The Substantive Argument Raised by the Democratic-Republicans
The substantive argument is that the two major parties have conspired to keep any valid third party candidate off the ballot for years, especially here in NJ. We were initially blocked from using "Democratic-Republican" as our party name and ballot slogan under a statute that is known to be unconstitutional. We have a right to assemble, and a right to call our party whatever we wish ("First Amendment"), as long as it is not EXACTLY that of another major party.
The "Democratic-Republican" party already exists in history, and predates the "Democratic Party", the name adopted by supporters of Andrew Jackson during his first (unsuccessful) campaign for President, in which he opposed John Quincy Adams, a Democratic Republican. Both of these predate the founding of the modern "Republican" party, which was formed in the 1850's.
Both the Democratic and Republican parties have tried to wrap themselves in Jefferson's mantle, but neither are really aligned with the principles of the "Democratic-Republican" party he founded, which favors strict interpretation of the Constitution, strong protections for States' and individual rights, and an abhorrence of Hamilton's Central Banking platform.
We are promoting the tenets of the "Democratic-Republican" party in our collective candidacy.As the research in preserving our right to the "Democratic-Republican" name expanded, we further discovered that the statute which determines preferred ballot position and major party status in New Jersey is also Constitutionally flawed. Under the statute, a voter in a primary may cast a ballot for a President and Vice President, a Senator, a Congressman, Freeholders, a Mayor, a Sheriff and Council Persons, or any combination of the above, and these votes are counted as individual ballots for the purpose of "polling" - meeting the required 10% threshold by which a major party retains it's status as such.
The 10% figure I refer to here is calculated as 10% of the total votes cast for the NJ Assembly in the prior year's State election. Under this present system, one person walking into a voting booth during the primary may be counted as one vote, or two, or five, or even nine. They are a single voter, but this absurd language has been interpreted to allow both the Democrats and Republicans to report sufficient primary election turn-out to retain preferred ballot position, a State-funded Primary, and other benefits, which, under a strict interpretation of "one voter = one ballot", both parties have often failed to achieve. (Both parties were, in fact,"decertified" by Judge Fisher in " v ", which was overturned by an extraordinary appellate decision, which we are also seeking to overturn).
It is a fact that, in the primary this past June, over 50,000 too few votes were cast for Mr.Kyrillos and the other Republican primary candidates hoping to represent the Republican Party in the race for the US Senate, which means that, if we were to follow a strict, logical, and Constitutionally conforming method of calculation, the Republican Party loses it's"Major Party" status for this Fall's election - in all offices. It was also not entitled to a primary election held at taxpayer expense, and further does not qualify for preferred position on the ballot.
Where should the NJ Taxpayers go to get their money back? I am certain that, at the very least, the Democratic citizens of New Jersey will demand nothing less. We used the tally for Mr. Kyrillos in calculating the compliance with the 10% threshold, because this office is voted for in every district in NJ, and because there is only one Senate seat open in this election. The history of the shenanigans with respect to the selection of first or second column is well known in political circles, and is described in the lawsuit our party has filed. This is the level of honesty and ethical behavior that we have sadly come to expect from both sides of the "mythical" aisle.
The two parties have entered into a "detente" of sorts, cooperating when necessary to eliminate any competition from a third-party movement. This unlikely partnering to protect the financial interests behind both parties has existed for decades before I was even born, but, if we have our way, and the Constitution has hers, that collusion will be brought to a screeching halt, at least for now.
Uncle Moe
9:19 pm on Thursday, September 27, 2012
The two party system is fraudulent and exists just for the benefit of their corporate handlers. Such a shame. We need third party and independent candidates.
