An American Politburo by Howard Houchen

An American Politburo

By Howard Houchen August 8, 2011

    Liberty Candidate for Congress 2010 Oklahoma District 2

An American Politburo has materialized before our eyes.  Yes, our Congress is the result of a two-party system (those Rs and Ds) and, on the surface, doesn’t fit very well with the one-party USSR system, but, let’s look at those little pesky things called facts.

Administrative actions are already replacing legislative acts as the primary governance mechanism.  Just examine the number of regulations emanating from the Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Health and Human Services, etc, etc.  Unelected officials (unaccountable to the citizenry) all around this land are producing laws we must abide by, or face some form of punishment, without ever coming under scrutiny by those we elect to represent our interests (and to protect and defend the constitution of these United States of America).  By the way, governance is not government (as Americans know government).  Governance is, very simply, rule.

Many large- and medium-sized cities in America have formed Councils on Sustainability, Councils on Urban Development, Councils on Transportation, Councils on Economic Development, and Council, after Council, after Council.  Hmmm…most of these councils are appointed, not elected, here in America.

Just exactly what is a council?  The Russian term for council is soviet.  In the Council Union (the Soviet Union), rules were laid down by local soviets, regional soviets, and the national soviet.  Notice there is no mention of a state council.  Councils (Soviets) were responsible for regions.  Regions did not have political boundaries so, for all intents and purposes, you had regional governance, outside the political structure, unelected and unaccountable.

 

To read the rest of this article Continue to Original Publication at The American Thinker
http://www.americanthinker.com​/2011/08/an_american_politburo​.html

On economic Liberty

by Mike Swatek, Liberty Candidates Committee Member

www.MikesMarket.Info/News

 

Austrian school economics illuminates how personal and economic liberty are intimately intertwined. Neither of these broad liberties can ultimately exist without the other. It’s wonderful to see the expanding awareness of the need to defend our personal liberties, through the Tea Party movement and growing media visibility, which has recently taken a giant leap forward with Freedom Watch on Fox Business every night at 7pm central and online.

Unfortunately, this awakening is less focused on the fundamentals of economic liberty, which is essential to preserve personal liberty. It should be as much of a personal civic duty to have a basic understanding of economics as it is to be familiar with the Declaration of Independence, US Constitution, Federalist Papers and Kentucky/Virginia Resolutions. Unfortunately, economics is widely perceived as overly complicated and/or discredited as a “dismal science”. However, this is only true of the economics promoted by the US government and Federal Reserve, quite possibly with the intention of keeping the masses confused and ignorant on this essential component of their overall liberty. Fortunately, there is an alternative school of thought that overcomes these hurdles, but today it’s only taught at a handful of US universities.

The only school of economic thought that has been consistently correct for the last century is the Austrian school, as Ron Paul has often shared. There are some excellent and enjoyable resources available to gain a working knowledge of the time-proven Austrian economic school of thought.

By far, the best first book is How an Economy Grows and Why It Crashes, by Peter & Andrew Schiff. It’s a brilliant and entertaining short journey through the fundamentals of Austrian economics. Better yet, it’s written and illustrated in a way that is also engaging for younger readers. Don’t let the appearance fool you. This is an absolutely sound and wonderful first book on Austrian economics for everyone. Even with an existing knowledge of the topic, it’s still a very enjoyable book. We should all try to get as many people as possible to read this, so that wider awareness of how to preserve economic liberty will also help preserve personal liberty. Donate copies to local school/public libraries, and it makes a great personal gift.

Another book that covers much of the same material and more, with added detail, is The Case Against the Fed by Murray Rothbard. Don’t be fooled by the title. Rothbard starts with Austrian economic basics in the development of the case. If you would like to learn more after reading Schiffs’ book, this is an excellent second book. Or, if you’re a bit short on cash, you could start with this book which is available from the Ludwig von Mises Institute in free full text and free audio format (chapters listed in reverse order) with all the mp3 files more easily downloaded from an ftp directory HERE. Even if some of the early chapters are a review, the vast majority of people should learn a lot about their economic liberty from the entirety of the case. The proposal for how the USA could end the Fed and go back to a gold standard in the final chapters is also quite interesting.

The next recommended book is Economics in One Lesson: The Shortest and Surest Way to Understand Basic Economics by Henry Hazlitt. This is
still one of the most widely recommended and popular books on Austrian economics, first published in 1946. The lesson is indeed “one”, but the breadth and importance of its meaning needs quite a number of examples to fully understand, which is accomplished in chapters 2-23. This book provides a thorough understanding of the natural economics embodied in the Austrian school of thought. Amazingly, the lesson that Hazlitt shares was first published 1850 in the seminal publication “That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen” by Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850). Hazlitt’s more modern examples are essential for the fullest understanding of Bastiat’s work, which you may also enjoy reading along with his others* (see ps: below).

Ron Paul has long been the only person in the US Congress with knowledge of Austrian economics, which is a key ingredient in his must-read books, “ The Revolution: A Manifesto” and “ End The Fed“.

If you’re hooked on the topic by the above readings, you might also enjoy the following available free online at the Ludwig von Mises Institute:
Mises and Austrian Economics: A Personal View by Ron Paul (audio version)
Gold, Peace, and Prosperity by Ron Paul (audio version)
What Has Government Done to Our Money? by Murray N. Rothbard (audio version and its ftp directory) ;
The Theory of Money and Credit
by Ludwig von Mises;
History of Money and Banking in the United States: The Colonial Era to World War II
by Murray N. Rothbard (audio version and its ftp directory)
plus many other free online Austrian school full text books and audio books

If you enjoy these free online opportunities to become educated about your interconnected economic and personal liberties, please Make a donation and become a Member of the Ludwig von Mises Institute

I sincerely hope this message helps some of you to take the plunge into learning much more about your essential economic liberties so that you can better defend them and, by doing so, more fully protect your personal liberties as well. If you find this message beneficial, please forward it to as many others as possible.

Yours in Liberty,

Mike
http://www.mikesmarket.info/news
Important Economic/Financial News aggregator of much the government/mainstream media wants to hide/misrepresent – updated very frequently

*ps: If the works of Frédéric Bastiat (mentioned above) perk your taste for the roots of Austrian economics, you may enjoy the Ludwig von Mises Institute’s free publication of Richard Cantillon: Founder of Political Economy by Jonathan M. Finegold. This is an introduction to An Essay on Economic Theory by Richard Cantillon published sometime between 1730 and 1734, over 30-years before Adam Smith’s seriously flawed “Wealth of Nations”, which is widely and incorrectly believed to be the genesis of economics. There are a couple of interesting audios about Cantillon’s essay available: An Essay on Economic Theory: Interview With Mark Thornton by Jeffrey Tucker; and The Founding Father of Modern Economics: Richard Cantillon by Murray Rothbard (Chapter 12, Volume 1 – Before Adam Smith in his massive 2-volume Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought which is a fascinating read or listen Volume 1 [ftp] and Volume 2 [ftp])

Buy Silver, Crash JP Morgan

 

December 7-10th, 2010, we are asking EVERYBODY to buy at LEAST one (1) ounce of PHYSICAL Silver either online at a primary dealer or secondary market like eBay.com or offline at a local coin dealer or pawn shop. Do NOT buy any fraudulent silver certificates or speculative silver mining stocks.

Help crash the corrupt J.P. Morgan who has committed silver fraud and broken dozens of federal and state laws in manipulating precious metals while helping the Government prop up the over-valued and nearly worthless U.S. greenback currency.

Vote with your feet and buy as much Silver for yourself or loved ones on that day!

For more info on “Crash JP Morgan: BUY SILVER”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_lhPoFuSTY&feature=player_embedded
http://truthsquad.tv/?p=93

Event Posted at
We Are Change NYC
http://www.meetup.com/wearechange/messages/boards/thread/10137382/

Save: Long Island http://www.savelongisland.org
http://www.meetup.com/SavelongIsland/calendar/15659175/

Don’t know where to buy your silver? Try DelValley Silver and talk to Bob & Karen Emery! http://delvalleysilver.com/

 

The United States “Economic Civil War”

The United States “Economic Civil War”

Danny Panzella
TruthSquad.TV
12/2/2010

Independent Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont gave an impassioned speech on the floor of the Senate yesterday. Mr. Sanders railed on the top 12th of  the top 1% of the wealthy in the United States. Highlighting their oligarchical control of the congress, their use of taxpayer money in the form of subsidies, grants, special tax exemptions and bailouts to continue to force the middle class into poverty.

