The Ron Paul Effect – Bloomberg Lists all of Our Liberty Candidates

Bloomberg Business Week lists all of our Liberty Candidates running in 2012!  People flocking to the website to check out who these extraordinary candidates are!

Texas Congressman Ron Paul, who has said he’ll step down from office at yearend, has inspired a crop of candidates who are running for office on his libertarian platform.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Click link below for larger picture:

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-04-26/the-ron-paul-effect

 

Liberty Candidates Flag Day Fundraiser June 14, 2012

Support 100% Certified Liberty Candidates!

This is a Fundraiser to support Liberty Candidates across our great nation.

Liberty Candidates are our Last Hope for this country

Liberty Candidates are Candidates inspired by Ron Paul to lead our nation.

Please give whatever you can.

Donations go directly into the accounts of the candidates –no money is being made by our organization to promote liberty candidates.

You can read about the candidates on our website:
http://www.liberty-candidates.org/

* These Candidates have signed the 10th Amendment Pledge 

✓ These Candidates have signed the Taxpayer Protection Pledge

+  These Candidates were endorsed by Gary Johnson

Our List of  2012 Liberty Candidates:

Please click on their name it will take you directly to their donation page

California

John Dennis – Congress 12th District  

Colorado

Tisha Casida – Congress 3rd District 

Florida

Calen Fretts – Congress 1st District 
+* Peter Daniel Richter – State House District 76  
Bruce Ray Riggs – Congress 5th District
Don Stephenson – School Board, Land O’Lakes District 2 

Georgia

Charles Gregory – State House District 34
Martin Hawley – State House District 46

Carter Kessler – State House District 118
Jonathan Smith – State House District 154

 Hawaii

Simon Russell – State House District 13

Idaho

Rob Oates – Congress 1st District 

Illinois

Doug Marks – State Senate District 33 

Iowa

Randi Shannon – State Senate 34th District  

Maryland

+  Muir Boda – Congress 1st District
Eric Knowles – Congress 3rd District

Michigan

Kerry Bentivolio – Congress 11th District                   
✓ Scotty Boman – United States Senate 
Ray Kirkus – Berrien County Commissioner District 9 

Minnesota

Ben Blomgren – State House District 66B

Mississippi

Danny Bedwell – Congress 1st District

Missouri

Cynthia Davis – Lt. Governor
Jason Greene – Congress 5th District
Robyn Hamlin – Congress 1st District 

Montana

Dan Cox – United States Senate

Nevada

Erin Lale – Henderson City Council 

New Hampshire

Jenn Coffey – State House Merrimack District 1 
Dennis Lamare – Congress 2nd District
Frank Szabo – Sheriff Hillsborough County

New Jersey

Rob Witterschein – Congress 3rd District
Patrick McKnight – Congress 7th District

New Mexico

Jon Barrie – United States Senate
Robert “Burly” Cain – State House District 17

New York

Chris Edes – United States Senate
Michael McDermott – Congress 3rd District
Rick Witt – Congress 1st District

North Carolina

Adam Brooks – Randolph County Commissioner District 5
Mark Hopp – Alamance County Commissioner 
Brian Irving – Congress 2nd District
Robby Wells – President of the United States
Kent Wilsey – State House District 62 

North Dakota

Eric Olson – Congress At Large

Ohio

Robert Sherwin – State House District 57
Sean Stipe – Congress 9th District
William Yarbrough – Congress 12th District 

Oklahoma

Rj Harris – Congress 4th District 

Pennsylvania

Mike Koffenberger – Congress 4th District

Tennessee

Shaun Crowell – United States Senate
Thom Gray – State House District 4
Daniel Lewis – State House District 52
Tonya Miller – State house District 53

Texas

Michael Cole – Congress 36th District
Zachary Grady – Congress 14th District
Patrick Hisel – Congress 28th District 
Ed Kless – State Senate District 8
Sterling Russell – State House District 15 
Steve Susman – Congress 22nd District
Nick Tanner –  State House District 47

Utah

Casey Anderson – State Senate 28th District (incumbent)

Vermont

*Robert Wagner – State Senate Addison County and Brandon

Washington

Eli Olson – Congress 2nd District 
Sam Wilson – State House 38th District

Wisconsin

Brandi Lefeber – Assembly 3rd District

LibertyChat.com Presents Liberty Candidates Extravaganza!! Tuesday April 17th

Tomorrow, Check out this lineup at LibertyChat.com!!!!

 

It’s the Liberty Candidate Extravaganza and it’s starring these amazing and brave Liberty Candidates who have stepped up to run for office on the Inspiration of Ron Paul!

8:00 – 8:30
Robert Wagner – State Senate 2012 Vermont
Eric Olson – Congress at Large 2012 North Dakota
Tammy Blair – State Senate 2012 Texas District 3
Adam Brooks – County Commissioner 2012 North Carolina Randolph County District 5
8:30 – 9:00
Robyn Hamlin  – Congress 2012 Missouri 1st District
Marc Scaringi  – United States Senate 2012 Pennsylvania
Randi Shannon  – State Senate 2012 Iowa District 34
Kent Wilsey  – State House 2012 North Carolina District 62
Kerry Bentivolio – Congress 2012 Michigan 11th District
9:00 – 9:30
Delia Lopez – Congress 2012 Oregon 3rd District
Mike Peterson – State House 2012 North Dakota District 42
Shaun Crowell – US Senate 2012 Tennessee
Robby Wells  – President of the US 2012 Constitution Party
9:30 – 10:00
Tom Woods 
http://www.tomwoods.com/
10:00 – 10:30
Scotty Boman – Senate 2012 Michigan
Jenny Worman  – Congress 2012 California 28th District
Rj Harris  – Congress 2012 Oklahoma 4th District
10:30 – 11:00
Karen Kwaitkowski – Congress 2012 Virginia 6th District
Don Stephenson  – School Board 2012 Florida District 2
Glen Bradley – State Senate 2012 North Carolina District 18
Read about the candidates beforehand at
www.liberty-candidates.org