Frederick John LaVergne for Congress
10:41 pm on Thursday, September 27, 2012
That's what we're all about, Uncle Moe...
pospatch
2:07 pm on Friday, September 28, 2012
also, it's 1850s...not 1850's...hate that
Frederick John LaVergne for Congress
3:20 pm on Friday, September 28, 2012
hey, grammar police - sometimes the software here won't let you go back and edit...you may also notice the awkward spacing on the imported file.
pospatch
2:09 pm on Friday, September 28, 2012
The Democratic-Republican platform was unsustainable and that is why it was abandoned by President Jefferson and President Madison during their collective 16 years in office. If this party believed in a strict interpretation of the Constitution, then how did President Jefferson justify the purchase of the Louisiana Territory? Only through the same wordplay you yourself decry today. If this party abhorred Alexander Hamilton's financial program, then why did Secretary Gallatin continue to oversee it? The two-party system is in place precisely due to the Constitution you wish to follow so faithfully. A European-style multi-party democracy would not work under our current requirements of government. The Democratic-Republican Party itself was a behemoth that crushed all opposition in its wake, destroying the Federalist Party entirely. The Democratic-Republican Party also gave us the disastrous Embargo Act and the expensive and pointless War of 1812, both things I'm sure you would disavow today. To try and cloak your quixotic campaign in the stuffy honor of history is disingenuous. You would not "rule" as a Democratic-Republican, you would be an outcast as a third party degenerate and offer our district nothing. To accomplish anything, you would need to caucus with the Democrats or the Republicans. Which will it be? You would accomplish more good running in a major party primary next time out. Consider it for your passion is inspiring. Your words and actions are not.
Frederick John LaVergne for Congress
3:21 pm on Friday, September 28, 2012
I am not running to "rule" - I am running to "serve"....I'm not running "against" your party or your candidate - I am applying for the same vacancy he or she is - and I believe I am most assuredly qualified.
Frederick John LaVergne for Congress
2:39 pm on Friday, September 28, 2012
"The Two Party System is in place precisely due to the Constitution you wish to follow so faithfully" - your words.
1.) - By that, do you mean that you DON'T wish to follow the Constitution Faithfully?
2.) - Where, exactly, in the text ANYWHERE in the Constitution does it refer to a two-party system....ANYWHERE? I'll wait. You may be a bit.
3.) - If you keep doing what you're doing, you keep getting what you've got. IS your County facing heavy duty corruption and scandal after scandal right now? Who EXACTLY are the people you feel the electorate should continue to trust? Congress has a 10% approval rating...do you value retaining the seat over re-electing a candidate who didn't know "Dred Scott" happened over 150 years ago?
Or, perhaps, you support "the other" candidate...who's entire platform is that the first one is evil, untrustworthy, etc...
Run in a MAJOR party primary? The problem with a rat-race is that, even if you win, you're still a rat. (Lily Tomlin said it, not I)
Offer your district NOTHING? So, I am guessing you didn't read (nor would you forward, if you did) the "Change the Rules" Pledge - a method that allows the Supreme Court's hated Citizens United decision to stand on Constitutional Grounds, yet STILL REVIVES the tenets of McCain-Feingold by putting the honus on the elected officials themselves? Oh, yeah, and that PESKY Apportionment Clause, too
pospatch
12:40 am on Saturday, September 29, 2012
1) Correct. I do not. It is a "living" and flexible document that can be read in a variety of ways as demonstrated by countless Supreme Courts and presidents.
Frederick John LaVergne for Congress
10:12 am on Saturday, September 29, 2012
So, by that statement, an oath to actually uphold the document AS IT IS is irrelevant to you? Are we not a Nation of laws?
Sorry - that's not how it works, here.
Is the document changeable? Of course it is. There is a very specific process by which it may be changed - further amendment. Ignoring the existing language is expressly failing to uphold the Constitution.
pospatch
4:20 pm on Sunday, September 30, 2012
what about when the existing language is vague and not as precise as you seem to be?
Frederick John LaVergne for Congress
2:41 pm on Friday, September 28, 2012
Either of the other candidates complete any OPRA requests on, say, the dumped asphalt millings in Burlington Co's Brendan Byrne State Forest, or the illegal closure of a public boat ramp in Brick, or other corrupt actions by those already in office? Nope. BTW - NOBODY owns a monopoly on supporting our troops, no matter what "somebody" wants to imply.