While I disagree with Mr. Sanders assertion that the “Bush tax cuts” should be repealed, and the Death tax should remain in place, I whole heartedly agree with his assessment of the economic situation.

The government already taxes far beyond its authority, the Bush tax cuts are an attempt to limit the amount the federal government can tax, does it benefit the wealthy more than the poor and middle class? Certainly. Should it be repealed allowing the Government to confiscate wealth that does not belong to it, skim off the top and then redistribute a pittance to the little guy? Certainly not. As far as the death tax goes, that money has already been taxed once, to tax it again upon death only serves to ensure people spend their money before they die leaving no wealth for the younger generations to improve their economic status.

So if Sanders is wrong on the solutions to the very real crisis we are in, what are the solutions? It all begins with a sound money system. We need to Audit the private corporation that controls our currency and monetary policy. This will expose the corruption of the Federal Reserve system which will convince the American people it is time to abolish the Fed.

With the currency and monetary policy back in the hands of the congress who is accountable to “we the people” we will start to see economic policy that benefits the people. The next step in this process is to repeal the 17th Amendment, putting the election of Senators back into the hands of the State Legislators. This will ensure that these Senators are loyal to the State, and NOT special interest groups or the Federal Government. With direct election by the people the Senate is loyal to the Federal Government because that is how they protect their own power. Campaign finance reform is the third crucial step towards true Constitutional Government. In a world where dollars translate into political speech; the top 12th of 1% that Mr. Sanders mentions have all the voice while they have reduced we the people to little more than a vote.  In the age where the main stream corporate media are the gate keepers to decide which Candidates are given opportunity to address the people. Keep in mind that top 12th of 1% OWN the 6 corporations that OWN ALL of the main stream media.

The tea party has been a very important part of this process of getting our country back on track, yet much of the tea party is being co-opted by fake neo-conservatives like Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich. I can hear the groans now as people dismiss Bernie Sanders speech because he is a socialist. We the people need to unite on our commonalities so we can defeat the real enemy, that 12th of 1% that rules the United States through corporate monopoly control and the media induced illusion of choice.

The left and right need to put aside their ideological differences and build a coalition on the common interest of self preservation, preservation of our natural or human and civil rights. The tea party & coffee party for the most part desire the same goal. To bring true change to the United States. Peace, equality, to stamp out hunger and empower the poor to be successful; for each successive generation to enjoy a greater standard of living than the previous. Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness for ALL mankind. Let’s work together to counteract the main stream propaganda media, identify the real problem and eliminate it. Then the tea party and coffee party can argue over the solutions once we the people are in control of our country once again.

Assange; the Last Real Journalist?

by RJ Harris November 30, 2010

Patriots,

Re: the government’s finger pointing at the JOURNALIST which has uncovered its lies and tyrannies and is forcing it to account. DON’T BE FOOLED BY THIS NEWEST MISDIRECTION ATTEMPT! Keep your focus laser-sighted on the officials that have done things that require explanations NOT on the whistle blower that has thankfully made us aware of the illegal/unethical activities.

 

 

It is so easy to point one’s finger at a scapegoat and bray about the harm he is “causing” while the real wicked people scamper on with their tyranny and their vices unmolested. Will we all be fooled again? I say that if government officials don’t want to be forced to answer hard questions about their unethical behaviors then they should…STOP DOING ILLEGAL/UNETHICAL TYRANICAL CRAP THAT ENDS UP ON WIKILEAKS AND OBEY THE RULE OF LAW!

 

 

When will the press stand up and FIGHT for one of the last real journalist of our time? It seems that Assange, and a few others (AJ;), are the only journalists NOT on the government dole. They should all do as the founders intended them to do and close ranks around a brother that is TRYING to force our government(s) to be honest to us. Why is the freedom of the press in the very FIRST amendment? Because the founders KNEW that government conducted in secret is inherently corrupt. Oh, by the way, are we really supposed to believe that some LOWLEY PRIVATE, the lowest rank in the U.S. Military, is the sole source of all these leaks?! If you believe that crap I have some ocean-front property in Arizona to sell you:) From these claims about this soldier we can deduce one of two things…either our government is lying to us…AGAIN…or our intelligence departments are the most inept government entities in the history of the Republic. I’m not sure which is more damming.

 

 

Demand to have your government conduct its business in the OPEN for all eyes to see. Your Freedom and Liberty depend upon this for government conducted in secret has made slaves of us all.

 

 

RJ Harris

Constitutional Conservative

2010 Liberty Candidate

http://www.harrisforoklahoma.com/

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/150793

 

 

RJ Harris is a twenty-year Oklahoma Army National Guard Officer serving on his forth overseas deployment and currently stationed to  FOB Tarin Kowt for the Afghanistan Surge. RJ is also a University of Oklahoma graduate in Philosophy and a third year law student (3L) at the University of Oklahoma College of Law. He is a Constitutional Conservative and a prominent leader in the nation-wide grassroots Liberty Candidate movement having run a vigorous campaign for Oklahoma’s 4th U.S. Congressional District against incumbent, (R). Tom Cole. RJ has appeared on Fox News’ Freedom Watch with Judge Andrew Napolitano, before numerous Tea Party candidate panels and been the featured guest on conservative/libertarian talk-radio/blogger talk programs across the country. RJ definitely plans to run for office again in the near future but must first complete his military commitment in Afghanistan.

TSA Body Scanners Unconstitutional – 2010 Liberty Candidates Speak Out

 

Liberty Candidate, Cisse Spragins, Speaks Out against Body Scanners

Adam VS The Man with Adam Kokesh Naked Body Scan or Pat Down

Robert Broadus

I think there is something not being discussed here, which is that the Federal Gov’t should not be conducting security for private airlines. The very existence of the TSA shows an overreach of the commerce clause, and is an unjustified expansion of gov’t. What SHOULD have happened is that the airport or the airline in question should provide its own security, and if the company then required body scans or pat-downs, then it would not be a violation of the Constitution, and if the customer did not like it, he could take his business to another airline or another airport. Because of federal involvement, every airport will soon have the same standards, and therefore every citizen will be in a position of having their 4th amendment protections violated. 

So for me, the answer is to end the TSA.

Alexander Snitker


It is truly amazing how far we will infringe on the liberties of our fellow Americans. This is where we must take a stand. What does the government have to do in order for people to understand this will not end until we decide it is enough? I will not fly until the body scanners are removed.

Steve Susman and David Smith

It is the choice of the airlines in these airports-Participate in tyranny and we will put you out of business. This time, the public will not bail you out. If the incumbents bail you out, we will get rid of them too.( We in Houston have joined forces with Oathkeeper Jay Stang(son of the late Alan Stang) and will organize a massive protest 11/24. David Smith and I are bringing in WAC Houston, the Houston Free Thinkers and more to combat this agregious rights violation) Planning begins immediately after the End the Fed Rally http://lptexas.org/meetup/end-fed-rally

Barry Hess


I think it’s very telling that among the apologists for the TSA, no one has suggested the obvious way to resolve this nonsense. 

I, for one am only flying privately because the minute some governmonkey touched me, my wife or any child, I’d probably end up with a felony on my hands. This thing is just a way to desensitize the public and destroy any sense of personal modesty.

Why must you appear naked before the Emperor and his minions? How can it be explained to a child that an adult ‘touching’ them inappropriately is “okay” if it’s an idiot with gloves? The whole thing flies in the face of being a “free” person with a government that is charged with protecting our individual rights.

The mental midget’s who think any of this makes them safer deserve their degradation, but I don’t. I am not afraid, to any degree of any so-called ‘threat’. I refuse to live in fear and under the delusion that somehow all this inconvenience and personal invasion makes me ‘safer’.

The obvious way to really make us “safer” is to simply declare Peace on the rest of the world and take away any reason for anyone to threaten any of us. Coupled with an armed Citizenry (yes, even on board the planes) we would all be as safe as is humanly possible. The Constitution was very well thought out, and the Declaration of Independence explicit in its intent

Jackie Miller


have refused to fly now for some time. I simply refuse to have my Fourth Amendment rights violated & I “walk my talk.” Until “The People” wake up to what is really going on ala Nazi Germany & fight with all we have against this (latest) assault on our civil liberties it will get worse! I am currently on vacation & doing “The road less traveled,”as I always do. It has amazed me that so many Americans are clueless as to what a truly beautiful Country we have. BOYCOTT the airlines! Tell Homeland Security that our LIBERTY means something to us. The sad part of my recent travels however are so many Liberties which have been taken away; something when I get back home I’ll be sharing a great deal about. Please be aware though that as usual we are also fighting the MEDIA & their propaganda machine. We must also spread the message that the bottom line to all of this is “Follow the Money!” And that it has NOTHING to do with “security” but also everything to do with CONTROL. “We the People” are the protectors of the Constitution, NOT the politicians & it is high time we began acting like it! If we do not stop this now, the next thing will be “checkpoints” for vehicles at all of our State borders, & I don’t think that is too far-fetched to believe.

