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

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.