Frederick John LaVergne for Congress
2:48 pm on Friday, September 28, 2012
I think that my opinions and actions are far more guided by today's issues - but the root of our Party's Platform lies in the Constitution WE are actually in court defending. ANY R's or D's, all of whom SWORE TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, stepping up and supporting the historical fact of the ratification of Article the First? NOPE, because, as Madison put it in the debates leading up to the creation of the "Articles of Amendment" - (The Bill of Rights) - in early July - increasing the size of the house would "diminish the grandeur of the office". DIMINISH THE GRANDEUR? They are CIVIL Servants who work FOR US, not ROYALTY. That's why James Jackson of Georgia actually threatened to shoot Madison down like a dog if he proposed such, again (bio. of William Few) - officially recorded in the Journal of the House as "several desultory comments were noted to pass between Mr. Madison and the gentleman from Georgia." Madison reportedly came around, and it was the proposal by Fisher Ames that constructed the HOUSE - modified, at the last minute, by a six person committee - The record of the vote, and of the last-minute change, begins and ends with the report of Sen. Oliver Ellsworth, which, when the change is applied in the correct place as he notes, creates a ceiling on the size of Congressional Districts (after reaching 200 persons serving) at 50,000 persons per district. Amen. Want to defeat corruption? "Diminish the grandeur" as was intended by the Framers, themselves.
Frederick John LaVergne for Congress
3:12 pm on Friday, September 28, 2012
Wow - the whole piece I wrote about your argument that Jefferson and Madison "abandoned" the Democratic-Republican party is "missing"...hmm.
Well, let's just try this, again. What you stated is historic falsehood. In fact, the Democratic-Republican legacy continued through the presidencies of James Monroe and John Quincy Adams. While the Embargo Act was foolish, let's remember that the folks the Democratic-Republicans replaced (the Federalists) were responsible for Central Banking, and created the Alien and Sedition Acts, and attempted to pass the "Titles of Nobility Act" as an amendment to the Constitution. Adams and his son, John Quincy Adams, were very different persons, btw - much history on this period to discuss. As to the War of 1812, you feel that impressment of American Sailors by the British, and the sacking of our Capitol, should not have been defended against? (way more to this, too, but I don't want to feed the troll). We still invoke the Monroe Doctrine today - and not enough, in my opinion. BTW - it was actually penned by J. Q. Adams. The period until the Jacksonian Democrats showed up (defeated their first go 'round) was referred to as the "Era of Good Feeling" - so how is it that defeated Federalist curtailment of civil rights is running rough-shod over "we the People"?
pospatch
12:39 am on Saturday, September 29, 2012
Impressment of sailors was ended as a policy by the British government prior to the beginning of the war and the attack on Washington occurred DURING the war and was not a provocation to war. In fact, it was a retaliation for the sacking of the Canadian capital by the US Army.
The War of 1812 was an unjust and unnecessary war pushed on the American people by the War Hawk-faction of the Democratic-Republican Party for monetary gain. Let's bring them back!
Frederick John LaVergne for Congress
3:17 pm on Friday, September 28, 2012
- so how is it that defeating Federalist curtailment of civil rights is running rough-shod over "we the people"? Maybe over our jailers....Read up on "The American Aurora" and Benjamin Franklin Bache, and let me know how great you think the Federalist were in their treatment of the Constitution - you may find why the Federalists "went away". Too many People clinging to their rights, (and Bibles, and guns, apparently).
A financial crisis (created by Central Banking) allowed the Jacksonian Democrats a foot in the door - and, "To the Victor go the Spoils" became the watchword of the Democratic Party - a policy actively and enthusiastically promoted by Jackson, and which continues to this day...unfortunately, adopted by both sides of the aisle.
The people of Ocean and Burlington Counties will no longer accept the myth of two-party dominance. YOU may believe it, and you have every right to do as you will, and to vote as you will - whether you are correct or not. Please allow others the same courtesy.
