Category Archives: Uncategorized

Exclusive Interview with James O’Keefe, Chairman of the Massachusetts Pirate Party & Vice Chairman of the U.S. Pirate Party

 

ATPR: Could you tell the readers first what it means to be a Pirate in politics? What you stand for and so forth..?

Capt. O’Keefe: Fundamentally we believe that people should have privacy and power and governments and corporations shouldn’t. The US has tended to concentrate political power and economic power among fewer and fewer people. This has lead to governments getting us into wars we don’t need to fight and a massive transfer of wealth, income and ultimately people’s well being from the poor and middle class to the rich. The Pirate Party stands against this trend and only by reversing it will we improve people’s well being and control over their destiny.

ATPR: Birgitta Jonsdottir and the Iceland Pirate Party are set to crush the opposition in the next election. What makes them so successful there and how can you apply their road map to success here in the states and Massachusetts?

Capt. O’Keefe: Iceland is a unique place so I am not sure their success can be duplicated here. Demographically it is about one tenth the size of Massachusetts. Politically, they have proportional representation so that when the Pirates win 40% of the popular vote, they will win 40% of the Icelandic parliament. Massachusetts, like all US states, elects their legislature in single member districts. Getting 40% of the vote in all 200 legislative districts may result in no elected Pirates, some elected Pirates or all elected Pirates depending on what other candidates are running in each district and how they do.

Clearly the Icelandic Pirate Party’s call for greater transparency has helped them to be successful and that is a position we feel will help us in Massachusetts.

ATPR: A constant criticism Pirates face in politics is that they are a one-issue party. Namely that of copyright law. But this isn’t true, tell us why..

Capt. O’Keefe: Pirates take a objective, even scientific approach to policies. We are looking for the policies that benefit truly people and are not just another give away to corporations wrapped up in the flag or calls for competitiveness. Our focus is on increasing democratic power for people in Massachusetts. Increasing government transparency is part of that, but so is ensuring the corporations aren’t hiding their money. You should not be able to reap the rewards of our country without paying for it.

We see reining in copyright and eliminating patents as methods to encourage individual and collective creativity, but also as ways of increasing competition in an economy that is dominated by a fewer large companies. Ultimately though, people cannot compete if they don’t have enough to eat, are denied access to a decent education, have poor health or lack a place to call home. If we truly want a competitive economy that benefits all, then we need to ensure that there is a minimum economic and social level beyond which no one is allowed to fall. If we don’t do that, then we will only have competition in name only.

ATPR: The Massachusetts Pirate Party have run local candidates in previous election years with no victories but success is not always measured in that way when it comes to third party politics. Do you plan on running any candidates this year and what would you consider a successful campaign?

Capt. O’Keefe: We elected a town meeting member in 2015 after our two successful runs for State Representative in 2014. In 2016 we will run at least one candidate for State Representative.

We believe we can win local offices, but also focus on state legislative offices as they offer us the best opportunity to get our name out while being able to talk with individual voters. We recognize that winning partisan elections is an uphill battle, but the more Pirates we run year after year helps us to identify and register Pirate voters and will lead to greater success in the years ahead.
ATPR: You also are a high-ranking pirate national in the US Pirate Party. We have not heard much from them, what is going on nationally that the voters should know?

Capt. O’Keefe:  We decided a few years back to focus on state parties so we structured the national party to do that. Expect the national party to be more active in the years ahead as we build state parties.

ATPR: This election cycle has been as off the wall in any in modern history. What is your opinion as a voter on everything that is going on? (Trump, protests, violence, Hillary’s super delegates, sanders not on ballot in DC, etc.)

Capt. O’Keefe:  We focus on Massachusetts and the issues we care the most about us. While the Presidential election is important, it isn’t the only game in town and not the best place for us to put our energy.

ATPR: Has Obama’s term as President been a success when it comes to issues the Pirate Party cares about and why or why not?

