Imperato to attend Manhattan Libertarian Party meeting

Although the Manhattan Libertarians expected to have Steve Greenfield speak on improving third parties in American Politics, they receive a bonus when at their monthly meeting, this Monday, April 9th, when independent Presidential Candidate Daniel Imperato comes to visit.

Mr. Imperato, a resident of Palm Beach Florida, announced his candidacy for president in July 2006 with a view to maintain and improve the commercial and educational superiority of the United States. He believes his many experiences as a business consultant and a member of the African Center Foundation, a United Nations Non-Governmental Organization, make him an ideal candidate to safeguard America’s future.

The Manhattan Libertarian Party meets at the Ukranian East Village Restaurant on 140 Second Avenue Between 8th and 9th streets, two blocks east of the Astor Place subway station (6 Train) and three blocks east of the 8th Street NYU subway station (N and R Trains. The Manhattan Libertarian Party General meeting starts at 6:30 PM. Mr. Greenfield is scheduled to speak at 7:30. No admission fee, food and drinks available for purchase, all are welcome to attend.

I’m not sure what Mr. Imperato is hoping to accomplish, considering the Manhattan Libertarian Party has already given their support to Ron Paul for president.

The Manhattan LP has also issued a press release in praise of Republican Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s veto of a city council ordinance that would have outlawed aluminum baseball bats.

Source: Manhattan Libertarian Party

32 Responses to “Imperato to attend Manhattan Libertarian Party meeting”

  1. matt Says:

    Underwhelming.

    This guy had better be picking up the check.

    http://www.thepeoplespresident2008.com/president/issues.htm

  2. Carl Says:

    Ugh!

    I guess if you are tired of the lesser of two evils…

    He is talking to the wrong party. He is not even moderately libertarian.

  3. Joseph O Says:

    He has endorsed the National Election Reform Platform… See www.independentamerica.org

  4. Joe Says:

    Joseph,

    Parts of your platform are okay, but our candidates oppose public campaign financing, direct popular vote election of the president, and
    DC congressional representation.

  5. Chris Says:

    ... our candidates oppose public campaign financing, direct popular vote election of the president, and
    DC congressional representation.

    Opposition to public campaign financing is certainly a Libertarian stance. However, I’m sure some Libertarians could support a direct popular-vote election of the President and DC congressional representation.

  6. Joe Says:

    Sorry, I did not make that clear. I am not a Libertarian.

  7. Eric Dondero Says:

    Urgh! He supports DC popular-vote. Does this mean DC becomming a State? If so, double Urgh!!

    If it means retroceding DC back to Maryland, I’m cool with that. But Statehood for DC is proposterous!! Especially when you consider that we have a relatively large Island in the Caribbean with a population of over 4 million, that has been part of the United States of America for over 100 years, and THEY STILL DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE

    If anyone deserves to be a State it’s Puerto Rico. Not tiny DC.

  8. Eric Dondero Says:

    Well, I went to his Issues on his site. He seems to be a “Mr. Fix It” Ross Perot type. Not terribly ideological. Though, I did notice he favored a Strong Military unlike say a Phillies or Kubby. So, I like that about him. But, he’s pretty vague in his responses.

    He sounds like a Centrist Perotista, with very slight libertarian-leanings. He reminds me a bit of Gene Chapman. He even looks like Chapman.

  9. Trent Hill Says:

    Eric,
    Puerto Rico doesn’t want to be a state. They’ve voted on it several times. Right now they have all the rights (except voting, but including a observatory member of congress) and don’t pay taxes.

  10. Robert Milnes Says:

    Manhattan LP. What are you thinking?

  11. Trent Hill Says:

    I think the Mahattan LP is just giving him a fair shot, like every other guy they have speak. They don’t ALWAYS invite people that they agree with.

  12. Robert Milnes Says:

    RP, Bloomberg & aluminum bats.

  13. Eric Dondero Says:

    Trent, they voted Statehood in PR down with very slim majorities in the past, by about 2 to 3%, with continued Commonwealth status winning.

    That’s the precise margin that the Independence option received.

    If Puerto Ricans were given the two choices - straight up and down - Independence or Statehood, without the middle mushy Commonwealth option, all experts agree, Statehood would win with over 90% of the vote.

    Note, interestingly enough, PR’s current Congressman is a Republican, not a Democrat. They’d get 6 new Congressman, and most agree they’d be pretty evenly divided between Dems and Repubs.

    Why isn’t the Libertarian Party organizing in PR?

    They had a PR LP at one time, about 10 years ago. Some radio talk show host in San Juan was the Chairman. But it fizzled out. I can’t understand why the Libertarian Party doesn’t have an affiliate, in “Legalized Prostitution, Marijuana, Casino Gambling, Low Taxes” Puerto Rico.

  14. Jake Porter Says:

    Eric,

    I believe it was Frank Worley, a Phillies volunteer, who helped create the LP in Puerto Rico. I do not have any idea how strong the party is now.