"Stand for what's right, or settle for what's left" - Frederick John LaVergne
pospatch
12:35 am on Saturday, September 29, 2012
Don't quote yourself. That's pompous. Serious candidates for office do not quote themselves.
Frederick John LaVergne for Congress
10:13 am on Saturday, September 29, 2012
Not a quote - a slogan, and a signature.
pospatch
4:21 pm on Sunday, September 30, 2012
touche
Frederick John LaVergne for Congress
3:18 pm on Friday, September 28, 2012
Still waiting to hear your wisdom on where in the Constitution it proscribes a two-party system.
(cricket noises)
pospatch
12:34 am on Saturday, September 29, 2012
Sorry, I have a life. You'd think someone running for Congress would have a little less time to spend on the Internet.
It doesn't. It also doesn't proscribe a multi-party system. The rules and procedures as outlined do favor a two-party system however and this was purposeful by those who wrote the Constitution who, yes, favored no parties. They simply assumed there would be a faction loyal to the administration and a faction who opposed their program.
By insisting that I point to a "two-party clause" in the Constitution shows that you did not understand my point and have no natural inclination to subtle, complex, and nuanced thinking. I think, perhaps, that I shall not vote for you for that reason.
Frederick John LaVergne for Congress
10:21 am on Saturday, September 29, 2012
I quote you here - "The two-party system is in place precisely due to the Constitution you wish to follow so faithfully."
Exactly where in the Constitution does it emplace a two-party system? Imbue us with your wisdom on this, oh sage! I still don't see it.
As to following it faithfully, you bet. In fact, our original intent in the Article the First lawsuit was to convince 28 additional small (electorally speaking) States, disenfranchised in the present apportionment, to ratify Article the First. In the preliminary research, the attorney involved was relying on "Schwartz", a "bible" of sorts among law students of the last four decades. As a non-attorney, I asked him - "Why do you presume Schwartz is correct, and that four States took NO action on this measure?" So far, ratifications in the affirmative have turned up in two States' Archives, which meant that the 75% threshold for ratification had been crossed in 1792, if not earlier.
Both Connecticut and Kentucky took the action necessary in their Legislature to ratify. Massachusetts only ceremonially ratified Articles 3-12 in the 1930's for the 150th Anniversary...Georgia was the fourth State to ratify the Constitution, and yet took no action on the "Articles of Amendment"? Georgia may well have, but, as their legislature recorded EACH decision as a separate document, the original may have been lost when a fellow named Sherman wandered through there - although 300 linear feet of uncatalogued material remains.
Frederick John LaVergne for Congress
10:28 am on Saturday, September 29, 2012
Delaware took the rather unique position of postponing the first article - and we know what they said, now - found the hand-written record giving the short version as to why. We have a lead on a journal kept by their legislature in a separate bound book specifically purchased for Federal matters - we even know who purchased the blank book, and, as such, have a VERY good lead as to it's whereabouts, if it does, indeed, still exist. It is likely from the language (which will be published verbally and in image form on our web-site next week) that they were either a.) aware of the mathematical defect created by wrongful placement of the last-minute change of "less" to "more" in the "last place of the last line", instead of in "the last line but one", as was recorded by Sen. Majority Leader Oliver Ellsworth, who ALSO served on the committee recommending the change. (He was further the third Supreme Court Chief Justice, and wrote the 311-word-long 27th Article of the Judiciary Act in two grammatically correct and perfectly punctuated sentences - still pointed to as an example in graduate English Classrooms - btw, his son married Noah Webster's daughter - betting a game of Scrabble in that home would have been tough, indeed)
Beckley, who wrongly copied Ellsworth's notes, was fired under John Adams' administration for being lacks in his work (inaccurately recording the spoken word). He did become the first "Librarian of Congress", but it was a political appointment.