Capt. O’Keefe:  Obama has encouraged corporate power grabs such as the TransPacific Partnership, expanded NSA surveillance, bailed out the banksters while aiding their effort to steal people’s property with illegal foreclosures and expanded the number of countries we are blowing up or overthrowing. Obama hasn’t been good for Pirate Party issues.

ATPR: Is the MPP on the Left or the Right of the political spectrum?

Capt. O’Keefe:  Our supporters run from libertarian to libertarian socialist. We are an anti-authoritarian/pro-democratic party.
ATPR: In your term as Captain of the MPP, what do you hope to accomplish?

Capt. O’Keefe:  My immediate goals are to convince more people to join the Pirate Party, encourage them to be Pirate activists in their community and run for office. We aren’t limited to those goals and have run numerous cryptoparties that help people to protect their privacy on-line.

ATPR: Any events, campaigns, protests, etc. coming up?

Capt. O’Keefe:  Currently we are working to get Aaron James on the ballot and have until May 3rd to do that. Our yearly conference will be on June 25th in Boston.

We help with a monthly cryptoparty on the last Wednesday of the month in Somerville and are helping with other cryptoparties on April 26th and May 22nd.

We will participate in International Day Against DRM on May 3rd and march, as we have done for the last several years, in the Boston LBGTQ Parade on June 11th. We plan to be at Freedom Rally in September, as we have for many years.

Thank you Captain for your time and good luck!

Exclusive Interview With Joshua S.A. Solomon, Royalist Party USA

RPUSA: Before I begin, I would like to thank the American Third Party Report [ATPR] for contacting the Royalist Party, USA [RPSUA] to request an interview. Overcoming political invisibility is difficult for American “third parties,” and the RPUSA certainly appreciates the opportunity to promote our altogether unique platform!

ATPR:  Our pleasure Mr. Solomon.  The main goal of the royalist party is to re-establish the Queen of England as the head of state in the United States. Why?

RPUSA: The Royalist Party, USA recognizes that the Crown is our rightful authority, that Queen Elizabeth II has a just claim to the throne of the United States, and that the House of Winsor holds the moral and legal right to reign in Columbia as in Britannia; we seek a return to royal government because the Revolution was illegitimate, and the disestablishment of the monarchy was a grave mistake. As the eminent apologist C. S. Lewis declared in his instant classic, Mere Christianity (I. 5.):

“…as to putting the clock back. Would you think I was joking if I said that you can put a clock back, and that if the clock is wrong it is often a very sensible thing to do? But I would rather get away from that whole idea of clocks. We all want progress. But progress means getting nearer to the place where you want to be. And if you have taken a wrong turning, then to go forward does not get you any nearer. If you are on the wrong road, progress means doing an about turn and walking back to the right road; and in that case the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive man. We have all seen this when doing arithmetic. When I have started a sum the wrong way, the sooner I admit this and go back and start over again, the faster I shall get on. There is nothing progressive about being pigheaded and refusing to admit a mistake. And I think if you look at the present state of the world, it is pretty plain that humanity has been making some big mistake. We are on the wrong road. And if that is so, we must go back. Going back is the quickest way on.”

We are on the wrong road. Let us progress. Let us turn back.
ATPR: Why are you royalists and how active is the party in the political process?

RPUSA: The are as many reasons to be a royalist as there are royalists, but If I may echo another great man (G. K. Chesterton) I would say that “[t]he difficulty of explaining ‘why I am a [royalist]’ is that there are ten thousand reasons all amounting to one reason”: Royalism is right! “I could fill all my space with separate sentences each beginning with the words, ‘It is the only thing that…’ As, for instance”: (1) It is the only thing that guarantees representation for all people rather than a political party, advocacy group, or the electorate. (2) It is the only thing that prevents ochlocracy, demagoguery, and populist politics. (3) It is the only thing that respects genuine social continuity; it precludes sudden, dramatic, and disruptive political change harmful to the organism of society. (4) It is the only thing that provides a living reference point and advocate for the tradition and culture, the identity, of a people. (5) It is the only thing that satisfies man’s natural desire for hierarchy; in the words (once more) of C. S. Lewis: “[w]here men are forbidden to honour a king they honour millionaires, athletes, or film-stars instead: even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served; deny it food and it will gobble poison.”

