Liberty-Candidates.org, A Sought After Stamp of Approval in the 2012 Election

Apparently the media is starting to take notice that being listed as a Liberty Candidate is an important stamp of approval in the 2012 election.   Being listed as a Liberty Candidate, voters know what they’re getting when they check them off on the ballot!

Many 2012 Candidates Seeking a Particular Website’s Stamp of Approval

This year there seems to be an added step to the process of running for political office. That step is seeking the stamp of approval from Liberty-Candidates.org.

What started off as a small mom & pops website run by Gigi Bowman & Sally O’Boyle in 2009, has now blossomed into election HQ for those seeking support from the politically educated. Liberty-Candidates.org prides itself on not asking which political party you belong to when applying, but rather what your political beliefs are. Supporters of the website tend to be very knowledgeable of the U.S. Constitution, monetary system, & foreign policy.

In local politics the 2012 political season has just started but Liberty-Candidates has already been flooded with interested candidates. Over 30 candidates have gone through the Liberty-Candidates.org litmus test.

continued:  http://libertychat.com/2012-candidates-seeking-a-particular-websites-stamp-of-approval

Obama’s New Defense Plan: Is it right for a war weary America?

by Liberty Candidate, Danny de Gracia II


HAWAII, January 14, 2011–The Obama Administration’s new defense strategy as outlined in the sixteen page document Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities For 21st Century Defense has defined the first and primary mission of America’s military as “Counter Terrorism and Irregular Warfare.”

But in an era where Osama bin Laden is dead and nearly ten years have passed by since the al Qaeda attacks of 9/11, is Obama’s blueprint the right plan for a war-weary America? In America’s military service academies and war colleges, the ancient strategic wisdom of Sun Tzu’s famed Art of War is still taught for its timeless advice on command and tactics.

“[I]f you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle,” Sun Tzu writes, and says further “to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.”

Sun Tzu also presents an interesting economic warning about prolonged war: “if the campaign is protracted, the resources of the State will not be equal to the strain. Now when your weapons are dulled, your ardor dampened, you strength exhausted and your treasure spent, other chieftans will spring up to take advantage of your extremity. Then no man, however wise, will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue.”

As America experiences continued fiscal challenges in the form of a rising national debt and a weak economy, these warnings almost perfectly describe the condition of our military and country. History demonstrates that the correct course of action for a declining power is not to commit to fighting a global war in search of peace but rather to seek to avert conflict altogether through a combination of shrewd diplomacy and a well-equipped military that can strategically deter both small and large aggressors alike.

This wisdom was the default posture of the United States for most of the Cold War, especially in the early post-WWII years when America’s policymakers realized that her enemies abroad could quite easily seek to whittle her into exhausting conflicts by starting flashpoints around the world.

In a January 1954 address to the Council on Foreign Relations, Eisenhower’s Secretary of Defense John Foster Dulles remarked, “If the enemy could pick his time and his place and his method of warfare – and if our policy was to remain the traditional one of meeting aggression by direct and local opposition – then we had to be ready to fight in the Arctic and the tropics, in Asia, in the Near East and in Europe; by sea, by land, and by air; by old weapons and by new weapons.”

Instead, the solution offered by Dulles and others throughout the Cold War was to provide America’s enemies with an absolute assurance that initiating aggression against the United States would be met with overwhelming response.

While Obama has been compared by conservative critics to Jimmy Carter, the presidential election year memorandums of the Carter Administration draw sharp contrast to today’s new defense outline. In July 1980, Carter issued Presidential Directive 59 in which his vision of American defense meant “it is necessary to have nuclear (as well as conventional) forces such that in considering aggression against our interests any adversary would recognize that no plausible outcome would represe

continued: http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/making-waves-hawaii-perspective-washington-politic/2012/jan/14/will-obamas-new-defense-plan-work/

Tipping Point by Tisha Casida, Congressional Candidate 2012

Tisha Casida is Congressional Candidate for Colorado’s 3rd District

Tipping Point

There comes a moment when the very last piece of a complex puzzle is put in place, when a snowflake falls and builds just enough weight to carry an avalanche, when the tectonic plates underneath the earth push to a point where something must break.