Jake Shannon


The TSA is a red herring. They’ll concede and Republicans will take credit as liberators… Meanwhile we will still have war with Iran, the Fed won’t end, and the IRS will continue to terrorize Americans. We must stay focused and not be satisfied with false victories. We must not be satisfied with anything less than total liberty.

Cecil Anthony Ince


“Those who would give up essential liberty for a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Benjamin Franklin

This nation is a nation of delusional freedom today. It no longer resembles the national of our forefathers when the elected pass laws that violate and supersede the Constitution. We as a nation exist in a state of despotism and deny it claiming freedom which does not exist for U.S. under the law. Freedom is as real as a thought, a belief, a faith. It is the forgotten practice of agent-hood, and is the knowledge to make decisions and to take actions on ones own will or upon ones morality.

If we believe that liberty only exists because government allows it or that freedom is guaranteed by laws that dictate how individuals act and interact, then we are blinded and blinded unto a state of tyranny that we proclaim as liberty and we are doomed.

The reality is the government exists because the people permit it, and that liberty existed before governments and will continue even after they fall.
It is not the Government nor its laws that restrain me from killing another person it is my GOD given morality, the natural sense of right and wrong. It is not a “Red-light” law that prevents me from running a red light, it is my common sense and self-preservation that prevents me from pulling out into the intersection and being t-boned by another car.

“I have sworn upon the alter of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the minds of man.” – Thomas Jefferson

RJ Harris


“Following Orders” No Excuse for Sexual Assault!

Serving as I am here in Afghanistan many of you have asked me why I am here. I have replied that if asked to execute an illegal or immoral order I would refuse and I still hold to that. My point here is that were I a TSA agent…I would refuse orders to do what they are now doing. Those of you still clinging to the notions that our government is not corrupt and that it considers the defense of our liberty as anywhere near the priority that the founders did need look no farther than what is going on at the TSA. These are not solitary random acts of disgruntled agents which does not reflect the ethics of the rest of the agency…this administration and this agency are perpetrating these acts upon us knowing full well what they are doing and yet they tyrannize us anyway. When will you rise up America and fight for your freedom? Will it be after your sisters and your mothers and your wives are molested by government agents? When will you say that the degradations are too great? The founders who espoused to the notion that no exchange of freedom for security was a worthy bargain would be ashamed of what we have allowed already and I say it is time we told the government enough. Don’t fly if you can avoid it. Don’t go through the scanners if you must fly and video any and all searches to be used in court against the agents and agency at a later time. “Following orders” has never been a viable excuse for committing sexual assault and those of you being grope searched should seriously consider filling charges against even individual agents. WAKE UP AMERICA, ITS TIME TO FIGHT FOR LIBERTY

Doug Marks


As a liberty candidate I’d like to start off with displaying the Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The Fourth Amendment was written in direct response to British general warrants where the Crown would grant general search powers to British law enforcement officials. These officials could search virtually any home, or person, they liked, at any time they liked, for any reason they liked but were not bound to having justification to do it, it could be on a whim or for folly.

The “right of people to be secure in their persons”, as already ruled by the supreme court, is your right to privacy and by being forced to display yourself naked, or face an intimate groping physical search, removes this right. If this can be done in airports, what is stopping the government from using this as a precedent for doing this in all public places? If, as a citizen, I was to perform any of these actions I would be jailed so how is it legal for the government to not be liable for breaking our battery, child abuse and child pornography laws?

The government is installed to preserve and protect our natural rights not strip them away, under any circumstance. The public is no safer now than we were before the Christmas bomber or September 11th. If someone is determined to bring down an aircraft there are methods available that are way beyond the technology of a strip search so believing that degrading people and stripping their rights makes them any safer is ludicrous at best. As we continue to move deeper and deeper into this “police state” we are telling the terrorists, they won. Their desire is to control through terrorizing and our government is completely following their desire.

‘Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium’- I prefer liberty with danger to peace with slavery. By willfully accepting the actions of our government we are accepting slavery as we are no longer the masters of our bodies, we are giving away that mastery to the government. As we give away our rights, we are also dissolving our republic and the rule of law which it was founded upon.

Where does it end? When do the people realize they have become slaves to the master in Washington? When do we fight back? If not today, when?

VIDEO! Ron Paul Introduces HR 6416: The American Traveler Dignity Act

 

TSA Tyrannical Practices forced to the Forefront by Your Emails! Napolitano to meet Travel Industry! Our boycott is working!

http://www.DailyTeaParty.com
Boris in Miami -

Stepped-up security screening at airports in the wake of foiled terrorism plots has provoked an outcry from airline pilots and travelers, including parents of children who say they are too intrusive. (Reuters)

Since the inception of the porn scanners at our airports the Freedom Movement at large has been up in arms about it; blogging, commenting, and making the case for the unconstitutionality, backwardness and ineffectiveness of such intrusive electronic searches and intimate pat downs.

Recently, pilot Michael Roberts posted a letter at LewRockwell.com “Pilot to TSA:  No Groping Me and NO Naked Photos“” which went on to be picked up by the Main Stream Media and became viral, inspiring a larger wave of indignant articles from the MSM and the Freedom Movement.  Michael also inspired the Allied Pilot Association to join the protest.

Read More:
http://dailyteaparty.com/2010/11/12/grassroots-win-tsa-tyrannical-practices-forced-to-the-forefront-by-your-emails-napolitano-to-meet-travel-industry/

Judge Napolitano

The Myth of the Wasted Vote

The Myth of the Wasted Vote

by Charles L. Hooper
by Charles L. Hooper

Recently, I was surprised to see a long-term Libertarian’s car sporting a Kerry/Edwards bumper sticker. “What’s with the Kerry bumper sticker?” I asked my friend. “Isn’t it self-explanatory?” he replied sarcastically. “Okay, okay, I see that you’re going to vote for Kerry. I just want to know why. I thought you would be voting Libertarian.”

He then proceeded to tell me that while he doesn’t like Kerry, he simply despises George W. Bush. “You don’t want to waste your vote on somebody that you fundamentally disagree with, do you?” I asked him. “I’ve been wasting my vote for years by voting Libertarian,” he replied bitterly.

“Ah, but you will be wasting your vote this year because Kerry is almost assured to take California. One extra vote won’t make a difference.” I hadn’t run the numbers, but I was sure that my friend’s vote wasn’t going to affect the California electoral vote and, therefore, had no chance of affecting the national result.

Since our conversation I have run the numbers, and they are mind-boggling. Based on these results, reasonable people may conclude that they should never vote. But if you do decide to cast your vote, as I have, you should vote for the best candidate and abandon any attempts to displace the disliked Kerrys, Bushes, Clintons, Reagans, Carters, and Gores of the world.

To run the numbers, I created a Monte Carlo computer simulation model and ran well over 300,000 simulations. My model has two pretty evenly matched main political parties and three smaller ones that fight over roughly ten percent of the vote total. I defined voting groups, each with probability distributions. With these groups defined, I ran multiple runs of the model at 5,000 iterations (5,000 elections) each while varying the number of total voters.

It turns out that your one vote, and mine too, has a probability of swinging any evenly-matched election based on the following formula: Probability equals 3.64 divided by N, where N is the total number of votes cast. So for a small election, say for a homeowners’ association with 100 members, your probability of casting the vote that determines the outcome is about 3.64 percent (or 0.0364). Stated differently, you’d have to vote in 27.5 elections to determine a single one. As we move up to the state and national level, the odds fall dramatically. With 11 million voters in California, where my friend and I live, the probability drops to 3.3 x 10-7 (0.00000033), which means that you’d have to vote in over three million presidential elections to determine the winner in California just once.

Of course, California isn’t the whole country. California currently has 55 electoral votes out of a total of 538, with 270 needed to elect a president. Since 1852, when Californians first voted for U.S. president, California has been a key swing state in only two presidential elections. In 1876, California cast 6 electoral votes for Rutherford B. Hayes, who beat Samuel J. Tilden by the razor-thin margin of 185 to 184. In 1916, California cast 13 electoral votes for Woodrow Wilson, who beat Charles E. Hughes by 277 to 254. In either election, if California voters had gone the other direction, the national totals would have followed. In every other presidential election, however, the winner was determined regardless of how Californians voted. By acknowledging that California has been a swing state in only two of its 38 elections (5.3%), we can get to our final answer: A voter in California would have to vote in 57.5 million elections to determine one President of the United States.