With respect to the participation of the RPUSA in the political process, it must be admitted that the party is presently more focused on building our membership and articulating who we are than nominating or endorsing a candidate for political office (although the party is working toward establishing chapters in key states such as Pennsylvania, Texas, and Florida). We are, of course, interested in achieving our very lofty goals (without attempting to immanentize the eschaton), but we are not a parody or frivolity party; we are building a serious and lasting movement, not capitalizing on present fears or promising simple solutions. It is in our nature as royalists to be prudent. Societies, like individuals, are complex, and frighteningly delicate (the remedy for our ills, therefore, must be applied carefully and slowly). Our goal is counter-revolutionary; our strategy must be also.
ATPR: You recognize, as many others do, that Christianity is the fundamental basis for our laws and way of life basically here in the US. To what en does that affect government under a Royalist Party President?

RPUSA: When asked why Christianity has such a prominent place in the RPUSA platform, the leadership of the party answered: “We believe that God is the creator of heaven and earth, and that Jesus Christ is his only begotten Son. As such, God is the author of all sound government and deserves public worship. We look to Christ and his Church for wisdom, blessing, and strength in all matters personal and political…” The answer to the question here posed, then, is this: Under the RPUSA, Christianity would inform all matters related to the government of nations as deliberately as it directs our actions as persons. Pope Leo XIII, writing in Immortale Dei (21.-22.) on “the Christian Constitution of States,” aptly describes our vision for the United States, by describing Christendom as it once was:

“There was once a time when States were governed by the philosophy of the Gospel. Then it was that the power and divine virtue of Christian wisdom had diffused itself throughout the laws, institutions, and morals of the people, permeating all ranks and relations of civil society. Then, too, the religion instituted by Jesus Christ, established firmly in befitting dignity, flourished everywhere, by the favour of princes and the legitimate protection of magistrates; and Church and State were happily united in concord and friendly interchange of good offices. The State, constituted in this wise, bore fruits important beyond all expectation, whose remembrance is still, and always will be, in renown, witnessed to as they are by countless proofs which can never be blotted out or ever obscured by any craft of any enemies… A similar state of things would certainly have continued had the agreement of the two powers been lasting. More important results even might have been justly looked for, had obedience waited upon the authority, teaching, and counsels of the Church, and had this submission been specially marked by greater and more unswerving loyalty. For that should be regarded in the light of an ever-changeless law which No of Chartres wrote to Pope Paschal II: ‘When kingdom and priesthood are at one, in complete accord, the world is well ruled, and the Church flourishes, and brings forth abundant fruit. But when they are at variance, not only smaller interests prosper not, but even things of greatest moment fall into deplorable decay.'”

The RPUSA would also support the formalization of that conviction, as expressed in the question as posed, “Christianity is the fundamental basis for our laws and way of life,” by way of a “Christian amendment,” such as that outlined in the National Reform Association’s memorial to Congress on January 27, 1864:

“We, citizens of the United States, respectfully ask your honorable bodies to adopt measures for amending the Constitution of the United States, so as to read, in substance, as follows:

‘We, the people of the United States, humbly acknowledging Almighty God as the source of all authority and power in civil government, the Lord Jesus Christ as the Ruler among the nations, his revealed will as the supreme law of the land, in order to constitute a Christian government, and in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the inalienable rights and the blessings of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to ourselves, our posterity, and all the people, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.'”

ATPR: Please explain to our readers what Distributism is, why it is good for people and the economy and how the Royalist Party USA might institute such a system here?

RPUSA: The RPUSA FAQ defines Distributism as follows:

“Distributism an economic system based on Catholic social principles principally enunciated in the enycylicals of the Popes and the writings of G.K. Chesterton and his colleagues [primarily, Hilaire Belloc]. This philosophy is based on the principles of moral imperatives guiding civic life and the broad distribution of the means of production among the people. Distributism advocates advocates [sic] small business, solidarity of workers, agrarianism, and faith.”