We are back after another week of touring around Colorado’s third congressional district with constitutional scholar, Michael Badnarik, and it is apparent that we are at this moment in our nation’s history.

Speaking with farmers, ranchers, small business owners, and concerned citizens, the Lighting the Fires for Liberty Tour illustrated some very important lessons.

1. We know that Washington, D.C. is broken, and we need a whole lot of new representatives in to support and educate the executive and judicial branches of government.  That means we need to support all liberty candidates at every level of government. (Have you seen Peter Schweizer’s book, Throw Them All Out?)

2. There are many things that “right” and “left” can agree on.  One of them, is that we should have more decisions that affect the American people being made at a local level where people in their unique, respective communities, can have a more direct, accountable, and transparent dialogue with people making and enforcing “rules” (sometimes referred to as the “law”, although the only true law is that which constrains government – and that document is known as the Constitution of the United States of America).

3. People are tired of politicians and lobbyists who are lining their own pocketbooks at the expense of the American taxpayer.  What people need and are looking for are representatives – citizen representatives that will go to Washington, D.C. to not make more laws, but instead, represent the people of a community so that we can start to create positive and sustainable changes that will reflect a constitutional, free-market Republic.

It’s simple.  Our country and communities need to find people with the integrity and gumption to stand up for what’s right and against what is wrong.  If we can do this in 2012, we will be making a huge difference for the prosperity and freedom of this great country.

Rj Harris Emerges as Front Runner in Libertarian Presidential Candidate Race

RJ Harris, Presidential Candidate for the Libertarian Party, takes 54% in poll at http://www.patriotpolls.com, a libertarian leaning website that features polls geared toward the liberty and freedom movement with weekly Q&A sessions from Tom Woods and Adam Kokesh and an upcoming session with another Libertarian Candidate, R Lee Wrights.  This is one of many polls that places Rj Harris in the front-runner position.  He recently won the Illinois Straw Poll during the State Libertarian Convention.

Rj Harris was a Liberty Candidate from his Congressional run in Oklahoma in 2012.  He is also co-author of the book “How to Run For Office on a Liberty Platform” written by Liberty Candidates with a foreword by Tom Woods and an introduction by Adam Kokesh. http://tiny.cc/5nxfo

The Libertarian Presidential Candidate will be chosen in early May 2012 at the National Libertarian Convention being held in Las Vegas, Nevada.

The Constitutional Libertarian’s Defense Against Progressive Socialism

Written by Rj Harris
Libertarian Presidential Candidate 2012

With so many key conservative world leaders reading Hayek, and with Hayek himself not being able to confront socialism’s most insidious back-door entry points, those being the foot in the door safety net arguments, it is no wonder that the legacies of Thatcher and Reagan have descended into neo-conservative compassionate conservitivism which is little more than a softer and slower form of socialism. What is needed then and has been missing is the ability of all Libertarians to articulate the message of economic freedom to the emerging Liberty conscious constituency sans any allowance for socialism at the federal level beyond what the Founders allowed in through the Constitution. Therefore I propose that we all learn these following three points in defense of economic Liberty against socialism and be prepared to speak them forcefully and consistently whenever and wherever we may be called upon to do so:

1. Taking from one person to give to another under the auspices of charity, while altruistic, IS STILL theft and that action by a government is only accomplished under the presupposition that the labor of We the People, and the fruits which are bestowed by that labor, belong first and foremost to the government to be redistributed at the whim of that government. Of course this entire scheme has at its heart the insidious notion that while people think they are free because they are allowed to keep a portion of what they produce and make some of their own choices, in reality their “first fruits” being appropriated by the government proclaims for good and all that they are in fact involuntary servants to the state which is in direct violation of the 13th Amendment.