This ignores voting error and fraud, but even with them, there is still a point at which the official vote total swings from candidate A to candidate B. The question is whether you will cast that key vote. And the answer is that it’s extremely unlikely.

What does this mean? Well, first of all it means that you’d have to vote for a very long time – 230 million years – to swing one election and all you’d have to show for it is a Bush in the White House instead of a Kerry (or visa versa). If you are like me and many other voters, you can’t get very excited about either Bush or Kerry, so your final payoff would be lackluster, at best. For those who still think these odds look acceptable, consider the following comparisons. You are 12 times as likely to die from a dog attack, 34,000 times as likely to die in a motor vehicle accident, and 274 times as likely to die in a bathtub drowning as you are to swing a presidential election.

My friend thinks that his Libertarian votes have been wasted and that his vote for a Democrat will matter. This analysis shows that his vote for Kerry has a vanishingly small expected value. Even if he would be willing to pay $10,000 to determine the winner in November, the expected value (probability times value) of his vote for Kerry is only $0.00017. Americans won’t even stoop to pick up a penny on the ground yet every four years they happily cast votes worth one fiftieth as much. Voting may still make sense, but the overall satisfaction of participating in a great democracy must be compared to the time and costs of voting. The expected vote-swinging outcome is rounding error. In fact, if you drive to your polling place, you are approximately ten times more likely to die in an accident on the way than you are to swing that presidential election.

Now, what if my friend votes for Michael Badnarik, the 2004 Libertarian candidate? Is that vote wasted? Well, it is clear that no third-party candidate will win the 2004 election, but my friend’s support would certainly help his favorite political party stay in business and therefore get noticed. While it is in business, his party will help define election issues and could even get lucky and elect a president. Abraham Lincoln and Jesse Ventura are good examples of third-party candidates who were elected. Ross Perot in 1996 and 1992, American Independent George Wallace in 1968, and Progressive Robert LaFollette in 1924 were presidential candidates who got a large percentage of the popular vote. More likely, as any third party becomes successful, the Democrats and Republicans will simply adopt that party’s platforms. The same thing happened with the Socialist party early in the 20th century. As Milton Friedman points out, the Socialists failed miserably with a popular vote total that peaked at only six percent in 1912. But they succeeded in the way that matters most. Dig below the surface and you’ll find that virtually every economic plank of the Socialist’s 1928 platform has since been written into law. The votes cast for these Socialists certainly weren’t wasted from the point of view of those who cast them.

Your one vote has the same power to affect the results whether you vote for a major or minor candidate, but a vote for the candidate you respect and agree with gives you the expectation of a better outcome. If you are like me and do take the time and effort to vote, you should put your X beside the candidate you think will be the best president, not the one most likely to beat the guy you dislike. The myth of the wasted third-party vote is just that – a myth. If there is a wasted vote, it is the one cast futilely against the candidate you dislike in an attempt to swing the national election.

September 21, 2004

Charles L. Hooper [send him mail] is president of Objective Insights, a company that consults for pharmaceutical and biotech companies. His forthcoming book, coauthored with David R. Henderson, isThinking Works: Your Inside Track to Great Results. Charley is a visiting fellow with the Hoover Institution.

Copyright © 2004 LewRockwell.com

Liberty Candidates Calendar

We are pleased to introduce our New Liberty Candidates 2010 Calendar! 20% of sales of this calender go to the Liberty Candidates Fund!

Click the link to order

Defining a Liberty Candidate, Endorsements, and Links

WHAT IS A LIBERTY CANDIDATE?

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/119360

I am the organizer for Liberty Candidates  – a facebook page with over 5,000 members that has a coordinating committee meet up and a blog http://gigibowman.wordpre… We just had our first Money Bomb [2010] on the Anniversary of the Boston Tea Party and it was very successful! Hopefully all of the candidates received some kind of donation. They need them badly. In the meantime the links are there so that we can donate to them at any time. Our next Money Bomb is The Great Patriot Money Bomb on April 16th thru April 18th [2010]. I hope you can help and donate to them at this time!

Here is the link to the facebook page
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?ref=home#/group.php?gid=196730146003

The Meetup Committee if you would like to be a part of the committee http://www.meetup.com/Liberty-Candidates-2010/

The Website!

www.liberty-candidates.org

But What is a Liberty Candidate?

Liberty Candidates are Ron Paul Republicans/Libertarians/Constitutionalist. Most of them are Liberty Candidates because they know who Ron Paul is. They have, in the past, been a delegate, donated to him, were inspired by him, were on a Ron Paul meet-up, know how to fundraise, hang a sign in the most obsolete areas of the planet and get teary eyed when they see the movie “For Liberty”. A Liberty Candidate will understand what I’m saying here.

Usually I will see a Liberty candidate not skip over “Foreign Policy” in the issues part of their candidate website because they are adamant about wanting the war to end and wanting to bring our troops home now! Even if they are running for comptroller I’ll still know how they feel about wanting the war to end, ending the fed and sound money so It’s easy for me to tell a liberty candidate. If I were running I would be one. I’m here because of Ron Paul. If you look up my name on google you will see that I was a delegate for Ron Paul, dressed in black at night and hung signs on overpasses for Ron Paul, donated to Ron Paul, I ran a Ron Paul meetup, I’m an organizer for a Campaign for Liberty Group and I am the Suffolk County, NY Organizer for Campaign for Liberty.

So on this note, I have a lot of people posting on the Liberty Candidate page asking me why they are not listed. I have their friends asking in a huff why they are not listed. I have candidates telling me they are Liberty Candidates and then I read their websites and it appears they want to make sure all the terrorist and muslim jihadist (a phrase that Liberty candidates would never use) need to be blown off the face of the earth and we need to go to war with Iran and I wonder…..does this person know what a liberty candidate is?

The people listed as Liberty candidates now are Liberty candidates. Adam Kokesh is a liberty candidate. Go and read Adam’s page and then tell me if you are a liberty candidate before you send me email demanding to be on this list. Don’t post your name on the page saying you are a liberty candidate when you haven’t been accepted yet. Our Liberty Candidates have been asked to be Liberty Candidates or were listed as such because it was obvious they were or they were put before a committee who decided. We want to makes sure that they stand apart from the Rest. Liberty Candidates are NOT Neocons. (and we know this phrase from Ron Paul’s speech Neo-Conned)

The only way to change our government is to elect Liberty Candidates. There is no other way to do that. I see no difference between the old boss and the new boss that we have now. The war continues as does The Patriot Act.
This is not change. If you want change donate to our liberty candidates today*

Thank you, Gigi Bowman – Liberty Candidate Supporter

~

In the words of Stephen Vasquez, New York State Coordinator for Campaign for Liberty and past-Congressional Candidate:

The Law by Frederic Bastiat should be required reading for ALL Liberty Candidates :)

You may download this book for free through Mises.org

http://mises.org/books/thelaw.pdf

~

Our Candidates Support the ReTake Congress Platform:

The Retake Congress Platform

RetakeCongress.com

Our goal is to find and support at least one candidate to run in all 435 congressional districts who will solemnly swear to uphold this simple non-partisan platform that covers 4 areas:

  • The Economy: Honesty and transparency must be returned to our financial system. There should be a thorough investigation and evaluation of the Federal Reserve System. The arbitrary power to create money with no oversight must be ended. There should be no increase in the national debt. The Federal Government needs to stay out of the affairs of  private business. There should be no taxpayer bailouts of corporations and no corporate subsidies.
  • Individual Rights: Individual rights and sovereignty are supreme and inherent. The proper role of government is to protect our unalienable rights to life, liberty, and property. The federal government must serve the people by protecting these rights within the borders of the states that make up the union. We must repeal the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, and the FISA legislation. We must reject the notion and practice of torture, elimination of habeas corpus, secret tribunals, and secret prisons. We must deny immunity for corporations that spy willingly on the American people for the benefit of the government. We must return the checks and balances as intended by the founders.  The illegal use of signing statements and illegal use of executive orders must be ended. The government must not regulate the content of the media.
  • Foreign Policy: We must stand for a strong national defense. The military is the main responsibility of the Federal Government. Our military should be used to protect only our citizens and defend our borders. We need to get our troops out of foreign countries and politics. Our foreign policy should not impose our will or way of life on other nations. We must not act as world police. We must reject international treaties that could destroy our national sovereignty.
  • Congressional Promise: No member of congress should ever vote for any bill they have not read!

http://www.retakecongress.com/ThePlatform.aspx

~

Liberty Candidates Endorse The Libertarian Observer http://thelibertarianobserver.com/
Liberty Candidates Endorse The Liberty Guardian http://thelibertyguardian.com/
Liberty Candidates Endorse Lpmndc – The Libertarian Party of Metropolitan Nashville Davidson County http://lpmndc.org/index.php
The Liberty Candidates Endorse the Live Free or Die Rally www.livfreeordierally.com

2010 N.H. 5th annual Live Free or Die Rally

Liberty Candidates supports Free & Equal
Free And Equal
https://www.freeandequal.org/

Liberty Candidates support the 10-4 Pledge

10 for 2010

10-4: The Tenth Amendment Center Pledge
1.  All just political authority is derived from the People, and government may only be established and maintained with their consent.
2.  The People of each State have the sole and exclusive right and power to govern themselves in all areas not delegated to their government.

