nothing other than an apparent attempt to limit participation to the Democrat and the Republican.

Requiring a certain level of approval in the polls has nothing to do with fitness to serve, experience or credibility as a potential President. Rather, it has everything to do with the hundreds of millions of dollars available to and spent by the two major party candidates, the self-fulfilling bias of the news media against the viability of third party candidates, and an ill-founded belief that past dominance of the Republican and Democrat Parties should somehow be a template for the future.

In all due respect, it is not the proper role of a non-elected, private and tax-exempt organization to narrow the voters’ choices to only the two major party candidates – which is the net effect of your arbitrary polling requirement. To the contrary, debates are the one element of modern campaigns and elections that should be immune to unfair advantages based upon funding and party structure. Yet, it is clear that the Commission’s criteria have both the intent and the effect of limiting voters’ choices  to the candidates of the two major parties who, in fact, created the Commission in the first place.

Eliminating the arbitrary polling requirement would align the Commission and its procedure for deciding who may participate in the critical debates with fairness and true nonpartisanship, which was the purported intent behind the Commission’s creation. As of right now, eliminating that requirement would not disrupt the process or make it unmanageable. Rather, it would simply allow the participation of a two-term governor who has more executive experience than Messrs. Obama and Romney combined, who has garnered sufficiently broad support to be on the ballot in more than enough states to achieve a majority in the Electoral College, and who, without the help of party resources and special interests, has attracted enough financial support to qualify for presidential campaign matching funds.

I urge and request you to remove the partisanship from the debates, and allow the voters an opportunity to hear from all of the qualified candidates – not just those who happen to be a Democrat or a Republican.

Thank you.

Governor Gary Johnson


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
AurorusBorealus's picture

I have one question for Gary Johnson and the libertarians... what is the libertarian solution to the wholesale gutting of American wealth to enrich a few by selling all the industry and technology created through centuries of effort by many people in the West to the Communist government in China?  Was this not an exercise of the liberty?  How can anyone argue that libertarianism is the political answer to the crisis in the West without addressing this all-important question.

Sean7k's picture

You have to be incredibly ignorant to isolate a single issue, one that is affected by multiple processes and governmental intervention and associate it solely with liberty and therefore libertarianism. 

AurorusBorealus's picture

I notice that you did not address the question.

Yellowhoard's picture

I left the GOP in 92 and voted for Ross Perot. Bush 41 was a big government Republican so I calculated that a vote for Perot, even though it would probably help Clinton, it would make a statement and put the Democrat congress in play in 94. I was right and don't regret my vote.

Since then, I have voted for the least statist candidate and have voted Republicans while holding my nose.

Though I would love to see a libertarian president, I'm going to vote for Romney reluctantly because I truly believe that there are elements of the Obama administration that are pure evil. Indeed, I'm prepared to leave the country if he is re elected.

That said, the difference between Romney and Obama will be subtle.

Lets_Eat_Ben's picture

Let's build our economy on a sink hole and went it starts to go down we can just throw some dirt on it! I have an economics degree from Harvard and I like the smell of my farts.

paint it red call it hell's picture

I just replied to an email from Mitten's campaign. He had this to say;

"If we focus on these five areas -- energy, education, trade, deficits, and championing small business -- America’s economy and America’s middle class will come roaring back to life."

See anything there about financial criminal enterprise as a going concern or prosecution of fraud or corruption ? Me neither.....

Can anyone guess as to the nature of my reply to his campaign flunky's?

Bansters-in-my- feces's picture

How about Ending Chemtrail spraying too...!!!!

That shits gonna kill us all.

I was heavily assaulted all day today with CHEMTRAIL spray so heavy it looked like a sci-fi movie.

FUCK YOU's whoever is spraying and whoever is allowing this to be sprayed.

.............................FUCK YOU'S...

PS....FUCK YOUS TOO Central bankers.

tony bonn's picture

"...The American people are sick of both the Republican and Democratic party..."

amen to that - they are both the same party, same controllers....not a whit's bit of difference....

q99x2's picture

I'm voting for Gary Johnson.

Screw ending the FED arrest those fuckers for treason and excute them if that is what violations of treason penalties are. Why screw around they are the most notorious dangerous crimminals that have the capabilty (which they are using) to destroy the entire planet. Billions upon billions of people dying starving having their kids faces blown off their weddings exploded by drones. And then there are the suicides the broken families, little Johnny taken away by the CPA and fuck it who needs them. Lock the bastards up I say don't let them walk away.

runlevel's picture

I see no mention of Ron Paul....