Ask them questions.  Give them a hard time! Know you mean business 🙂   We trust that you’ll want to donate to them in the Liberty Candidates Great Patriots Money Bomb following the event! https://gigibowman.com/2012/02/23/liberty-candidates-great-patriot-money-bomb-april-18-19-2012/

Check out the Liberty Candidates book at Amazon.com  Introduction by Tom Woods written by Liberty Candidates. Edited by Gigi Bowman and Sally O’Boyle
http://www.amazon.com/How-Office-Liberty-Platform-Liberty-Candidates-org/dp/146378144X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1334592259&sr=8-1Don’t miss this!

And if you know any Liberty Candidates –have them check out the application at www.liberty-candidates.org

See You Tuesday Evening at 8pm!

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

The Constitution v. Legislation by RJ Harris

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is often said that there is not much the Office of the President can do to right the wrongs currently plaguing our Republic; I disagree. Precedent would argue that new legislation is required to repeal old. However, there is NO support for this notion anywhere in the Constitution. An unconstitutional Law is NO LAW at all and the President’s oath REQUIRES him/her to NOT enforce said measure. Moreover, given that the recent House vote failed to achieve the necessary 2/3 standard for override, the Constitution’s supremacy over all other legislation, the Patriot ACT’s obvious disregard for the 4th Amendment, the MANY unconstitutional provisions in Obama Care and in accordance with the oath of office found in Article II to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States,” I will not take care to execute the Patriot ACT or Obama Care since they are both most certainly unconstitutional. Furthermore, since Legislation in conflict with the Constitution cannot rightly be said to BE the Law, I would also remove from these two measures the Office of the President’s signature by way of executive order and if the Congress wants them back they would need to comply with Article I, Section 7 and pass them with a 2/3 vote.

 

But all of this talk about 2/3 votes to override, and the fact that the recent passage of the Patriot ACT got VERY close to the 2/3 needed from both the House and the Senate, brings us to consider the “political question” (and I use that term on purpose and will explain why later); If the President knows a Law passed over his veto by the 2/3 vote needed to do so IS STILL unconstitutional, it may well be the Law, but shouldn’t the President then simply refuse to enforce it?

 

Certainly the Constitution requires that the President “take care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” but when a Law, even one passed by a 2/3 majority conflicts with the Supreme Law of the Constitution itself which one should he/she take care to execute? The President is OATH bound to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”; not so for mere legislation. Thus, on the books the Law passed by the super majority may remain for the next President to enforce; but if enough Presidents refuse to enforce the errant measure might this eventually push the Congress to fix what makes it unconstitutional?

 

By now some of your are screaming ‘yes but if any President did this the Congress would impeach him/her.’ Not so; the President may ONLY be removed from office by the Congress upon “conviction of, Treason, Bribery or other high Crimes…” So wouldn’t a President who’s greatest commitment belonged to the Constitution and the Republic be willing to stand up to the Tyranny of the Majority when it is made manifest and blatant as has been done with both Obama Care AND now the extension of the Patriot Act? NO WHERE in this sparring over the political question between the President and the Congress is it necessary for the Supreme Court to intervene if the President is upholding his/her oath. And if he/she is not the remedy is STILL NOT for the Supreme Court to USURP this power for itself as it did Judicial Review in Marbury v. Madison.

 

And now that the Supreme Court has been brought into the discussion I return to the “political question” mentioned earlier. The Supreme Court has held time and again that it will not involve itself in issues it considers turning upon the “political question” since these issues are supposed to be settled by VOTERS, We the People, NOT the Court. Moreover,  Judicial Precedent IS NOT our Supreme Law, the Constitution is. Judicial Precedent and Construction DOES NOT represent the will of We the People or our Consent to be governed, the Constitution does. So before you start quoting cases to me as if I was arguing before the court instead of before the highest authority in the land, that being We the People, I would ask you to recall that the Supreme Court broke the 5th Amendment to allow Slavery to continue. It did that again when it allowed Eugenics to be used upon us and again when it allowed all Citizens of Japanese ancestry to be sent off to internment camps. So you see, the Supreme Court is NOT the moral edifice to which so many offer it that deference…it is merely the third branch of a federal government all three of which have grown FAT and DRUNK off the power they have USURPED from We the People.

 

We should NEVER allow our consent to be governed to be infringed no matter what percentage of legislators in the Congress are willing to infringe it and we should certainly be prepared to support a Presidential Candidate running on a platform of checking legislative and judicial tyranny. Of course should the President, as has happened in the past, go too far with all of this, again We the People have the power of redressing THAT political question simply by voting him/her out of office at the next election and into office the opposing Candidate arguing to be the instrument of that redress.

 

Claiming that providing for the common Defense conflicts with the Constitution is nothing more than a lie told by tyrants to make us agree to the absolute despotism of a tyrannical government. Claiming that some Citizens MUST give up their earned wealth for the common good of other Citizens is another lie told by tyrants to make us consent to involuntary servitude. Fellow Citizens, it is well past time that we threw off these nefarious designs, tyrannies and usurpations of OUR POWER and elected a President who is actually prepared to conduct his/her office so as to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” as well as the Lives, Liberty and Property of We the People.

 

RJ Harris

Constitutional Libertarian

http://www.harrisforpresident.com

http://www.facebook.com/RJHarrisOfficial

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