Essentially, Distributism is a system in which the proper implications of the right to private property are fully realized: Man may earn his living with reliance on the land, capital, and labor which are his own; G. K. Chesterton’s “three acres and a cow” (as opposed to “forty acres and a mule”). Pope Leo XIII made this point emphatically in his landmark encyclical Rerum Novarum (47.), which is generally regarded as the impetus for the Distributist movement: “Men always work harder and more readily when they work on that which belongs to them; nay, they learn to love the very soil that yields in response to the labor of their hands, not only food to eat, but an abundance of good things for themselves and those that are dear to them.”

The factors of production might also be administered by a cooperation of men who own the resources requisite for large scale operations in common. Another key element of Distributism, however, is the principle of subsidiarity (meaning such co-ownership is justified only when necessary) as outlined by Pope Pius XI in Quadragesimo Anno (79.):

“As history abundantly proves, it is true that on account of changed conditions many things which were done by small associations in former times cannot be done now save by large associations. Still, that most weighty principle, which cannot be set aside or changed, remains fixed and unshaken in social philosophy: Just as it is gravely wrong to take from individuals what they can accomplish by their own initiative and industry and give it to the community, so also it is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater and higher association what lesser and subordinate organizations can do. For every social activity ought of its very nature to furnish help to the members of the body social, and never destroy and absorb them.”

As to how such a system might be instituted, especially in the United States, answers would vary by distributist. Ultimately, Distributism cannot be imposed, it must be embraced, like the religion that inspired it. Commercial law would obviously look very different under a RPUSA government, which would attempt to foster a distributist economy, but the specifics could certainly be profitably debated.
ATPR: Is the Royalist Party in favor of the British monarchy as it stands now and would you oppose it if it ever again became an absolute monarchy?

RPUSA: The RPUSA strongly supports the British Monarchy “as it stands now”, and would oppose any attempt to curtail the powers and prerogatives possessed by the Crown (along with similar attempts aimed at enfeebling the House of Lords).

As for the restitution of what has been lost by the Monarchy, the membership would likely be divided as to the prudence, practicability, and propriety of royal absolutism; the RPUSA does not have an official position on absolute monarchy.

Personally, I would not oppose the British Monarchy in any form; but I would most prefer a Medieval model, distinct from the modern dichotomy (“absolute” vs. “constitutional”) which, I would argue, is a product of Enlightenment liberalism.
ATPR: I think most people believe monarchy in the world to be dead and what is left are but shells of their former selves. You would disagree, tell us why..

RPUSA: It is no secret that Monarchy has been in decline, both in potency and presence, since the Age of Revolution (1789–1848). Of the crowned heads that remained, many were severed following the upheavals of the twentieth century. Our few remaining monarchies are, in many ways, miraculous! We would not disagree with the suggestion that contemporary monarchy, as an institution, has been marred by the aforementioned historical reality, but we would argue that what remains should be recognized and celebrated.

Most people would be surprised by the influence exercised by the world’s monarchies, these so-called “shells of their former selves.” The British Monarch, specifically, has a host of political powers including, but not limited to: the power to grant Royal Pardon and Assent, appoint/remove ministers, summon/suspend parliament, declare war, command the armed forces (and commission officers therein), create peers, and control passports!
ATPR: Has the rise in Europe of the far-right given any monarchist movements over there a boost? and have you guys are any other monarchist organizations here seen a boost as well?

RPUSA: The “rise of the far-right” is a predictable and understandable reaction against the prevailing modernism and liberalism in Europe. Unfortunately, what we have discovered is that monarchist organizations are in competition with other “rightist” political movements, both here and abroad, owing to our shared criticisms of the status quo; we have not seen a boost. The frustration that gave rise to the far-right, however, has provided royalists with the same opportunity for growth; the challenge is to propose a more attractive solution than that of the Alliance of European National Movements.
ATPR: Under a Royalist Party Government, would titles of nobility exist? and who do you think in the United States would be worthy to be called ‘noble’?