WhiteNight123129's picture

Let the Fed wack the cash of AAPL and the real value of treasuries held by the Rich until they spend it into the economy, let the Fed anihilate the debt of the poor and turn it into confettis. The ones who hold massive idle cash doing nothing are the Rich and Corporations, wack them Ben, brutalize their cash hoard with your printing gun.

Heroic Couplet's picture

Gee, isn't the Fed supposed to be responsible for assassinating JFK? So this moron is running 3rd party? Guess it's good.

TheObsoleteMan's picture

I remember the 1992 debates, you could see the look of "Oh my God, what have we done" on Bush and Clinton's faces. They were determined to never allow that again. Forget about "open" debates, it will not happen under the current system. Jesee Ventura told you why.

dir's picture

You should listen to the two minutes of the "controversial" Romney tape <a href=""><b><u>here</u></b></a>.

Romney rips the Fed apart and describes exactly what awaits the U.S. if Bernanke's insanity continues.

Hey Ron Paul-guys: we need you to defeat the existential menace known as Obama.

If Obama is reelected thanks to a third-party vote-splitting masturbatory exercise, you may not have a country to save in four years.



Lets_Eat_Ben's picture

Dirrrrrrrrrrrr! Good name fella.

Draw a picture of your dick and balls and cast a vote for it; that's as useful as voting for anyone else. Hey, if you're lucky, they'll give out vaccinations while you wait in line to cast your useless vote like they did last year and then you can be safe.

TheObsoleteMan's picture

I REFUSE to be an accomplice in evil. I still vote republican at the local and state level, but something happens to the candidates when they get to the Senate level;THEY ARE BOUGHT. Looking back, there has not been a genuine GOP candidate since Goldwater. I probably will never again cast a vote for the GOP presidential candidate for the rest of my life. Gary Johnson has my vote.

HoofHearted's picture

Fuck you and the frozen horse you rode in on.

If that asshole Romney wants my vote, he can campaign for it, make promises for it, buy it fair and square like all the other politicians do. He can have my vote for US$500,000, payable in gold and silver, or he can promise me that he'll put good people like Ron Paul and Gary Johnson into important roles in his administration.

Until then fuck you and fuck Romney, the other side of the Obama coin.

worbsid's picture

I'll vote Domocratic when Jon Corizine is in jail for stealing something over 1.2 billion dollars.

Sean7k's picture

Not an eloquent argument, but the passion? Amazing what passion can make up for. Clear, concise and provacative. +100

HoofHearted's picture

Thank you. I save my eloquence for people who can handle rational thought. When somebody comes in here trying to convince all of us to vote for someone because they're not as bad as the other guy, I tend to get a little emotional.

Always vote your conscience says the guy who works in game theory and econometrics and knows a thing or two about voting theory. Yes, we might get Obama, we might get Obama-lite. But I'm not buying that someone like Gary Johnson is unelectable. Even that nutbag Cynthia McKinney should have a chance if she wants to take the time to run. If you aren't afraid, put the real loonies up on stage with the more palatable Obama and Rombama. We'll see which ones come out on top. Watching Ron Paul in the R debates was a thing of beauty...

headless blogger's picture

I'm all for 'ending the fed' but do they have all the what, who, why, how, and whens worked out when it is gone? And have they thought about the possibility that the Transatlantic cartel may use this to usher in an international form of the FED that will consolidate power and nations? There doesn't seem to be any Plans on how things will be done after they abolish the FED. You can't be just going half-cocked on this stuff.  I haven't seen how these people plan to organize the country (the power structure) if they succeed. We could end up with something worse if people are not careful.


Edelweiss's picture

  It's true that no one has really addressed exactly how we can "end the fed" in a way that does'nt precipitate a societal collapse in it's aftermath.  In 08', I started reading about the fed (creature from Jekyll, etc.), and decided an institution so corrupt and fraudulent must be dismantled.  From my perspective though, a gradual transition is preferable to a rapid one.  If the fed disappeared tomorrow, it's hard to imagine anything but chaos resulting. Most of us on ZH know that at this point the fed is the primary lender to the US govt.  Politicians are extremely unlikely to take any actions that cut off that source of funding regardless of how many protests pop up.  As much as I would like to see an end the fed effort succeed, it's going to be nearly impossible in the near term.   I'm convinced that we will have to continue down this path until it plays out.  What kind of a country are we left with at that point?  I wish I knew.  

Sean7k's picture

Plenty of people have addressed how to end the FED. Murray Rothbard addressed it ad nauseum. Another attempt at the "oww, it's too scary to contemplate! Let's just let it go on and on and on..." 