3.  A government without limits is a tyranny.

4.  The Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that which has been delegated by the people to the federal government in the Constitution, and also that which is necessary and proper to advancing those powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution of the United States.  The rest is to be handled by the state governments, or by the people themselves, as they determine.

5. In order for a federally-exercised power to be “necessary and proper” it must be a) something that, without which, would make the enumerated power impossible to exercise, and b) a lesser power than that which has been enumerated

6. The “Interstate Commerce Clause” in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, does not permit Congress to regulate matters that merely affect commerce among the States.  It only permits Congress to regulate trade among the States.

7. The phrase, “general Welfare,” in Article I, Section 8 does not authorize Congress to enact any laws it claims are in the “general Welfare” of the United States.  The phrase sets forth the requirement that all laws passed by Congress in Pursuance of the enumerated powers of the Constitution shall also be in the general Welfare of the United States.  This was affirmed by James Madison when he wrote: “With respect to the words “general welfare,” I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”

8. The federal government is not authorized to tax the People to raise monies for unconstitutional purposes.  Likewise, the federal government is not authorized to condition funding to State or local governments on compliance with mandates which require them to do what the federal government is not authorized to do directly.

9. When Congress enacts laws and regulations that are not made in Pursuance of the powers enumerated in the Constitution, the People are not bound to obey them.

10. When the federal government exceeds its Constitutional authority, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy.  Without that remedy, the People would be living in a tyranny, under the unlawful and excessive control of one or more branches of the federal government.

As a public office holder, or a candidate for public office, I promise that, as long as I hold office:

1. My votes will always be in favor of the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this State.  Every issue.  Every time.  No exceptions.  No excuses.

2. I do, and will continue to, oppose any and all efforts by the federal government to act beyond its Constitutional authority.

3. I will proactively introduce and support measures designed to adhere to the Tenth Amendment and preserve, to their fullest extent, the powers of the People in my district, and of the legislators and administrations of my State.

4. I will introduce, sponsor and support a resolution affirming the sovereignty of the People of each State under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

5. I will introduce, sponsor, and support legislation that seeks to repeal laws and regulations that are outside the scope of the powers delegated by the people to the federal government.

6. I will introduce, sponsor and support legislation that provides such relief as is necessary and proper to provide fair redress to the citizens of my State in response to actions by the federal government which exceeds its Constitutional authority.

7. Whenever I vote in favor of a new federal power, I will always make public my justification for it within the confines of the enumerated powers of the Constitution.

8. I will only vote in favor of a bill that I have thoroughly read, considered and understood.

9. I will be accountable to voters.  Upon request, I will make public every vote I cast while in office.

10. I will keep this pledge public, and will provide a link on my website which directs constituents to the text of this pledge.

The Federal Pledge  http://pledge.tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/10th-amendment-pledge-federal.pdf

Some of  Our Liberty Candidates are also endorsed by the following Groups:

 

Republican Liberty Caucus http://www.rlc.org/
Bring Home the Politicians http://bringhomethepoliticians.com/
The Voters With Change Logo
Voters with Change http://www.voterswithchange.com/
Independence Caucus  http://www.ourcaucus.com/endorsed2010.html
9-12 Candidates http://912candidates.org/
End The Fed Network
End the Fed Network http://endthefedusa.ning.com/

The Federal Pledge

As a public office holder, or a candidate for public office, I affirm that:

Liberty Candidates Speak

Electing the Next Statist

by Ken Matesz for Governor, OH

Many supporters of my campaign are aware that I teach classes about the US Constitution. In fact, my first public announcement of my candidacy for Governor of Ohio occurred at the very end of one of my classes last winter. A month or so later at a tea party gathering where I briefly spoke, one of my students came to me and said, “I really appreciate your class and everything you are doing, but I will not be voting for you. I have to cast a vote for the Republican candidate. We can’t let the Democrats stay in office.”

This makes me wonder about the value of the tea party groups. If their only goal is to prevent Democrats from being elected, then why all the education? Why bother with learning the Constitution? Why bother circulating petitions for health-care amendments? Why bother calling and writing to congressmen and senators? Why bother learning more about free-market economics? Why study the founders and our founding principles? If the solution lies in electing Republicans, then there is no more you need to know. Just show up and vote Republican and all will be well.

I get emails from some of my students telling me how horrible the Obama spending binges are – how his deficits dwarf those of George W. Bush; how the debt under Obama is increasing wildly, when it “only” increased by $4 trillion under Bush. And I ask them, do you have any idea how much money $4 trillion is?

In Ohio, you have three viable choices for governor; but you only have two choices in ideology. You can either work to elect me, a strict constitutionalist, or you can elect a statist. Both John Kasich and Ted Strickland are statists.

What is a statist? This term gets thrown around here and there. Merriam-Webster’s dictionary defines statism as, “concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry.” Evolving statism is what we have across the United States right now. As we’ve seen under the Bush and Obama administrations, our elected officials no longer have any qualms about using taxpayer dollars to bailout private firms such as financial institutions and automobile industries. Step by step we are moving closer to, not just statism, but totalitarianism.

Now, totalitarianism is defined as, “centralized control by an autocratic authority” or “the political concept that the citizen should be totally subject to an absolute state authority.” John Kasich, in particular, is totalitarian minded. This was most blatantly revealed in a recent interview he had with radio host Brian Wilson on Toledo’s WSPD radio station (1370 on the AM dial). First, Mr. Kasich indicated that the assault weapons ban he championed as a career politician in Congress was not “effective” and he “doesn’t think” we need to do something similar right now. In other words, if he thought it would be effective, he would be all for the state dictating your gun rights. This is a statist view.

Mr. Kasich likewise champions the statist view that government or a majority has the power to decide what rights a person has. When asked about the smoking ban and the rights of private property owners, he simply said that he likes the law and supports it. He does not want personal property rights defended.

Neither Kasich nor Strickland care about your private property rights, your natural rights, or the very freedoms supposedly preserved in the Ohio Constitution’s Bill of Rights. If you are busily circulating and supporting initiatives like the Ohio Project (Ohio Health Care Freedom Amendment) or state sovereignty issues and amendments, you might as well stop doing so if you are going to cast a vote for John Kasich or Ted Strickland. Neither one has the ideology to support these initiatives. The only reason we even need these initiatives at all is because we have elected officials who are statists. What good does a constitutional amendment do if no one in office cares about the constitution? Our Ohio Constitution already prohibits the new federal health care mandates, but do you see anyone (i.e. Ted Strickland or John Kasich) talking about that? Of course not. Because they don’t care. They just want to get elected. Neither one knows of any successful life outside the political arena where they live off the public dole.

Fortunately for them, they are running as part of the Democrat or Republican Party. And we all know that everything will be solved if we just elect the Republican this time around, because “we can’t let the Democrats stay in office.”

I hope you will be happy with your next statist governor of Ohio! I guess the good news is that you’ll still have something to hold protest rallies for!

A Short Introduction to Libertarianism

by Chris Cantwell – Congress 2010 New York

(as posted on the Conservative Society for Action Message Board 12/15/09)

The Basic Principles

1. Self Ownership – You own your life, you own your body.
2. All Rights Derive From Property – You have the exclusive right to exercise control over your property.
3. Non-Aggression – The Only limitation to your rights is the equal rights of others.
4. The Right To Contract – The Right to contract is one of the most fundamental human rights, and
is essential to economics and human interaction.
5. The Only Purpose of Government is to Protect The Rights – Including and especially, the rights of the minority.

These rights do not come from government, the constitution, citizenship, or any other source but the laws of nature.

Examples,

You have the right to freedom of speech, not because of the first amendment, but because you own your lungs, you own your lips, your vocal cords, and your mind and your ideas. If someone tried to limit your freedom of speech, they would be implying some ownership over these things.