RPUSA: Yes, titles of nobility would exist under a Royalist Party Government; the “Title of Nobility Clause” (Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution) would be repealed. Rather than selecting particular persons (which is the Queen’s purview), the RPUSA would supply the criteria which could determine who “in the United States [if indeed anyone] would be worthy to be called ‘noble’.” For example, American nobility should possess the qualities of The Right Honourable Edmund Burke’s “natural aristocrat” as found in “An Appeal from the New to the Old Whigs:”

“To be bred in a place of estimation; to see nothing low and sordid from one’s infancy; to be taught to respect one’s self; to be habituated to the censorial inspection of the public eye; to look early to public opinion; to stand upon such elevated ground as to be enabled to take a large view of the widespread and infinitely diversified combinations of men and affairs in a large society; to have leisure to read, to reflect, to converse; to be enabled to draw and court the attention of the wise and learned, wherever they are to be found; to be habituated in armies to command and to obey; to be taught to despise danger in the pursuit of honour and duty; to be formed to the greatest degree of vigilance, foresight, and circumspection, in a state of things in which no fault is committed with impunity and the slightest mistakes draw on the most ruinous consequences; to be led to a guarded and regulated conduct, from a sense that you are considered as an instructor of your fellow-citizens in their highest concerns, and that you act as a reconciler between God and man; to be employed as an administrator of law and justice, and to be thereby amongst the first benefactors to mankind; to be a professor of high science, or of liberal and ingenious art; to be amongst rich traders, who from their success are presumed to have sharp and vigorous understandings, and to possess the virtues of diligence, order, constancy, and regularity, and to have cultivated an habitual regard to communative justice: these are the circumstances of men that form what I should call a natural aristocracy…”
ATPR: Personally, who is your favorite monarch and why? (Any monarchy)

RPUSA: Blessed Charles I of Austria and IV of Hungary is my favorite monarch, for manifold reasons:
He combated corruption and usury, outlawed obscene publications and supported the Catholic press, and cited the name of God in all acts of government; during his exile, he was approached by Freemasons who offered their support for his cause, if he would accept the liberalization of the school system and marriage law, he responded, “What I have received from God I cannot accept from the devil’s hands.”
He understood the sacramental character and purpose of his marriage to Zita of Bourbon-Parma, saying, the day after their wedding, “Now, we must help each other to get to Heaven” (he also had the following inscribed on his wedding band: “Sub tuum praesidium confugimus, sancta Dei Genitrix,” that is, “We take refuge under your protection, O Holy Mother of God”); although he died at only 34 the couple had 8 children, including the recently deceased Otto von Habsburg (who was himself an exemplary monarch).
He was habitually charitable; when his household coffers were emptied he is recorded to have said to the aide whose responsibility it was to distribute royal alms, “The need is so great, find the money from somewhere else and distribute that.”
He, alone among the heads of the belligerent nations, supported the peace proposal of Pope Benedict XV, writing to the pontiff, “…our government has not stopped repeating our continual call for peace—a call heard by the entire world—expressing the desire and agreement of the people of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy to put an end to the bloodshed according to the peace plan that Your Holiness has before you.”
He frequently visited the front, observing the horrors of war firsthand and offering material and moral support to his men; he so often appeared unexpectedly that he was nicknamed “Karl-the-Sudden.”
He rightly perceived of kingship as a vocation and therefore refused to abdicate amidst unrest, declaring, “My crown is a sacred trust given to me by God. I can never forsake that trust or my people;” he instead “relinquish[ed] every participation in the administration of the State” (following Austria’s defeat in the Great War), and accepted exile (following his failed attempts to regain the Holy Crown of Hungary).
He died with the name of the King of Kings on his lips, recognizing His will as supreme, praying, “Thy Holy Will be done. Jesus, Jesus, come! Yes—yes. My Jesus, as You will it—Jesus.”
(N.B. Dear Reader: Please consider praying for the canonization of Blessed Charles, and visiting the website dedicated to his cause: emperorcharles.org)
ATPR: Give me 5 reasons why a monarchy is better than a democracy, go.