  15. globalist_elitist Says:

    RE: D.C. Statehood—-> The problem is that antiquated notion of “state’s rights,” which really equates to unequal human rights. Human beings are valued more in Wyoming than in California, and if D.C. were to become a state, then they would be valued even more than Wyoming or Vermont, and the value of a Californian or Texan would be even less.

    But following that logic, the problem is that the federal government has too much power. Unequal representation, on a human level, in the Senate, would mean very little if the federal government were kept within its constitutional bounds.

    Still… D.C. is a homogenous population; it’s not part of Maryland or Virginia anymore than Vermont or Wyoming are part of their neighboring states - in fact, it is much less so. So if Wyoming and Vermont get to be states, then why can’t D.C.? The “federal district” could be quarantined form the rest of the district, giving way to a New Columbia. Is it because D.C. is 90%+ black, while Vermont, while just as liberal, is 90%+ white?

  16. globalist_elitist Says:

    Dondero asks: “why the Libertarian Party doesn’t have an affiliate, in ‘Legalized Prostitution, Marijuana, Casino Gambling, Low Taxes’ Puerto Rico.”

    Probably because they don’t need one. Sounds to me like many of the goals have already been achieved!

  17. Trent Hill Says:

    GE,
    No, its because the constitution CLEARLY states that D.C. will be federal jurisdiction,and thus can have no representation in congress.
    And no, the “federal district” could not be quarantined, it was created by a statute of congress.

  18. Trent Hill Says:

    Oh, and Dondero,

    It doesn’t matter what would happen if they voted between Independence and Statehood. What matters is that right now, they don’t pay taxes—but they are U.S. citizens. They are in a great position the way they see it.

  19. globalist_elitist Says:

    The Constitution did not foresee a populace of 500,000 people living within the federal district. These people are citizens without adequate representation. That goes against the founders’ opposition to taxation without representation.

  20. Ryan Says:

    Imperato has never come out and stated that he supports the election reform proposed by Joseph O. Imperato obviously says everything that is on his mind, and he’s never mentioned that proposal. I think its just someone trying to promote their own agenda and using Imperato’s name.

  21. matt Says:

    GE,
    The Constitution didn’t foresee states with 20 or 30 million people. We should have kept dividing states as the population grew so that we could have a more representative system.

  22. globalist_elitist Says:

    The Senate was foreseen as state government’s check on the national government’s power. The Senate was never supposed to be representative of the people, but of the individual states. Perhaps this is an antiquated notion. But regardless…

    The most antidemocratic aspect of our Constitution is the fact that the composition of the Senate cannot be changed. We cannot pass an amendment, for example, that says “Senate seats will now be allotted based on a state’s population.” This is the ONE THING that cannot be changed, because it is explicitly excluded in the article on amendments.

    Realistically, the thing to do is scale back the national government’s power so that the disproportionate representation in the Senate has less of an impact. There are other fruity reforms (i.e. electing the entire Senate via proportional representation on a national scale, but allotting seats to candidates from the requesite states; or repealing the direct election of senators) that have even less chance of being enacted than a scale-back of power.

    Also: I really like this national popular vote initiative by which state legislatures agree to send the electors of the popular vote winner once at least half of the electoral-vote holding states ratify it.

  23. Trent Hill Says:

    Not me.
    Doesn’t follow the constitution at all.

  24. globalist_elitist Says:

    Trent - You’re totally wrong. National popular vote is entirely constitutional if implemented in the manner that they’re talking about. It is up to state legislatures to determine how their electoral votes are allocated. Where does the constitution forbid them from giving them to the winner of the national popular vote? I’ll tell you: Nowhere. National Popular Vote is no more “against the constitution” than using a statewide popular vote to determine the winner of all of that state’s elecotral votes.

  25. Trent Hill Says:

    Ohk. Ill say this—you are perhaps right that it does not violate the constitution (id have to look into it,and don’t feel like it). But it wasn’t what the founders intended. They used it another way. I figure that was for a reason—again…i’d have to do a considerable amount of research to truly make an opinion on this,and right now I don’t have time.
    However, I will say this—I consider Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, and Washington were smarter than any Johnny-Come-Lately who is in a state legislature. I trust them more.

  26. globalist_elitist Says:

    You are 100% wrong. In fact, I have never seen anyone be more wrong about anything on this forum before. Even your assertion that we had a President Sherman was closer to the truth than this latest riff.

    The founders intended for slates of electors to be sent by state legislatures. How the legislatures determined which slate of electors to send was entirely up to the states.

    I thought you were for “state’s rights”? Or better yet, a decentralization of power? If individual state legislatures decide that they want to use the national popular vote to determine which slate of electors they send, then this is in no way uncostitutional. If you say it “goes against what the founders intended,” then apparently you’re a clairvoyant. Othes could argue that state-wide popular vote to determine elector slates was “against what the founders intended” or that states like Nebraska and Maine that split their elcetoral votes are “against what the founders intended,” etc.