This is how fascism plays the propaganda game. Accept the unacceptable because you never know what the future will bring. Well, your argument just allows fascism to fester and destroy, a malignant tumor on the concept of liberty. People like you need to die- sooner than later.

Edelweiss's picture

  If you actually read and understood (you obviously did'nt) my post, you would know I don't advocate letting the fed "go on and on" indefinitely.  Realistically,  I don't think the overnight disappearance of the fed from our lives is going to happen.  If it did, a huge gap in funding is created.  It follows that (most likely) chaos ensues.  Is that what we're wanting sean?  Also,  characterizing me as a fascist sympathizer because I want a dismantling of the fed in a way that does'nt involve a collapse is just fucking retarded.   

Sean7k's picture

I understood you completely. Overnight disappearance is impossible. The Congress must dissolve the contract they have with the FED. This implies a timeframe that includes discussion and the return to the treasury, the power to control the money supply.

There is no chance of "chaos". You are attempting to justify fascist policy because of the chance of a chaos that doesn't exist. That is "fucking retarded". 

Save your infantile arguments for lesser minds.

Sean7k's picture

There are few things as disingenius as your argument. 

The FED has no real purpose outside of wealth transfer. The market does everything the FED attempts to do, but without prejudice that favors bankers. Exchange has been accomplished for millenia without central banks. However, until central banks are dissolved, nothing can be accomplished. Catch 22.

Now, do you really believe? Or are you just another simpering coward? Or a troll? 

The Constitution has a money mechanism- 454 grains of silver= one dollar. What more do we need? Credit? A five thousand year history. 

Westcoastliberal's picture

A few elections back when the late Harry Browne was the Libertarian's candidate for President, I was working with the campaign trying to get a half-hour of prime time on the networks to air their infomercial.  ABC responded with a price, but the other networks wouldn't even discuss it and said he wasn't a "bona fide" candidate.  3rd largest political party in the U.S. and not viable?  I complained to the FCC and they sidestepped the issue.

It sure opened by eyes to how our so-called democracy works in practice.


bankruptcylawyer's picture

libertarians suing for open-ness is begging the system that controls you for fairness. there is NOTHING wrong with this. it is called trying to make democracy work. 


the problem is that it's of course hypocritical. libertarians talk endlessly about freedom and property. they avoid the dirty work of talking about the property of the political system. how it is owned, and then used by the two big parties to their benefit. of course, bringing attention to the need to use government to fix a broken government doesn't toe the libertarian line well. what's the other option....sit back and wait for the revolution in 20 40 or 200 years . 

but then, why bother having a political party right now ?



bigkahuna's picture

Interesting - it is beginning to rhyme with 1996 Clinton/Dole/Perot. The dems should be all for this. I hope it back-fires on them all-though Johnson will have to be given fair opportunity to express himself. There are odds for this...

One World Mafia's picture

GJ can take many votes away from unhappy Obama supporters who won't vote for Mitt.

naiverealist's picture

Just write in Ron Paul on the ballot!

mbarido's picture

Good luck IF you can write in.  HAVE YOU CHECKED YOUR BALLOT?

Here in Texas, unless at least one third party candidate gets on the November Ballet as a WRITE-IN, it is over, Texans will be unable to write in Ron Paul. Per county voting officials.

Make no mistake, no write-in, no vote by me.  I WAS 60 on July 26, 1952, and I have voted every general election since I could first vote at 20 years old (overseas absentee twice)

No write-in for the only man that has any idea of the constitution or sound money, and I am out of here quickly.

Bringin It's picture

Don't get your panties in a bunch. Voting is theatre.

SilverIsKing's picture

Do you live in a mausoleum or 6 feet under? 120 years old and it's at least the second time you posted this crap. I called you on it a few months ago. Not a typo.

One World Mafia's picture

Paul has already ceded he can't win. Write ins are not counted in many states.  Paperwork would have to be filed and he would face even more ballot access obstacles than Gary Johnson.

Bringin It's picture

Ballots are not counted in many states.  Like Ohio.

Sean7k's picture

There is no reason to protest at the FED banks. The best protest we have is to stop using their money in every possible transaction we make. Barter, silver, gold, trades. Stop using credit and debit cards whenever possible. 

Contracts can be settled in many different ways. Labor can be paid in many different ways. Ask your employees, "do you want your pay in silver and checks?". You can record the spot market prices for taxes. 

You cannot compel fascists. You can only diminish their power in your life. Stop voting, stop lending legitimacy.

Jury duty? Refuse to convict anyone of victimless crimes. 

Police need help? Ignore them. 

Military needs troops? Too bad. Let the rich kids pay the price for their corporate colonialism (fat chance). 