You have the right to keep and bear arms, not because of the second amendment, but because you have the right to protect your property.

Your freedom of speech is limited by the property of others. I do not have the right to say whatever I like on this forum, it is a privilege for me to do this, because the database is owned by meetup.com and they have the absolute right to delete any post I make or ban me from the site. Stephen Flanagan has made a contract with meetup.com (his agreement and payment to run this group), so he has the right to delete my post or ban me from this group at any time, for any reason or no reason at all. Either or both entities may do this because they have the right to protect their property.

Meetup.com has the rights, and has made a contract with Stephen Flanagan to delegate some of those rights to him. President Obama cannot grant Stephen Flanagan the authority to exercise control over the meetup.com database because President Obama does not own the database.

Only the owner of the property can exercise control over property, or delegate authority to someone else to exercise control over the property.

Government is made up of human beings, and they have no rights or claims higher than any other human beings, you cannot grant the government any powers that you do not have yourself.

You have the right to protect your property, so you make a contract (your vote and taxes) with the government to protect your property for you (Police). This is important because for an economy to thrive, people need to be able to trade without threat of violence or coercion.

You have the right to contract, so you make a contract (your vote and taxes) with the government to create courts which will enforce contracts. This is important because without contracts, our economy would shrivel up and die.

You have the right to travel, so you make a contract (your vote and taxes) with the government to make sure there are paths by which you may travel without violating private lands (roads).

You do not have the right to someone else’s property. You have no right to make a contract with your vote to take away my money to pay for your health care, nor can you make a contract with the government to compel doctors to treat you for free.

You do not have the right to abridge someone else’s right to contract. You have no right make a contract with your vote to prevent two men, or a man and five women, from making a marriage contract. You do not have the right to decide who an employer may or may not make an employment contract with (immigration).

You do not have the right to kill, outside of self defense. So you have no right to make a contract with your vote to have the government kill outside of self defense on your behalf.

You have the right to use drugs, it is your body, your life, you have the exclusive right exercise control over them, to destroy them if you see fit, you also have the right to shoot yourself in the foot, or burn your house down, I don’t recommend you do any of these things, but I support your right to do so. But you do not have the right to steal to obtain drugs, or to collect welfare because you are unable to work due to your addiction.

It is the role of government to secure borders to guard against aggressors
It is the role of government to protect, not redistribute, property
It is the role of government to enforce, not abridge, contracts
It is the role of government to punish aggressors

It is not the role of government to grant any preference to one culture or religion over another
It is not the role of government to legislate morality
It is not the role of government to create a perfectly safe environment
It is not the role of government to make sure you have what you need or want

Continue reading

Liberty Candidates Across the United States Can Make Real Change

Liberty Candidates





“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.” –John Quincy Adams

Welcome

This is the place to learn about the liberty candidates running for office in 2010 and how you can support them, donate to them and read all about what they are up to.
Our Goal:  A Liberty Candidate in every state — no less than 50 Dr. No’s!

If you are a liberty candidate running for office and you would like to be listed on this roster let us know by filling out the Candidate submission form

http://www.liberty-candidates.org/
 
 
 
once you have done so, you can always drop me a line and say hello :)
 
 
bowmancomputers@aol.com
 

Questions:

 
1. Re. the U.S. Financial System:1a. What is your view of the monetary system in the U.S. today?1b. What/who is primarily responsible for our nation’s current economic, social and political problems?1c. What corrective actions would you work to implement?1d. Do you agree or disagree with the actions the Federal Reserve has taken to address the financial/economic crisis, and why?1e. Would you push for a full audit of the Federal Reserve?1f. Would you push to repeal any and all taxes not provided for under the U.S. Constitution?1g. Would you push to disband the IRS and end its fraudulent stealing from and terrorizing of U.S. citizens?

2. Re. U.S. Sovereignty:

2a. What are your thoughts on American sovereignty and how would you work to protect it?

2b. Would you push to get the U.S. out of the United Nations and vice versa?

2c. Would you work to repeal our involvement in any international agreements that purport to hold U.S. citizens and/or property under its jurisdiction?

3. Re. the Patriot Act:

3a. What are your views on the necessity of the Patriot Act to protect America?

3b. Would you push to repeal the Patriot Act in its entirety?

3c. Would you vote to shut down the TSA and turn airport security over to airports and private industry?

4. Re. Foreign Policy:

4a. What is your opinion on current US foreign policy?

4b. What is your stance re. the “war on terror”?

4c. Would you vote to end unconstitutional wars?

4d. Would you push for ending foreign aid to all countries? If not, why not? If not all countries, which would you continue to support?

4e. Would you push to bring our troops home from overseas and to close all bases?

4f. Would you vote for disbanding our unconstitutional standing army?

5. Re. State Sovereignty:

5a. When does state law take priority over federal law?

5b. Would you work to hold the U.S. government within the bounds of the Constitution and its enumerated powers?

6. Re. the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights:

6a. Using Wikileaks as an example, what is the constitutionally-sanctioned U.S. government action against Julian Assange?

6b. What information may the U.S. government gather about its citizens to assure national security? How may it legally go about this?

6c. Do U.S. government officers have the right to arrest non-military citizens within the individual states for any crimes whatsoever?

6d. What constitutional authority allows U.S. government agents to provide security for domestic transportation?

6e. What constitutional authority allows the U.S. government to regulate or subsidize private industry?

6f. What constitutional authority allows the U.S. government to make laws governing its citizens bodies? Should U.S. citizens be prohibited from growing their own food, ingesting anything they see fit as long as they hurt no one else (including raw foods, dirt, bugs, drugs, herbs, supplements, hydrogenated fats, high fructose corn syrup, white sugar)? Should U.S. citizens be force medicated, i.e. via fluoridation in the water supply or force vaccinated for any reason?

7. Re. Doing Business:

7a. Would you push for a “read the bill” initiative? Would you vote for a 72 hour delay between changes to a bill and a vote? Would you vote for an end to Unanimous Consent? Would you vote for an end to attaching one bill to another? What other general improvements would you advocate be put before Congress to raise the quality and effectiveness of legislation?

7b. If you could make two amendments to the US constitution, what would they be?

7c. What would be your approach to balancing the US budget?

7d. What is your position on a Constitutional Convention? Do we need one? Do you see any risks to holding one now?

7e. Would you support selling all federally owned property, including businesses to private individuals/companies or to a state government?

7f. Would you vote to end U.S. government subsidies to private industry?

7g. What steps would you take to end the unholy alliance between corporations and politicians?

8. Misc. Questions:

8a. What is your stance on illegal immigration and what actions will you take to stop illegal immigrants from taking advantage of social services?

8b. What is your stance on trade agreements with other nations, like NAFTA, CAFTA? [Complete list here: http://www.export.gov/fta/. Not asking for your opinion on each individually, but your stance on the U.S. having trade agreements with any other countries. What are the advantages, disadvantages? Are they good for U.S. citizens?]

8c. Would you vote to repeal ObamaCare in its entirety? Would you stand in the way of any state that sought to protect its citizens from ObamaCare mandates?

8d. Would you work to stop Cap & Trade? Would you fight, or allow individual states to fight, the implementation of Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiatives?

8e. Would you vote yes on any legislation aimed at freeing those “convicted” of victimless crimes, i.e. drug users and tax protesters?

 
 
 

But before you fill out the form ask yourself if you are, indeed, a Liberty Candidate:

Criteria:

A Liberty Candidate will
Defend the Great American Principles of Individual Liberty, Constitutional Government, Sound Money, Free Markets, and a Noninterventionist Foreign Policy.

What Party will Our Liberty Candidates Come from?

Libertarian Party
http://www.lp.org/

Constitution Party
http://www.constitutionparty.com/

Conservative Party

Republican Party
http://www.gop.com/

Democrat Party                                                                                                                                   http://www.democrats.org/

Independents and all Third Parties                                                                 http://thirdpartyalliance.net/

What Principles Will Liberty Candidates Support?