Frederick John LaVergne for Congress
10:33 am on Saturday, September 29, 2012
As to Delaware's postponement, the MORE likely scenario is that John Vining, who ALSO served on the committee that recommended the last minute change, arrived home in Delaware and said "THAT'S NOT WHAT WE VOTED!"
Hence the phrase, "failed in propriety" in the upcoming report. (Would that it had said 'fidelity', our research there would be at an end...improper language still leaves the two possible interpretations, although, since NOBODY so far who read the language initially catches the math mistake (unless they were told to look for it), to the extent that the National Archives actually published a press release in 2010 that
interprets Article the First as it was intended, but does so in error, as they are still reading the defective (incorrectly transcribed) language in the "copies". We were at the archives a few short weeks ago, and EML is treated like a rock-star by the archivists for having discovered Ellsworth's report disagreeing with the engrossed copies.
Frederick John LaVergne for Congress
10:36 am on Saturday, September 29, 2012
Sherman and Ellsworth of Ct. may have been behind the effort to rescind ratification for exactly this same reason - the infidelity of the copies to the originally voted language "in Congress, assembled".
Massachusetts took no final action - and Fisher Ames was the author of the original language. In fact, even with prompting from Jefferson, they STILL never really ratified the "Articles of Amendment", other than symbolically.
As to my time on the computer - it's what I do for a living - I work in finance, so there are multiple screens up at all times, and I am well able to multi-task. Not wasted time, at all - especially if you will consider what we've done, and what we've discovered. We are, none of us, beholden to the existing corrupt system - so maybe we DO deserve your consideration at the polls.
Frederick John LaVergne for Congress
6:55 pm on Friday, September 28, 2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/107938661/Change-the-RULES-2012-2013 - Here's the pledge - download it, print it, fill it out, and send it to YOUR elected official to sign...or the candidates seeking their position. Brought to you by the folks at the "Democratic-Republican Party". "Stand for what's right, or settle for what's left" - FJL
pospatch
11:00 am on Monday, October 1, 2012
Let me try to address this coherently. I already know you'll disagree because you seem to see things as very black and white, which is not a good trait in a potential elected official. You anger me precisely because I truly believe you would poop yourself if you actually found yourself elected and in service to our district. Your kind wishes only to agitate and incite, never looking for solutions to the problems you claim to wish to right.
The Constitution does not mention parties at all, on this we agree. The system set up by the Constitution does favor a two-party system however. Any attempt to begin a full-fledged third party fails, not because people are sheep or because of might corporations or a mythical New World Order, but because the system favors winners.
In a winner take all system, there is no reason to fight for second or third place. In a multi-party democracy with proportional representation, the fight for third and fourth place matters to the composition of a goverment. This is not true here. There is no reason to seek votes without victory as the ultimate goal. This has caused our system to favor large big-tent parties rather than smaller issue-oriented parties.
The Electoral College further exacerbates this issue. Winner takes all on a state by state basis. If there is no clear winner, then the House decides, again on a winner take all system.
We also use single-member districts, which again discourages vote-getting without winning.
pospatch
11:05 am on Monday, October 1, 2012
I'm also a little concerned that the Patch feels the need to compulsively publish every single one of your thoughts. As a "news organization" the Patch should seek to inform the public and in the case of this congressional election they should be probing the actual candidates for office.
I do not mean the usual "profile" claptrap that they simply copy from the campaign websites either. How about some reporting? How has Rep. Runyan fared in his first term in office? What has he accomplished? What are his goals for another term? How has he gotten along with his caucus? What is Mrs. Adler planning to do in Congress? How does she differ from her late husband? What is she going to do different from the Congressman?
What issues define our district, Patch? Report! Ignore Freddy and get to work.
Frederick John LaVergne for Congress
2:47 pm on Monday, October 1, 2012
How has Runyan fared? He's run the plays as called by the party leadership...he's a puppet. How has Adler done? Her husband opposed ACA, although that was really "posturing with permission" in a predominantly Republican District. Her whole message is "Me, good - Him, bad..." Her web-site is almost exclusively Runyan bashing. I don't need to do any negative campaigning - they do it themselves.