RPUSA: As I’ve already argued for the unique superiority of monarchy above, I’ll conclude with five quotations, each underlining that contention:
“Hierarchies are celestial. In hell all are equal.” — Nicolás Gómez Dávila
“Don’t forget that in the history of the world, there was a plebiscite, in which Christ and Barabbas were being judged, and the people chose Barabbas.” — Augusto Pinochet
“In a Democracy, the real rulers are the dexterous manipulators of votes, with their placemen, the mechanics who so skillfully operate the hidden springs which move the puppets in the arena of democratic elections. Men of this kind are ever ready with loud speeches lauding equality; in reality, they rule the people as any despot or military dictator might rule it.” — Konstantin Pobedonostsev
“I have seen much of the world, and I have learnt from experience to hate and detest republics. There is nothing but tyranny and oppression, I have never known a good act done by a Republican, it is contrary to his character under the mask of Liberty. He is a tyrant, a many headed monster that devours your happiness and property. Nothing is free from this monster’s grasp. A republic has no affection for its subjects. A King may be ill advised and act wrong, a Republic never acts right, for a knot of villains support each other, and together they do what no single person dare attempt.” — Horatio Nelson
“The president of a republic is as though you pick a player from one of two teams and make him umpire.” — Simeon II of Bulgaria

ATPR: How can people join the Royalist Party USA? How can they be apart of your movement and help it grow?

RPUSA: For updates on our progress, and further information on the party, please visit us at our website, royalistpartyusa.wix.com/-royalist-party-usa, and join us on social media at facebook.com/RoyalistPartyUSA! Our National Executive Committee will be happy to respond to any inquiries via Facebook message. As we progress through the legal channels we will update our audience as to how to become an official member. There are any number of ways to volunteer at this stage!   God save the Queen!

Poll: Who won the Libertarian Presidential debate on Stossel?

As of the posting of this it is:  Vote HERE

Gary Johnson
22% (451 votes)
John McAfee
18% (371 votes)
Austin Petersen
48% (992 votes)
I loved them all equally!
2% (41 votes)
Too close to call.
3% (71 votes)
I didn’t watch the debate.
6% (130 votes)
Other
1% (19 votes)
Total votes: 2075

Exclusive Interview With South Carolina Secessionist Party founder James Bessenger

 

Earlier today I e-mailed James Bessenger, founder of the South Carolina Secessionist Party 10 questions for an interview.  I did so because of an article I read today about this party’s plan to hold a Confederate Flag Raising Rally in Columbia, SC on the anniversary of it’s removal from the capitol grounds 1 year ago July 10th.  I asked him about this and more…

ATPR: What is the South Carolina Secessionist Party and What do you stand for?

Mr. Bessenger: The South Carolina Secessionist Party is a grass-roots organization with the goal of restoring honor, integrity, tradition and Sovereignty to the State of South Carolina through political activism and the electoral process. We consider ourselves representative of the constitutional minded people of South Carolina and strive to restore the rights secured by our forefathers for all South Carolinians. Except for a few issues (immigration, etc.) we are often compared, in policy, to the Libertarian Party.

ATPR: Most people are unaware that many of the states that formed the Confederacy we’re actually independent republics for a short period time (the time between them leaving the union and joining the confederacy). Your Facebook page flies that South Carolina flag of the Republic, is this what your main goal is? To be a free and independent Palmetto Republic?

Mr. Bessenger: Yes. Ultimately we seek to restore South Carolina to her rightful place among the nation’s of the world.

ATPR: How would the SCSP achieve this? (revolution, elections, run candidates, protests, etc.)

Mr Bessenger: The South Carolina Secessionist Party does not advocate or promote armed rebellion or violent revolution, but rather the education of the People of South Carolina to the failed experiment of the Union. Electing people with a heart for our State and Her People and the desire to restore true republican government, we believe, will inevitably lead to secession.