Economy

Strong fiscally conservative principles and beliefs that our economic recovery should be left to the free market through businesses and individuals – not the federal government. ~Peter Schiff Senate 2010 Connecticut

Personal Liberty

The Federal Government must return to its constitutionally enumerated powers and restore our inalienable rights. America can prosper, preserve personal liberty, and repel national security threats without intruding into the personal lives of its citizens. ~Rand Paul Senate 2010 Kentucky

Foreign Policy

Taken as a whole, America’s current foreign policy is a grossly unconstitutional one that we cannot afford. It has put us in a situation where children born today are burdened with an impossible debt. It is premised on a twisted version of American exceptionalism which assumes we have the right to police the world without respect for the sovereignty of fellow nations. If we hope to be respected in the global community, we would be wise to heed the advice of Thomas Jefferson and seek, “peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations – entangling alliances with none.” ~Adam Kokesh Congress 2010 New Mexico

Ending the Federal Reserve

What goes on at the Fed is a clear example of the infringement upon our liberty and national sovereignty through Congressional delegation of its authority. Now, the Fed refuses to even let us see how much and to whom our money has been loaned or how much they have indebted the American People. They do so by rightly asserting that they are a private entity and therefore do not have to comply with orders to open their books. Our Congress has completely lost control over the creation of money and credit and now we are all going to pay the price of that abrogation of their duty. ~RJ Harris Congress 2010 Oklahoma

2nd Amendment

“To keep and bear Arms” That means, you can obtain them, keep them, and carry them. The idea that you can only have an unloaded gun in your closet under lock and key with the ammunition in a foreign country is ridiculous. Load your gun, put it in your holster, and leave the house. There is no point to keeping a gun you cannot access when you need it. If anyone has time to go home and get their gun, they probably didn’t need it in the first place. ~Chris Cantwell Congress 2010 New York

Energy

I have been waiting for over 30 years for Democrats and Republicans to come together on at least this vital national security issue to move our country towards complete energy independence. The fact that we are still waiting is a national disgrace.  We need to open up the Outer Continental Shelf for drilling.  We need to fast track the Nuclear Regulatory Commission application process to help speed up nuclear plant construction.  I favor tax incentives for alternative energy, but I oppose subsidies, which has the effect of allowing the government to choose winners and losers.

Finally our country is sitting on top of 500 years of coal.  I favor tax incentives for research into finding cheaper liquefaction and gasification processes for coal.  These are just a few of the steps that we can take to move us towards complete energy independence. Additionally the private businesses that would be involved in the exploration and develpment of these American energy sources would also be creating real, high paying, permanent jobs for real Americans in real congressional districts.~ Michael McPadden  – Congress 2010 Virginia

To be on the Liberty Candidates Committee and help decide potential candidates:

http://www.meetup.com/Liberty-Candidates-2010/

If you would like to join the Liberty Candidates Facebook page:

http://www.facebook.com/groups/LibertyCandidatesPage/

~

Excellent Advice for Running A Liberty Candidate Campaign:

How Dan Halloran Ran

By Mitchell Langbert – December 9, 2009 at 9:36 PM

The New York Republican Liberty Caucus has been ecstatic over the victory of our state chair, Dan Halloran, in his New York City (Queens) City Council bid. This may make Halloran the highest-ranked Libertarian Party elected official (he ran on the Libertarian -LP-  as well as the Republican, Independence and Conservative tickets).

A message for liberty Republicans is that they need to find imaginative hot button issues that respond to the voters. Once in office, then cut programs, waste and corruption.  As an issue,  government cutting appeals to a segment of the population. But this concern needs to be coupled with other, imaginative ones.

Via e-mail, I interviewed a member of  Dan Halloran’s campaign team, Phil Orenstein of Queens, New York, as to the strategies that Dan used in his campaign.  Phil’s remarks suggest that  Halloran won by marketing himself to the Queens voters.  His ability to win emanated not only from his libertarian ideology but also from his understanding of his constituents.

Halloran is a genuine libertarian who won by articulating a message that appealed to Democratic Party voters.  In this he contrasts with the passing generation of Republicans such as Newt Gingrich, George Pataki and George W. Bush, who are Progressives at heart.  The 1988-2008 Republican generation pandered to conservatives during elections but expanded government when elected. Halloran is a libertarian who appealed to Queens voters and so overrode the anti-libertarian New York City media.

Halloran emphasized traditional achievements and traits such as life-long residence in the community (in contrast to his opponent, New York Times-supported Kevin Kim, who had moved to the neighborhood less than a year earlier).  The aggressive support of a popular New York State Senator, Frank Padavan, also helped.

As well, Halloran emphasized cultural and value issues such as immigration that are non-libertarian and perhaps anti-libertarian.  In a democracy, the voters need to be anticipated.  A libertarian who wins by catering to social or cultural issues can still implement libertarian solutions in many areas.  It is a hard balance between morality and moral flexibility, but that is the nature of democracy.  A hard morality with respect to political packaging is not going to be consistent with libertarian victory in a city like New York, where the citizens are subjected to 12 years of ideologically statist indoctrination in the public schools.

In the end, pressing the flesh, endorsements from well-respected sources, and understanding voters’ key concerns were the tactics that won the race.  Orenstein and his colleagues used imaginative Alinsky-like tactics such as storming the opponent’s political rally.   Education of voters alone, the worn tactic of the LP,  will rarely if ever be a winning strategy in a democracy.

Langbert (L): How did you package yourself to be attractive to the voters in the district?

Orenstein: (O): Dan’s campaign stressed his 4 party line endorsements from the Independence, Conservative, Republican and Libertarian Parties and touted the local Fire Marshal’s and Police Sergeant’s endorsements. He highlighted his life long residence in the community in contrast with his opponent Kevin Kim an interloper who just moved into the District last Feb in order to grab a council seat. Dan’s family has been active in district 19 in civic affairs and politics for over 100 years. Also Padavan’s appeal to all voters including Dems played a big part in marketing Dan. Padavan was out 24/7 campaigning for Dan and we always said “endorsed by Sen. Padavan” to prospective voters. Padavan offered his generous coattails which played a big part in the campaign.

L: Were there one or two “hot button” issues?  Were voters frustrated with the candidates or did you create an issue or two?

O: Yes. The big issue was overdevelopment and the increasing loss of American values and culture in the community. Simply put there was frustration with the mass influx of Korean immigrants who fail to Americanize. Korean store signs, Korean language only churches and private schools are proliferating, thus balkanizing the neighborhood. A once bucolic American neighborhood is now being festooned with signs all over in Korean. English is soon to become a forgotten language.  We ran with this issue…and heard the voters’ frustration and buoyed their confidence that Dan will be their Councilman to fight against overdevelopment, and fight to restore American language and values, and “take back” their communities. Of course the Kim campaign, backed up by the media and local politicians, shot back and condemned this approach as racist. Some people bought this line, but much fewer than the long time residents who are dismayed with the changing landscape. Many of these same people were also frustrated with the direction of our country under the Obama admin and especially with ObamaCare. We expressed the need to awaken the voters to take this election very seriously, get out the  vote & take our country back starting with our city government and then go on to Congress in 2010.

L: What was the role of pressing the flesh, meeting voters individually?

O: This was the most important aspect of the campaign IMO. The biggest hurdle to overcome was voter apathy. City Council races notoriously bring out few voters and few were excited with the NYC mayoral race to boot. Anthony Carollo, myself and a few Tea Party folks organized weekly supermarket leafleting campaigns where we met the voters face to face, distributed Dan’s literature and talked to the voters about the issues. This was the hardest, but most necessary grunt work which we did for 2 months of Saturdays and Sundays nonstop. The voters were apathetic and didn’t want to be bothered for the most part, but we kept up the drum beat, and even chanted loud cheers “Dan’s our Man!” at the shopping malls and I believe turned the voter apathy around into excitement and in the end the turnout was good, better than most other districts, I believe. Our passion and excitement for Dan’s candidacy rubbed off on the voters and spread to others as word got out. Senator Padavan and other supporters were constantly campaigning at train stations in the AM and PM. The contrast between the paid campaign workers and Dan’s volunteers was quite noticeable. The climax of the campaign was the last Sunday, Nov 1, when 2 dozen of us crashed the Senator Chuck Schumer rally to endorse Kim at Bay Terrace Shopping Mall. They didn’t know what hit them as we fired back in answer to their religious bigotry, lies and dirty campaign tactics. Even some Kim supporters at the rally told me they wish they had more time to properly vet the candidates and one guy asked me serious questions about what Dan stands for.

L:  Were there specific environmental dynamics (voter frustration with the economy, Obama, etc.) which you believe contributed to your victory?

O: Yes. Many prospective voters who were frustrated with the economy and Obama, became supportive and excited with Dan’s candidacy when we enlightened them as to where Dan stands on the issues: cutting taxes, reduce dependency on governmentt, fight to cut the size of government by 50% by cutting overlapping agencies, fight against fraud and abuse in City Hall, fight for individual liberty, be a dissenting voice on the council, support police and firefighters first, etc.

L: What was the role of building a good campaign support staff?