    You don’t know the Constitution very well at all if you think you can “search” it to find something that makes national popular vote “unconsitutional.” This isn’t your cherished Bible, full of contradictions and inaccuracies that you can always twist to make whatever point you want.

    FACTS

    1. The Constitution calls for state legislatures to select electors for the electoral college

    2. State law determines how those electors are chosen

    3. The founders intended to leave the manner in which those electors were chosen up to the individual states

    You have literally never been more wrong than when you assert that any of the above are untrue.

  27. Trent Hill Says:

    GE,

    Haha. You like to argue too much GE. I admitted that I was not properly educated on this subject,and hadn’t done any research yet.
    Also, you know nothing of my religion—don’t make assumptions you can’t back up. I have only ever claimed to be a Christian. I have not ever declared myself a member of any denomination (Baptist, methodist, or Mormon) and have never given my theological views on the Bible (if its perfect, or flawed, or metaphorical or literal). And I don’t use the Bible to make any points in politics, nor do I discuss religion with people, as mine is a PERSONAL relationship with God.

    In light of the facts you present, you may indeed be right. As I originally stated—I have not researched the subject. I simply stated I didn’t think this was what the Founders intended.
    I said that because this agreement between states violates the small state,big state compromises. The focus of all presidential elections will simply be placed on large urban centers.
    Furthermore, I don’t have to be clairvoyant to determine how the Founders intended the Electoral College to be used, as they were instrumental in its first use.
    As for States’ Rights, it reduces them. California would have given George Bush all 55 electoral votes in 2004, even though he lost by 10% in that state. So California’s voice in the Electoral system would basically be nullified in the 2004 election.
    Also, for rural states like Maine, Iowa, Montana…there electoral votes would not be courted at all. Who would waste time campaigning in Montana (for 900,000 votes) when they could campaign for California (for 34 million votes)? It completely nullifies the Compromises made on the electoral college on the basis of equal representation for states while simultaneously respecting population hedgemony.

  28. Winston Smith Says:

    his fellow heads up a UN NGO??
    Enough said then, no thanks!!

    If the D.C. folks feel un-represetented, let them move. I always love the flag wavers that preface “the Founders could not have known…..” comments. Same used for unconstitutional wars, etc.

  29. Trent Hill Says:

    The fact is, D.C. was SPECIFICALLY created to be a federal juridiction. D.C. has representation in the Congress,just not voting members.

  30. globalist_elitist Says:

    Who “wastes” time campaiging in Utah, Vermont, Wyoming, Hawaii, etc. now. Nobody. These are guaranteed states in the electoral college system.

    Who would spend time in those states if national popular vote were adopted? It is much more likely that a candidate would. Because every vote would be treated equally! Picking up one vote in Utah would be just as good as picking up one vote in Ohio. Right now, a vote in Ohio is worth like 10,000 times as much as a vote in Utah or Vermont, etc.

    As for the notion that this would gear campaigns to cities, i.e. black people (gasp!)... Right now, a candidate could create an urban campaign, campaign to big cities, get 51% of the electoral votes by securing 51% of the vote in urban states. He could make an urban campaign and win with like 25% of the popular vote. If anything, the current system gives urban cities unfair power if targetted correctly.

    Social and political equality is a foundational concept. The vote of one person in Salt Lake City should be equal to the vote of someone in a small Ohio town. The vote of someone in Cleveland should be equal to the vote of someone in rural Vermont.

    You cannot say what the founders intended or did not intend beyond what is literally in the Constitution. They intended for states to decide electors, that is for sure. This does not violate this. You cannot claim to defend “state’s rights” by infringing upon them. Who would do this? The federal government? The Supreme Court? There is no basis, and if they were to do so, it would be a truly totalitarian act.

  31. globalist_elitist Says:

    Can you please elaborate on this President Sherman thing? Was that just a slip of the cyber-tongue, or is there some sort of southern-revisionist conspiracy theory I’m missing? I’m being serious.

  32. Trent Hill Says:

    LOL. Just a slip of the tongue. In the South, Sherman and Grant are often associated as twin evils in the Civil War. We don’t bemoan Lincoln too much anymore because it is politically correct. But pretty much everyone agrees that Sherman was ruthless, and Grant encouraged that. I associated the two,and spoke quickly. Like you, I often speak faster than I think.

    On the electoral issue, I can agree that every vote should be the same. That indeed some states like Utah or Hawaii are locked up. And that a democrat who votes in Utah is basically not counted, just like a Republican in Hawaii. We can agree that that is wrong,and sucks.

    I will state again…I have not educated myself on this issue yet. And until I read the bills themselves, i’m not going to directly disagree with any particular view. I’v said this from the beginning.
    However, I disagree that candidates would campaign in Montana just as much or more. In Montana, a vote may count JUST as much, but there are less votes to be had…and they are spread further apart.

Leave a Reply