MEANWHILE, WE, the Democratic-Republicans, are working to
1.) Expose Corruption at all levels of government
2.) Promote the acknowledgement and application of the historical fact of the Ratificaiton of "Article the First" of the "Articles of Amendment" (the Bill of RIghts) - to assure that the People's HOUSE is appropriately apportioned as required by the Constitutional amendment that was passed 220 years ago and has been utterly ignored.
3.) Suing to protect the right to the process for all third party candidates
4.) Restoring the teeth to the promise of Campaign Finance found in McCain-Feingold, which were yanked by the "Citizens United v Federal Board of Elections" decision of the US Supreme Court. That is through the "Change the RULES" Pledge, which allows the House and Senate to police themselves, restricting the voting positions in all committees other than in "the committee of the whole" to those who do not in any way receive campaign funding whereby undue influence may apply -
Frederick John LaVergne for Congress
2:52 pm on Monday, October 1, 2012
The HOUSE and SENATE may apply their own rules, as voted at the beginning of each session, and the Judiciary has NO Jurisdiction over those actions.
(Separation of Powers) - That means that, if you received money from said defense contractor, you may not serve on a committee in a voting capacity that proposes defense spending bills. Have you READ the PLEDGE? You're only fighting me because you want the Status Quo to continue, yet you cannot even garner a measily 8% of your own party to show up when this coming election may be the most critical of our lifetimes. You DO NOT DESERVE the sobriquet "Major Party" - and, by failing to qualify, you don't get a taxpayer funded primary...or Federal and State funds to buy pretty ads and signs and mailers, perpetuating THE MYTH that you represent anything other than the Special INTERESTS that bought and paid for you. POS, (appropriate), you're a shill...'fess up.
Frederick John LaVergne for Congress
2:53 pm on Monday, October 1, 2012
Sorry - it's a quirk of this blog - you have to read the replies from the bottom up to get them "in order". Don't worry, nobody's reading replies to your remarks but me.
Frederick John LaVergne for Congress
2:29 pm on Monday, October 1, 2012
I'm here because the issues above have been utterly blacked out by the mainstream media. So, you now not only believe that issues can never be "black and white"? When I write, it is almost always in black and white - however, when I speak, it is invariably in TECHNICOLOR. IGNORE FREDDY? So, you feel that censorship is okay, as long as those you are opposed to are the ones being censored? The Constitution is not what we "may" do, what we "might" do, or even what we "should" do...it is what we MUST DO. Tolerance in free speech must extend to all parties - even me - and even you. I didn't censor you. My opponents censor me regularly, and their party bosses have made sure our tale is not told.
Major Parties? Really? Almost everyone I meet in this District believes themselves to be primarily independent - a pun, of sorts, on my part. Wednesday, we will be in court to compel the application of the laws of this State. The Republican Party failed to garner the necessary 10% attendance at the polls on June 5th of the total votes tallied in the 2011 election for NJ General Assembly. For years, both parties have fraudulently tallied "lever pulls" as INDIVIDUAL VOTERS...nice try. This year, they got caught, and it is only because Menendez backed the "lyin' Hawaiian" rather than Bill Pascrell. What does this mean? Wait until you walk in the voting booth in November.
Frederick John LaVergne for Congress
2:36 pm on Monday, October 1, 2012
WE have a ballot column - "Democratic-Republican"...The D's stil have theirs. Republicans, however, now will be moved to the "Nomination by Petition" section of the ballot - unless they're smart enough to challenge that under the Constitution, in which case, they bring the Democrats with them, leaving us as the ONLY column - everyone else all in a jumble "in the weeds with the WEEDMAN" on the right side...this is because the legislation that allows a bracketing request is not challenged in the suit - nor is it challenged in retaliation - nor can it be. However, because the R's fell 52,000 votes short (YOU bet. They want to be a "major party", and they have a 10% or less approval in Congress and are unable to get even 10% of their voters to care enough to come to the polls on one of the nicest weather days in years for a primary election. Nobody really rallying around THAT flag. It is only the knee-jerk kool-aid drinker who pulls a lever without knowing who it's for, or what they stand for - but you two parties have relied on their faithful ignorance for years...people are better informed, and they aren't wliling to put up with your "A" or "B" are your only choice" baloney.