2. Even if state sanctioned theft for the purpose of social/individual welfare was not a moral evil and unconstitutional, governments have proven time and again that they have neither the requisite knowledge nor the level or altruism to efficiently distribute the stolen resources to those in real need. Moreover, when the state fails to husband this forced charity (taxes) to its greatest potential those patrons from which it was appropriated, the taxpayers, have nothing other than the long slow slog of political or judicial recourse to rectify the waste or graft which expends even more of their money to ends other than the supposed charity. Contrastingly, were those same patrons able to choose private charity services which engaged in similar wasteful behaviors to those of the government, that waste and graft could be immediately rectified simply by selecting a more proven efficient charity by the patrons themselves. Try doing this with the government and one will end up in jail or worse.

3. And finally in response to the very predictable socialist retort that people are inherently greedy and must therefore be forced by the state to provide charity through taxation we must be prepared to present the empirical TRUTH that despite the gross over-taxation of We the People there are more charities which exist today, husbanding more resources in the United States alone, than have ever existed in the history of the world. Based off of the economic prosperity which existed under the last vestiges of economic freedom, and lingered on until the last few decades, it can only be concluded that were it not for the greater and greater levels of forced charity through government taxation to provide social welfare, that the free market of charitable services would be even more robust than it has been of late. For how is it even possible for the People to donate to causes of their choosing when they have been taxed directly, or indirectly through deficit spending and inflationary policies, to the point of their own near total impoverishment?!

Thus, unless we are willing to continue allowing socialism and the insidious practice of involuntary servitude which follows in its wake to continue robbing We the People to our complete and utter impoverishment on a generational scale, then we must remain resolute and unwilling to concede the necessity of any socialism beyond that which the Constitution allows.

Helpful rebuttals to predictable and weak socialist retorts:

Roads are not forms of socialism as it has always been possible for them to be funded purely by those who use them. Moreover, while the Constitution allows for the appropriation for post roads nowhere does it preclude Private Enterprise from funding and building private roads for profit nor the federal government from paying for its need of post roads through user fees rather than taxes. The exchange of a valuable good or service for a fee is not a tax, it is commerce.

Similarly, courts may also be provisioned through user fees charged to their customers, the litigants. So again we have no need for socialism in our civil courts. In fact our Founders only conceded the need for socialism in the provision for the common Defense of the Lives, Liberty and Property of We the People and if we are successful in restoring Freedom and re-binding socialism back to its Constitutionally limited state this generation would have done more for the cause of human Liberty than any since our Founding.

Natural disasters are often used by socialists as their trump card when all of their other arguments fail. However, arguments to the inability of private markets to provide relief and recovery assistance are easily overcome by reiterating point thee above, by pointing out that the Republic suffered many natural disasters prior to the invention of FEMA and recovered from all of them through the use of charity, insurance or private investment. Moreover, it is a completely legitimate use of the National Guard to protect and secure domestic aid shipments and relief workers enroute or on-scene without the aid itself or workers labor having been purchased by the government. It is also completely legitimate to use National Guard Airlift or ground transports to deliver initial aid to U.S. civilian populations under direct threat of loss of life in the immediate aftermath of disaster as this falls under the constitutional protection of Life and Property. However, once the immediate threats to lives and property are thwarted, Private Enterprise is best positioned to continue with rebuilding efforts; all the federal aid provided to LA has not rebuilt New Orleans any faster nor any better than was San Francisco rebuilt after its great quake/fire by charity, insurers and private investors.

Fellow Patriots, do not be afraid to defend the virtues of Liberty against the FALSE claims that statecraft and socialism are required to provide safety nets which are most certainly more adequately provided either through charity, insurance or private investment. Meet rhetorical steel with steel and never be ashamed of standing up for your Freedom and Liberty in the face of socialism’s seductive assertions of security and safety which have yet to materialize in our lifetimes despite nearly a century of its proselytization.

RJ Harris
Constitutional Libertarian

www.rjharris2012.com