Liberty Candidates Pledge to ‘End the Fed’

End The Fed Network

The following pledge was composed by Steve Susman, Liberty Candidate for Texas Congress 22nd District.  The signers are below the pledge:

Liberty Candidates Pledge

I, Steve Susman, as a Liberty Candidate, pledge upon election to Federal Office to do the utmost to destroy and dissolve the private banking cartel known as the Federal Reserve Bank. I pledge to not only support pending legislation as HR1207 and S604 but to oppose any “watering down” of said bills. Should these be struck down, I pledge to work with other Liberty Candidates to write and enact similar legislation to dissolve the Federal Reserve.
Dated April 10, 2010
Signed, Steve Susman

Signers: [2010]

Anthony Tolda – Congress, New York 2nd District
Barry Hess – Governor, Arizona
Brandon Brooks – Delegate, Maryland 11th District
Brian Miller – Congress, Arizona 8th District
Carlos Rodriguez – Congress, California 28th District
Chelene Nightingale – Governor, California
Chris Cantwell – Congress, New York 1st District
Collins Bailey – Congress, Maryland 5th District
Darren Brinksneader – Congress, Kentucky 3rd District
David Smith – Congress, Texas 2nd District
Delia Lopez – Congress, Oregon 3rd District
Doug Walters – State Representative, Pennsylvania 93rd District
Edward Klapproth – Congress, Nevada 1st District
Floyd Bayne, Congress, Virginia 7th District
Gino DiSimone, Governor, Nevada
Greg Fischer, State Senate, New York 1st District
Jake Towne – Congress, Pennsylvania 15th District
John Annarumma – Congress, Florida 6th District
John Wayne Smith – Governor, Florida
Joseph Martellaro – US Senate, Missouri
Kurtis Liston – State House, Ohio 44th District
Logan Bell – Congress, New York 24th District
Marc Delphone – US Senate, Oregon
Marcus Rivchin – State House, Florida 117 District
Mary Ruth Edwards – Congress, Washington 4th District
Michael Benoit – Congress, California 52th District
Michael Frisbee – Congress, Georgia 13th District
Michael Gular – State House, Arizona District 16
Michael Labno – US Senate, Illinois
Mike Beitler – US Senate, North Carolina
Mike Simmons – US Senate, Missouri
Nathan Eaton – State House, Missouri 48th District
Nick Landeros – State House, Montana 64th District
Pat Sellers – Congress, Nevada 6th District
Randy Stufflebeam – US senate, Illinois
Sam Brannon – Congress, Texas 25th District
Learn more at the End the Fed Network http://endthefedusa.ning.com/

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

Read More »

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.