Oh, and my friends call me Fred....you may call me MR. LaVergne, until January - when you may call me Congressman.
pospatch
3:00 pm on Monday, October 1, 2012
So, now you're accusing me of working for Runyan or Adler? I don't get it.
See, before, I thought you were just passionate. Now, I'm sure you're just delusional. Congressman? Best joke I've heard all day.
Let's take the over under on how many votes you'll actually receive. I'll say you get around 400 or so.
Frederick John LaVergne for Congress
3:09 pm on Monday, October 1, 2012
WE have a ballot column - "Democratic-Republican"...The D's stil have theirs. Republicans, however, now will be moved to the "Nomination by Petition" section of the ballot - unless they're smart enough to challenge that under the Constitution, in which case, they bring the Democrats with them, leaving us as the ONLY column - everyone else all in a jumble "in the weeds with the WEEDMAN" on the right side...this is because the legislation that allows a bracketing request is not challenged in the suit - nor is it challenged in retaliation - nor can it be. However, because the R's fell 52,000 votes short (YOU bet. They want to be a "major party", and they have a 10% or less approval in Congress and are unable to get even 10% of their voters to care enough to come to the polls on one of the nicest weather days in years for a primary election. Nobody really rallying around THAT flag. It is only the knee-jerk kool-aid drinker who pulls a lever without knowing who it's for, or what they stand for - but you two parties have relied on their faithful ignorance for years...people are better informed, and they aren't wliling to put up with your "A" or "B" are your only choice" baloney.
pospatch
7:52 pm on Monday, October 1, 2012
I'm also still curious as to how you respond to Jefferson's purchase of Louisiana and the continuation of Hamilton's economic program by subsequent D-R administrations. You seem to be cherry picking history that you like and ignoring history that you don't. I think the above are good examples as to why you need to be flexible and willing to work with others once you're in the government - not recalcitrant and obsessive over "laws" that were never actually passed.
A and B are not your only choices. They are your only realistic choices if you actually want your vote to mean something and if you want your congressman to be able to adequately represent the 3rd District in the federal government.
Also, "in the weeds with the WEEDMAN" is not funny or cute. Stop that.
Frederick John LaVergne for Congress
3:51 am on Tuesday, October 2, 2012
I am as responsible for the Louisiana Purchase as Jon Runyan is for Emancipation. The fact that I read and study our history seems to be anathema to you. I am not a kool-aid drinker, and, as David Crockett said, there are "no party handcuffs on me". Our re-introduction of the promise of the original Democratic-Republicans, and the strict application of the Constitution as a premise.
Also, "out in the weeds with the Weedman" is offensive? Tough.
pospatch
6:37 am on Wednesday, October 3, 2012
It's not offensive, it's stupid. That's the kind of crap that makes people not take you seriously.
Frederick John LaVergne for Congress
3:54 am on Tuesday, October 2, 2012
Our re-introduction of the promise of the original Democratic-Republicans, and the strict application of the Constitution as a premised, is what is most needed right now - whether you can see it or not.
Somehow, the last part of that sentence "fell off" when the original post was made.
Frederick John LaVergne for Congress
7:25 am on Wednesday, October 3, 2012
I'm here because the issues above have been utterly blacked out by the mainstream media. So, you now not only believe that issues can never be "black and white"? When I write, it is almost always in black and white - however, when I speak, it is invariably in TECHNICOLOR. IGNORE FREDDY? So, you feel that censorship is okay, as long as those you are opposed to are the ones being censored? The Constitution is not what we "may" do, what we "might" do, or even what we "should" do...it is what we MUST DO. Tolerance in free speech must extend to all parties - even me - and even you. I didn't censor you. My opponents censor me regularly, and their party bosses have made sure our tale is not told.