Grow your own food. Require your doctors heal, not drug. Stop giving your capital to wall street. Make them use their own wealth.

The revolution is peaceful,it is a war for the mind and heart. Change your thinking. Watch the power dissapate.

piceridu's picture

Could you imagine if we just did 3, any 3 of the things you mention in your very eloquent post...what a different world.

iDealMeat's picture

+ a BIG 1  Sean7K..   See your local Craigslist. and farmers market..  There are tons of people on your same page..


Bringin It's picture

I only pay cash. I'm waiting for all others with skin in the game to join me.

AmCockerSpaniel's picture

Well it's come to this; I think I would like to hear something different from some one, any one. I just don't feel like it makes any difference if it's Mitt or Obama. They talk for a long time, and say nothing, about anything.

NewWorldOrange's picture

SPOT ON! This suit by Gary Johnson is like if Ron Paul wrote an impassioned appeal to the Bank of International Settlements to bail out the Federal Reserve.

LMAOLORI's picture



Gary Johnson Crosses the Line By Skip Oliva

The Libertarian Party has never done the larger libertarian movement much good. The party’s 2008 presidential ticket jumped ship and endorsed Mitt Romney. And the 2012 ticket of Gary Johnson and Jim Gray has now stooped to filing a federal antitrust lawsuit–not the most libertarian of tactics–in order to force their way into the upcoming presidential debates. It’s a pathetic move that insults the thousands of people deprived of their property and liberty by the scourge that is the Sherman Act.

Johnson’s lawsuit is pure nonsense. He claims the Commission on Presidential Debates and the Democratic and Republican National Committees have “conspired” to “restrain trade” by excluding Johnson. “The office of president, to which Governor Johnson aspires,” the lawsuit argues, “pays a salary of $400,000 per year.” This makes the presidential debates “commerce” under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Really, Gary? I think I can hear some lawyers at the Federal Trade Commission laughing at you.

“The Sherman Act was enacted in 1890 to prevent conspiracies such as the one alleged herein.” No, it wasn’t. The Sherman Act was adopted to punish more efficient competitors in industry and agriculture who displaced politically connected but less efficient firms. There isn’t a single shred of evidence to suggest the law’s framers intended to apply it to political activities like a presidential debate. (Indeed, presidential debates were unheard of in the 19th century.)

Johnson’s lawsuit claims the defendants “continue to secretly meet” to conspire against him by passing exclusionary debate rules. This ignores the fact the Commission and the two major parties are private, non-governmental entities. Private groups are not only free to meet and exclude outsiders, they have an absolute right to do so under the First Amendment. Johnson is effectively trying to employ antitrust to overrule the right of free association.

Even by antitrust standards, Johnson’s case is meritless. Antitrust requires some sort of “relevant market.” Johnson claims the debate participants “monopolize the field in the race for president and vice president,” which harms not just him but “the American electorate generally.” First of all, antitrust deals with consumers, not voters. The two are not interchangeable. Second, exclusion from the debates does not “monopolize” the race itself. Johnson will still appear on the ballot in most states and he has every opportunity to get his message across to the voters. If there’s anything monopolistic here it’s the restrictive access laws that hinder or prevent Johnson from appearing on the ballot–none of which are a subject of this lawsuit.

There is no “right” to appear in a presidential debate. Nor is there a right to force your opponents to make a joint public appearance with you, which is exactly what Johnson seeks here. What if Johnson prevails in the lawsuit and Mitt Romney decides he won’t appear in any debate unless it’s one-on-one with Obama? Will Johnson sue Romney to compel his attendance?

I’ve already had some Johnson defenders claim the antitrust lawsuit is justified “to combat the dirty tricks perpetrated by both major parties.” This is an “ends justify the means” argument. It goes against the LP’s own mantra as “The Party of Principle.”

Read the rest here.

palmereldritch's picture

who displaced politically connected but less efficient firms. There isn’t a single shred of evidence to suggest the law’s framers intended to apply it to political activities like a presidential debate. (Indeed, presidential debates were unheard of in the 19th century.) [Emphasis mine].

So your argument is that Romney and Obama are not politically connected within the context of the framework of the debate organizations?

Or additionally, you seem to argue that cases must be historically on point irrespective of their relevancy to the theoretical point in law ?

Are you fucking serious? 

I stopped at that statement, but a cursive review of your strawman arguments from that point has convinced me that perhaps you should change your avatar handle to Scarecrow

decon's picture

Almost without exception I would agree with the principles raised by Oliva, almost.  In this case the general cause is so compelling that the end does justify the means.