O: Daryl, Giulliani’s former NY campaign manager, was Dan’s campaign manager. Queens GOP Party leaders were all on the scene. It was disorganized at first with more chiefs than Indians, and no real organized plans. But things got organized, calling lists, speaking engagements, press conferences, etc. were organized and campaign volunteers flowed in steadily and were immediately utilized.

L: Did the New York City media play a role pro or con?

Con. They attacked Dan’s religion making it a political issue, exposing their own bigotry and hypocrisy as the so-called “champions of diversity” The Queens Tribune, the Daily News, Village Voice, New York Post all followed the herd in beating up on a minority whom they thought would take the beating in silence. But they all lost!

L:  What advice would you give to future libertarian candidates:

O: They should capitalize on the frustration with Obama and the state of the economy and the socialist direction our country is taking. They had better know their Constitution and Declaration of Independence backwards and forwards, otherwise the Tea Party crowd and many awakened citizens will have nothing to do with them. Dan knows his Constitution by memory!  Honesty counts, integrity counts, ethics is the key, and sticking to principle and never pandering for votes, is the winning strategy in these Obamanation times. People are looking for leaders of character and principle not sleazy lawyers and political hacks. Those days are over.

Mitchell Langbert can be visited at http://www.mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com.

The views expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect official positions of the RLC.

The New York Republican Liberty Caucus has been ecstatic over the victory of our state chair, Dan Halloran, in his New York City (Queens) City Council bid. This may make Halloran the highest-ranked Libertarian Party elected official (he ran on the Libertarian -LP-  as well as the Republican, Independence and Conservative tickets).

A message for liberty Republicans is that they need to find imaginative hot button issues that respond to the voters. Once in office, then cut programs, waste and corruption.  As an issue,  government cutting appeals to a segment of the population. But this concern needs to be coupled with other, imaginative ones.

Via e-mail, I interviewed a member of  Dan Halloran’s campaign team, Phil Orenstein of Queens, New York, as to the strategies that Dan used in his campaign.  Phil’s remarks suggest that  Halloran won by marketing himself to the Queens voters.  His ability to win emanated not only from his libertarian ideology but also from his understanding of his constituents.

Halloran is a genuine libertarian who won by articulating a message that appealed to Democratic Party voters.  In this he contrasts with the passing generation of Republicans such as Newt Gingrich, George Pataki and George W. Bush, who are Progressives at heart.  The 1988-2008 Republican generation pandered to conservatives during elections but expanded government when elected. Halloran is a libertarian who appealed to Queens voters and so overrode the anti-libertarian New York City media.

Halloran emphasized traditional achievements and traits such as life-long residence in the community (in contrast to his opponent, New York Times-supported Kevin Kim, who had moved to the neighborhood less than a year earlier).  The aggressive support of a popular New York State Senator, Frank Padavan, also helped.

As well, Halloran emphasized cultural and value issues such as immigration that are non-libertarian and perhaps anti-libertarian.  In a democracy, the voters need to be anticipated.  A libertarian who wins by catering to social or cultural issues can still implement libertarian solutions in many areas.  It is a hard balance between morality and moral flexibility, but that is the nature of democracy.  A hard morality with respect to political packaging is not going to be consistent with libertarian victory in a city like New York, where the citizens are subjected to 12 years of ideologically statist indoctrination in the public schools.

In the end, pressing the flesh, endorsements from well-respected sources, and understanding voters’ key concerns were the tactics that won the race.  Orenstein and his colleagues used imaginative Alinsky-like tactics such as storming the opponent’s political rally.   Education of voters alone, the worn tactic of the LP,  will rarely if ever be a winning strategy in a democracy.

Langbert (L): How did you package yourself to be attractive to the voters in the district?

Orenstein: (O): Dan’s campaign stressed his 4 party line endorsements from the Independence, Conservative, Republican and Libertarian Parties and touted the local Fire Marshal’s and Police Sergeant’s endorsements. He highlighted his life long residence in the community in contrast with his opponent Kevin Kim an interloper who just moved into the District last Feb in order to grab a council seat. Dan’s family has been active in district 19 in civic affairs and politics for over 100 years. Also Padavan’s appeal to all voters including Dems played a big part in marketing Dan. Padavan was out 24/7 campaigning for Dan and we always said “endorsed by Sen. Padavan” to prospective voters. Padavan offered his generous coattails which played a big part in the campaign.

L: Were there one or two “hot button” issues?  Were voters frustrated with the candidates or did you create an issue or two?

O: Yes. The big issue was overdevelopment and the increasing loss of American values and culture in the community. Simply put there was frustration with the mass influx of Korean immigrants who fail to Americanize. Korean store signs, Korean language only churches and private schools are proliferating, thus balkanizing the neighborhood. A once bucolic American neighborhood is now being festooned with signs all over in Korean. English is soon to become a forgotten language.  We ran with this issue…and heard the voters’ frustration and buoyed their confidence that Dan will be their Councilman to fight against overdevelopment, and fight to restore American language and values, and “take back” their communities. Of course the Kim campaign, backed up by the media and local politicians, shot back and condemned this approach as racist. Some people bought this line, but much fewer than the long time residents who are dismayed with the changing landscape. Many of these same people were also frustrated with the direction of our country under the Obama admin and especially with ObamaCare. We expressed the need to awaken the voters to take this election very seriously, get out the  vote & take our country back starting with our city government and then go on to Congress in 2010.

L: What was the role of pressing the flesh, meeting voters individually?

O: This was the most important aspect of the campaign IMO. The biggest hurdle to overcome was voter apathy. City Council races notoriously bring out few voters and few were excited with the NYC mayoral race to boot. Anthony Carollo, myself and a few Tea Party folks organized weekly supermarket leafleting campaigns where we met the voters face to face, distributed Dan’s literature and talked to the voters about the issues. This was the hardest, but most necessary grunt work which we did for 2 months of Saturdays and Sundays nonstop. The voters were apathetic and didn’t want to be bothered for the most part, but we kept up the drum beat, and even chanted loud cheers “Dan’s our Man!” at the shopping malls and I believe turned the voter apathy around into excitement and in the end the turnout was good, better than most other districts, I believe. Our passion and excitement for Dan’s candidacy rubbed off on the voters and spread to others as word got out. Senator Padavan and other supporters were constantly campaigning at train stations in the AM and PM. The contrast between the paid campaign workers and Dan’s volunteers was quite noticeable. The climax of the campaign was the last Sunday, Nov 1, when 2 dozen of us crashed the Senator Chuck Schumer rally to endorse Kim at Bay Terrace Shopping Mall. They didn’t know what hit them as we fired back in answer to their religious bigotry, lies and dirty campaign tactics. Even some Kim supporters at the rally told me they wish they had more time to properly vet the candidates and one guy asked me serious questions about what Dan stands for.

L:  Were there specific environmental dynamics (voter frustration with the economy, Obama, etc.) which you believe contributed to your victory?

O: Yes. Many prospective voters who were frustrated with the economy and Obama, became supportive and excited with Dan’s candidacy when we enlightened them as to where Dan stands on the issues: cutting taxes, reduce dependency on governmentt, fight to cut the size of government by 50% by cutting overlapping agencies, fight against fraud and abuse in City Hall, fight for individual liberty, be a dissenting voice on the council, support police and firefighters first, etc.

L: What was the role of building a good campaign support staff?

O: Daryl, Giulliani’s former NY campaign manager, was Dan’s campaign manager. Queens GOP Party leaders were all on the scene. It was disorganized at first with more chiefs than Indians, and no real organized plans. But things got organized, calling lists, speaking engagements, press conferences, etc. were organized and campaign volunteers flowed in steadily and were immediately utilized.

L: Did the New York City media play a role pro or con?

Con. They attacked Dan’s religion making it a political issue, exposing their own bigotry and hypocrisy as the so-called “champions of diversity” The Queens Tribune, the Daily News, Village Voice, New York Post all followed the herd in beating up on a minority whom they thought would take the beating in silence. But they all lost!

L:  What advice would you give to future libertarian candidates:

O: They should capitalize on the frustration with Obama and the state of the economy and the socialist direction our country is taking. They had better know their Constitution and Declaration of Independence backwards and forwards, otherwise the Tea Party crowd and many awakened citizens will have nothing to do with them. Dan knows his Constitution by memory!  Honesty counts, integrity counts, ethics is the key, and sticking to principle and never pandering for votes, is the winning strategy in these Obamanation times. People are looking for leaders of character and principle not sleazy lawyers and political hacks. Those days are over.

Mitchell Langbert can be visited at http://www.mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com.

The views expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect official positions of the RLC.