ATPR: In July you plan to raise the Stars & Bars in Columbia again. First time since it was taken down I believe. What is the motive behind this demonstration?

Mr. Besseneger: A common misunderstanding, the flag that was removed and that we will raise is the Confederate battle flag. The Stars and Bars is actually the nick-name of the First National Flag of the Confederacy. We intend to raise the flag on the anniversary of its removal last year for the purposes of defying the action take by our State legislature without the input of the People, to show that those actions will not be forgotten, and in a show of solidarity with our States Confederate forefathers who gave up everything including their lives in defense of our State and it’s people. They deserve our respect and the preservation of their memory and honor.

ATPR: I lived in North Carolina for about a year and the difference is obvious. The South is a country unto its own and many people would rather have it that way. How have you been perceived in public in South Carolina? (support and/or opposition)

Mr Besseneger: For those who who see only the name of the organization or the Sovereignty Flag (similar in appearance to the Battle Flag, but predates the Battle Flag) that we have adopted, we meet some resistance and hesitation. However, for those who have read our platform and heard our message and positions, we have been received very well.

ATPR: Let’s say I’m a Confederate who loves my heritage but I don’t live in South Carolina, who would you recommend I support and/or join to help further the cause?

Mr Bessenger: It is important to understand that we are not a Heritage Preservation organization. We support efforts to preserve Confederate Heritage, but it is not our primary function. That being said, I would encourage someone in that situation not to vote wholesale for any party, candidate or organization , but to thoroughly line them up with your personal beliefs, and not compromise your values. If something like that doesn’t exist, create it.

ATPR: What do you say to those out there who automatically denounce you as racists and bigots? What do you say to them to disprove that in their minds?

Mr Bessenger: I would ask them to prove that. Those are hefty assertions to make about total strangers. I presume they would be assuming that we are in favor of or promoting slavery or racism but that is untrue entirely. We stand for the People of South Carolina All of the People of South Carolina. We are proud to have members of most races and multiple religions. That is a credit to those individuals who took the time and possessed the maturity to be objective and hear what we have to say.

ATPR: Historically, what person represents the values of your party and its platform best and why?

Mr. Bessenger: It’s hard to narrow it down to one, so I’ll narrow it down to the 56 brave men who signed the Declaration of Independence. They put there names to paper in defiance of a corrupt and tyrannical government for simple purpose of standing up for the People their colonies. They bucked the system for the betterment of their People. I like to think that’s what we are doing today.

ATPR: What would an independent South Carolina look like 10 years after the fact?

Mr. Bessenger: The first ten years would be complicated. Fortunately we have a similar structure to the federal government, but on the State level, so the transition would not be too foreign in that respect. South Carolina is currently on par with Ireland in terms of population, GDP, military power (army and air national guard), while surpassing them in energy with our multiple nuclear plants and being far less socialistic. It would be an adjustment, but South Carolina would be served well by Her access to the sea, Her natural resources, Her lack of international enemies and the spirit of Her People. We would prosper.

ATPR: Do you support any other aspiring freedom loving nations out there in the world and why?

Mr. Bessenger: As a general rule, I support any People who seek to free themselves from a government that mistreats them or fails to properly serve or represent them. I’ve been very watchful over the situation in Catalonia and Spain, and feel the People of Catalonia are capable of governing themselves and that they should be allowed to do so.

For more information on the South Carolina Secessionist Party visit their Facebook page

First Annual Flag Raising Rally Event Page

Buy a South Carolina Sovereignty flag Here

Image

Workers World Party Presidential Ticket Supports Teachers Strike in Chicago

#OpJillStein: Anonymous pushes Green Party presidential candidate, third parties (Video)

A new video from the collective states that, while they “support no political entity” and “can never be said to endorse a political candidate,” it “supports an informed public”. (Source)

Bravo to Anons for informing the public, I guess in that sense we are alike.  Democracy means choice and choosing between the same two goons year after year isn’t it.  You have choices.