Major Parties? Really? Almost everyone I meet in this District believes themselves to be primarily independent - a pun, of sorts, on my part. Wednesday, we will be in court to compel the application of the laws of this State. The Republican Party failed to garner the necessary 10% attendance at the polls on June 5th of the total votes tallied in the 2011 election for NJ General Assembly. For years, both parties have fraudulently tallied "lever pulls" as INDIVIDUAL VOTERS...nice try. This year, they got caught, and it is only because Menendez backed the "lyin' Hawaiian" rather than Bill Pascrell. What does this mean? Wait until you walk in the voting booth in November.
pospatch
6:05 pm on Wednesday, October 3, 2012
It's like you don't even read what I'm writing. Who is trying to censor you?
Let's say you get elected by some quirk of fate. Answer me this.
1) Will you act as a true independent or will you attempt to caucus with one of the EVIL major parties? What committees would you like to be a part of? If you do choose to caucus as an independent would you vote for John Boehner or Nancy Pelosi as House speaker?
2) What would your first legislative priority be as a freshman in Congress?
3) What is your position on our troops in Afghanistan?
4) What is your position on the Affordable Care Act?
5) Do you have any goals regarding Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst?
6) What is your position regarding the nuclear plant here in Lacey? Will you continue the work of Rep. Runyan in trying to secure a new plant for the town?
7) Will you plan a quixotic, yet amusing, independent campaign for the presidency in 2016?
Frederick John LaVergne for Congress
2:25 am on Thursday, October 4, 2012
1) - That decision is open
2) - The Change the Rules Pledge
3) - Why the hell aren't they home?
4) - Repeal and discard. Expand the "aperture" on medicare/medicaid, which has already been invested in - and streamline the process to pay the physicians in a timely manner. Why are we creating a second bureaucracy?
5) When it comes to the armed forces, I would like to see defensive spending - and by that, I mean securing our borders, and enhancing our naval presence. The buffers of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans are our bulwark...recall Lincoln's speech - I know YOU know which one.
6) Christie has already resolved to replace the plant - I would have rather seen the cooling tower that was the bone of contention constructed, but, better still, I have recommended a ground-loop technology application, instead. I will be working with a few former peers to develop that idea...although I doubt it will be applied at Lacey, because of what was done there over the last forty years with respect to materials that were "stored" on site (buried). All that acreage is just crying out for supplemental Solar and Wind Generation - not as a replacement, as a supplement.
7) Funny you should mention that -
Frederick John LaVergne for Congress
2:26 am on Thursday, October 4, 2012
I'll share the story for #7 at another time - worth it.
Frederick John LaVergne for Congress
6:59 pm on Wednesday, October 10, 2012
It's been over a week, with no decision from the courts on this emergent matter - Justice DELAYED is Justice DENIED.
The State's attorney actually said, ON RECORD, that the ballot lines on the left were a privilege reserved to the major parties. That statement PROVES our case. That's probably why the judge is having a hard time with this. She can't simply say there is no preferential treatment when the State Attorney - one of the defendants, stated on record that it is precisely a preferential treatment.
Can't fight the name, either. The law is to be equally applied.
They don't know how to answer, so they're delaying, and hoping to run past the election, with the thought that it would render a decision moot - hardly. We're not going away. Neither is this suit.
APP covered a story about the ballot position rigging just this week.
Speaking of the Asbury Park Press, we had the Editorial Board Review of the Congressional Candidates in District three, yesterday. Limited coverage, so far - http://www.app.com/article/20121010/NJNEWS/310100028/Bidders-vie-seat-Congress?nclick_check=1
I came off VERY well. One of the other independents approached me afterward and asked "Where the hell did YOU come from? That was amazing!". Heck of a pat on the back from a competitor. Adler wouldn't shake my hand or make eye contact - she had a bad day.
Runyan fared better, but, if it had been "Jeopardy", I left with the money.